Leadership and job satisfaction : the moderating influence of transactional and transformational leadership on employees job satisfaction

Leadership and Job Satisfaction

The moderating influence of Transactional and Transformational

Leadership on employees Job Satisfaction

Thijs Dekker

5982960

Supervisor: Drs. Ing. A.C.J. Meulemans

19 July 2013

Table of contents

1. Introduction 3

2. Literature review 5

2.1 Job satisfaction 5

2.2 Organizational commitment and personality 7

2.3 Leadership 8

2.3.1 Transactional Leadership 9

2.3.2 Transformational Leadership 9

2.4 Conclusion 10

3. Conceptual framework 11

3.1 Predictors of job satisfaction and job satisfaction 11 3.1.1 Organizational commitment and job satisfaction 11

3.1.2 Personality and job satisfaction 12

3.2 Leadership and job satisfaction 12

3.2.1 Organizational commitment and leadership 13

3.2.2 Personality and leadership 13

4. Methodology 16 4.1 Research design 16 4.2 Sample 16 4.3 Data collection 16 4.4 Measures 17 4.4.1 Personal charasteristics 17 4.4.2 Organizational commitment 17 4.4.3 Job satisfaction 18 4.4.4 Transactional leadership 18 4.4.5 Transformational leadership 18 4.5 Data analysis 18 5. Results 20 5.1 Dataset 20 5.2 Reliability analysis 20 5.3 Normality analysis 20 5.4 Descriptive statistics 20 5.5 Correlations 21

5.6 Hierarchical regression analysis 22

5.6.1 Organizational commitment and transactional leadership 22 5.6.2 Organizational commitment and transformational leadership 22

5.6.3 Extraversion and transactional leadership 22

5.6.4 Extraversion and transformational leadership 23

5.6.5 Age and transactional leadership 23

5.6.6 Age and transformational leadership 23

5.6.7 Experience and transactional leadership 23

5.6.8 Experience and transformational leadership 23

6. Discussion 25

6.1 Discussion of results 25

6.2 Contributions to existing theory 26

6.3 Implications for practice 26

1. Introduction

The economic crisis can hardly be overseen in the current day in the Netherlands. It’s effects can be severe and are felt by almost everyone. For instance, with a total amount of 796 businesses, more businesses went bankrupt in May ’13 than ever recorded before (CBS, 2013), in April there were a record breaking number of 650.000 people unemployed (CBS, 2013) and there is a relation between the economic crisis and the amount of people that committed suicide in 2012, with more than 1700 the highest amount in 10 years (VU, 2013).

A sector that’s hit particularly hard is the child care. Daycares are affected in three ways. First of all, there’s the crisis directly. Secondly, parents with young children that lose their job are likely to take their children from daycare and take care of them themselves (BNR, 2013). The third way is the budget cuts in childcare benefits the government has taken. Because of the budget cuts the government wants to take (from 3 billion in 2010 to an

expected 2,3 billion in 2013) almost all parents receive less benefits when they put their kid in childcare in 2013. This change in benefits can mean parents receive up to 186 euro a month less than the year before (Telegraaf, 2012). These cuts could be a reason for parents to stop bringing their kids into daycare (Telegraaf, 2013). The three ways in which the sector is struck have a huge impact on the daycare industry. In 2012, six times more businesses went bankrupt than in 2011 and Branchorganisatie Kinderopvang expects 30 percent less demand in daycare in 2013 (Trouw, 2013).

So how should management in this sector cope with these changes? More than ever it’s important to maintain quality and improve efficiency. Because there is a relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001), management should try to keep up job satisfaction. This can be done by looking at the different things influencing job satisfaction. First off, personality is very important in job satisfaction (Glisson & Durick, 1988). The five-factor model of personality, a measure for personality traits, has a multiple regression of .41 with job satisfaction (Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002). Another important factor in job satisfaction is organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). This relationship is important, although there is some controversy about the way in which they relate and which one causes which (Testa, 2001). Job

important as well (Glisson & Durick, 1988). These are, however, left aside, because all respondents in this study have the exact same job.

The last important predictor of job satisfaction is leadership (Glisson & Durick, 1988). This is at the same time the factor that management has the most direct control over, so in this study the effects of leadership style on job satisfaction will be assessed. Leadership will be used in the forms of transformational and transactional leadership, as they are the forms most commonly found in recent leadership research.

The gap this study will try to fill is the indirect power leadership has on job

satisfaction. This will be done by testing leadership in a moderating role between personality and organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The main question is therefore: In what

way does leadership style moderate the effect of predicting factors on job satisfaction?

The study will be conducted within Stichting Kinderopvang Hoorn (SKH). The SKH is the biggest foundation offering day care for children in Hoorn. They consist of 24 locations covering all the different neighborhoods in the city. Two of the most important goals for the SKH are improving both quality and professionalism. Because they are in the services sector, in order improve this quality and professionalism the SKH focuses on good personnel. The way in which management tries to do this is by having motivated employees and low turnover in personnel. They believe job satisfaction is important for this, so they want their staff to be as satisfied as possible. That’s why management agreed to execute this study within the organization. During the study there were multiple occasions where management had the chance to comment on this research, so this study is done in good collaboration.

The research is done by a survey held among the pedagogical staff of the SKH, the employees who are in direct contact with the children. These surveys resulted in an overview, showing the ways in which transformational and transactional leadership influence job

satisfaction. With this overview, management can adapt their policies in order to get the highest amount of job satisfaction.

The paper will start off with a literature review, to assess the current state of the subject. After that the conceptual framework is shown, followed by the propositions. Then the methodology of the study is displayed. The results will follow, with a discussion after that and finally the paper will end with a conclusion.

2. Literature review

We start by pointing out what job satisfaction is and why job satisfaction is important. Then the factors influencing job satisfaction are addressed, most importantly personality and organizational commitment. After that leadership is examined and definitions of

transformational and transactional leadership are given. This section ends with a conclusion, emphasizing on the implications for this research.

2.1 Job satisfaction

Locke (1976, p. 1300) states that job satisfaction is “a pleasurable or positive emotional state

resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences”. It is however a difficult concept

to operationalize, because this definition is in itself not measurable. That’s why researchers use an operationalized definition, so measuring what they are measuring. This is, however, according to Locke (1976) not right, because job satisfaction is a far more complex subject. It is similar to morale, although morale is more future orientated and more group related. Job involvement is also related to job satisfaction, in that people who are more involved in their job will likely be more extreme in their opinion about their job, both in a positive as in a negative way.

Wanous and Lawler (1972) share this view. They argue that overall job satisfaction is the sum of satisfaction with all the facets of a job and that researchers have difficulties determining how important different facets are. They tested 23 variables influencing

satisfaction to find out which ones were important for direct job satisfaction. They concluded that the best variables to test job satisfaction depend on what kind of research it is. Weiss (2002) disagrees with this point of view, because it’s arbitrary which facets are important. It depends entirely on the subjective view of the researcher to choose the facets that are key facets, when in reality, job satisfaction is a personal reaction to a certain environment. In his opinion it’s a personal mind reacting to an incredibly complex environment, making it impossible to divide in certain elements. In conclusion, job satisfaction is a complex subject, hard to completely explain. It seems like an easy subject, as in some research papers job satisfaction isn’t explained and a definition of it isn’t given, but appears to be the root of a lot of disagreement (Schleicher, Watt & Greguras, 2004, p. 165). It’s probably best to stick to the conclusion of Wanous and Lawler (1972) in that the definition and variables depend on the research, making it plausible to not perfectly measure job satisfaction, but gives the

Another important relation to address is the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Because job performance is the most powerful tool to stress the importance of job satisfaction. The relationship between these two concepts is one of the most investigated ones in organizational research, however, outcomes are not conclusive (Iaffaldano &

Muchinsky, 1985). According to some, job satisfaction is related to business outcomes in a magnitude that makes it important to many businesses and that this relation generalizes across different organizations (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). Job satisfaction positively

influences the extent to which an employee is intended to increase performance and make higher profits for the organization (Shore & Martin, 1989, p. 626). Others believe this relation to be fairly small. The correlation between job satisfaction and job performance is according to some only .30 and the direction between these two should be further investigated (Judge et al., 2001). Job satisfaction could cause job performance but there could be other ways in which they relate. There could be factors moderating or mediating this relation or it could even be the other way around. Job performance could create job satisfaction through the rewards that are associated with job performance (Judge et al., 2001). Iaffaldan and Muchinsy (1985) even suggest the option that the relationship between job satisfaction and job

performance doesn’t exist. They believe that it could be a fallacy that is believed by everyone because it seems logical to us and we want it to be true.

The willingness to stay within the organization is an important factor of job

satisfaction too. Satisfied employees have a significantly lower chance of wanting to leave the company (Shore & Martin, 1989, p. 626; Billingsly & Cross, 1992). They are also more likely to want to stay within the sector they work in (Billingsly & Cross, 1992). This gives

employers the opportunity to select high performing personnel and get the entire company to a higher quality level. Especially in service jobs, where personnel is in direct contact with the client, this can be of great importance. Absenteeism, illness and stress are other important subjects related to job satisfaction (Billingsly & Cross, 1992).

There are three categories of job satisfaction predictors: job tasks performed by the worker, leadership and supervision and characteristics of the worker (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Job tasks performed includes all kinds of factors related to the work employees do. For example, skill variety, role conflict, task significance and confusion about responsibility are important predictors of employee job satisfaction (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Billingsly &

so all respondents are to be expected to have the same job characteristics. The second prediction category is leadership. Leadership is operationalized in many different ways, but generally refer to the person under whose authority the employee is working (Glisson & Durick, 1988). The third category involves personal characteristics of the worker. Formerly only age and sex were considered to be of any importance on job satisfaction, but nowadays it is believed that personality plays a big role too, even as far as having a correlation of .41 with job satisfaction (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Billingsly & Cross, 1992, p. 456; Judge et al., 2002). Billingsly & Cross (1992, p. 456) add two more influences to the model,

organizational commitment and experience. Organizational commitment is the most important of the two, although there are some disagreements in the way they are linked. Some studies found job satisfaction to precede organizational commitment, while others found it the other way around and others concluded they formed at the same time (Billingsly & Cross, 1992, p. 456; Testa, 2001, p. 227).

The University of Minnesota constructed a measure for job satisfaction, that was later adjusted by Scott, Bishop & Chen (2003). This scale is able to test job satisfaction with a small amount of items, so it’s manageable and will still cover the entire concept.

2.2 Organizational commitment and personality

Organizational commitment is the factor linking an employee to the organization (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). It’s an emotional link between the employee and the organization, making it the employee’s desire to be committed, rather than an obligation (Testa, 2001). When

commitment increases, an employee might be trying harder to fulfill the goals of the firm, especially when the employee identifies itself with these goals (Testa, 2001, p. 229). It’s important to keep in mind that with these goals, there is a difference between organizational commitment and commitment to the profession (Billingsly & Cross, 1992, p. 454). People can be prone to reach certain goals, that are the same as the organization’s, but only because they are committed to their profession, not to the organization.

Organizational commitment is an important factor, because, like job satisfaction, it’s linked to motivation and job involvement (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). This results in more easily measurable factors as a lesser intention to quit, higher work results and lower absenteeism (Billingsly & Cross, 1992, p. 454).

Brashear, Boles, Bellenger & Brooks (2003) combined the factors the factors of organizational commitment when they set up their measure. With their small, yet consistent scale it’s possible to test organizational commitment in an easy, but reliable way.

Personality as a predictor of job satisfaction is has received a relatively low amount of attention in research (Glisson & Durick, 1988, p. 66). The only two factors that were

identified to have an influence were age and sex. Judge et al. (2002) disagrees and argues that the personality traits of the five-factor model play an significant part in job satisfaction. As personality is extremely complex it is almost impossible to describe. That’s why a model was set up, integrating the five most important factors in personality, often described as the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990). This model involves neuroticism, extraversion, openness to

experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Neuroticism is the extent to which a person can be seen as having neurotic tendencies. It is a negative nature, having links with negative attitude towards the job. Extraversion is a more positive personality trait. Extraverted people are likely to have more friends and spend more time in social situations than less extraverted, ie introverted people. The meaning of openness to experience is self-explanatory, the attitude towards new things. It is related to creativity, diverse views and liberalism. Agreeableness is about relationships with others and about the tendency to try to get along with each other. It’s related to life satisfaction, despite it being in a small way. Conscientiousness is about the way one does its job and organizes its life. It involves being precise and punctual. It enlarges the chance of someone to be good at his job and obtaining satisfying rewards.

The first scale to measure Goldberg’s Big Five personality traits was constructed by John, Donahue & Kentle (1991). This scale combined these five different personality factors and tested them extensively. Although this scale leads to reliable results, it’s too large to use in this study. So in this case the scale based on John et al. (1991) and constructed by

Rammstedt and John (2006) will be used, which is slightly less precise, but still reliable enough to use and complete enough, because all five different characteristics are measured. 2.3 Leadership

Leadership is a hugely important factor in organizations. The way in which a firm is lead influences a great amount of things in the firm itself. That is why leadership is a popular subject to study. The meaning of leadership is the ability to influence a group in such a way

more recent works try to cover far more complex forms of transformational leadership (Torpman, 2004). These two forms of leadership are most commonly used in leadership theory and address two different ways of handling leadership and will therefore be used in this paper too.

The two types of leadership will be measured in this study based on the experiences of subordinates. The way in which management comes across to them will be what determines their transactional or transformational leadership scores. These concepts will be measured using scales set up by De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman (2004) that combine 20 items that relate to these types of leadership in order to construct a complete image of management. 2.3.1 Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership is the more classic form of the two types of leadership. It’s a routinized way of interaction between management and employees and does not form any long lasting bond between the two (Bogler, 2001). The interaction occurs in an economic matter where the leader offers to fulfill the material and psychological needs of the employee in exchange for the employee to reach the beforehand agreed upon goals (Morrison et al., 1997). An even simpler way of describing transactional leadership is that management

searches for anomalies in results and corrects them (Torpman, 2004). Although not that much, transactional leadership is related to job satisfaction (Morrison et al., 1997)

2.3.2 Transformational Leadership

Transformational Leadership is a newer way of viewing leadership. It’s a far more personal approach, using personal connection as a way of leading subordinates. It forms a bond between leader and employees in which they inspire each other and get more motivated and reach a higher level of morality (Bogler, 2001). Transformational leaders use their charisma to provide a mission and vision for their subordinates to follow (Morrison et al., 1997; Bogler, 2001). The leader does as he says, so he follows his own rules and goals and encourages his followers to do the same (Torpman, 2004). He tries to inspire his people to create optimism and get his vision across to his followers (Bogler, 2001; Morrison et al., 1997). The people are stimulated to take risks and challenge the status quo and current conventions, in a way that mistakes are treated as opportunities to learn from and overall learning is being stimulated (Morrison et al., 1997; Bogler, 2001; Torpman, 2004). Finaly, the leader values personal connections and tries to provide individual support (Morrison et al., 1997; Bogler, 2001;

Torpman, 2004). Transformational leadership is connected to job satisfaction to a great extent, making it likely for subordinates to be satisfied when they have a transformational leader (Morrison et al., 1997).

2.4 Conclusion

The literature shows that the concepts used in this study are complex and difficult to define in a unelaborate way. Although the subjects appear to be simple on a first glance, in reality there seems to be more to it. That may be a reason why a lot of conclusions of research are

contradictory and consensus seems to be unable to form. However, the interrelatedness between the concepts seems to be clearer. Job satisfaction influences important factors for organizations like performance, quality and personnel turnover.

Job satisfaction can be predicted by job characteristics, which doesn’t apply to this study, organizational commitment and personal characteristics. The other predictor of job satisfaction, leadership, is divided in two pieces. Transactional and transformational

leadership. They both are positively related to job satisfaction, but the study will show in what kind of way they influence it, so the question In what way does leadership style moderate the

3. Conceptual framework

Now the different concepts are clear, the following part will explain in what way they appear to relate to each other. The way in which they influence one another will be formalized in propositions, suggested by the existing literature. First of all, the relation between the predictors of job satisfaction and job satisfaction will be given. Then the way in which leadership affects job satisfaction will be shown, followed by the relations between the forms of leadership and the predictors of job satisfaction. These conclude in a cautiously estimated proposition of the influence of leadership on the relation between the predictors and job satisfaction itself. Finally a figure will be created to show the way the total conceptual framework.

3.1 Predictors of job satisfaction and job satisfaction

Of the demographic factors influencing job satisfaction, sex, age and experience (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Billingsly & Cross, 1992), only age and experience are relevant in this case, since all employees of the SKH are female. Sex is a factor though and the fact that female employees are more intrinsically satisfied should be considered in the results of this study (Glisson & Durick, 1988). Older workers seem to be more satisfied too (Glisson & Durick, 1988; Billingsly & Cross, 1992), which leads to proposition 1a and for more experienced employees it seems to apply as well (Billingsly & Cross, 1992), which leads to proposition 1b.

Proposition 1a: Older employees will generally be more satisfied with their job than younger employees.

Proposition 1b: Experienced employees will generally be more satisfied with their job than less experienced employees.

3.1.1 Organizational commitment and job satisfaction

It isn’t clear in what way organizational commitment and job satisfaction are linked to each other (Curry, Wakefield, Price & Mueller, 1986; Billingsly & Cross, 1992, p. 456), it is however obvious that they are linked. Many different studies found this relationship to be a positive one, in the way that organizational commitment and job satisfaction reinforce each other (Curry et al., 1986; Brooke, Russell & Price, 1988; Billingsly & Cross, 1992; Tett &

Meyer, 1993). This leads for proposition 1c to be a positive link between organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Proposition 1c: Employees that score higher on organizational commitment will score higher on job satisfaction.

3.1.2 Personality and job satisfaction

Because of the complexity of personality, the relation between personality and job satisfaction is complex too. All the different components of personality link to job satisfaction in their own way. In the work environment, neuroticism will lead to lower job satisfaction, because of the negative nature that’s linked to neuroticism and the negative situations neurotic people will lead themselves into (Judge et al., 2002). This will result in proposition 1d. Because extravert people are more likely to experience positive emotions, extraversion is likely associated with high job satisfaction, which leads to proposition 1e (Judge et al., 2002). According to Judge et al. (2002) openness to experience seems to contain characteristics (creativity, diverse views and liberalism etc.) that don’t directly link to job satisfaction. However, they appear to increase someone’s happiness or unhappiness with occurring events (Judge et al., 2002). This means the direction in which it will send job satisfaction is unclear, but it will probably make one’s opinion more extreme. This will, however, not result in a proposition in this case. Because agreeableness involves trying to get along with others, it is likely to result in a positive work environment (Judge et al., 2002). This will probably result in a more positive attitude towards the job, so in more satisfaction with the job, which leads to proposition 1f. Conscientiousness is related to better results, which will lead to more success within the job (Judge et al., 2002). This will probably be indirectly connected to job

satisfaction, hence proposition 1g.

Proposition 1d: Employees with more neurotic characteristics will score lower on job satisfaction.

Proposition 1e: Employees with more extraversion characteristics will score higher on job satisfaction.

Proposition 1f: Employees with more agreeableness characteristics will score higher on job satisfaction.

Proposition 1g: Employees with more conscientiousness characteristics will score higher on job satisfaction.

3.2 Leadership and job satisfaction

Transactional leadership is related to job satisfaction of subordinates in some, but not all, possible ways (Morrison et al., 1997; Nguni, Sleegers & Denessen, 2006). Research shows that transactional leadership does positively correlate to job satisfaction, although the connection isn’t that strong. Transformational leadership has a stronger connection to job satisfaction of employees (Morrison et al., 1997; Nguni et al., 2006). This relationship is positive as well.

3.2.1 Organizational commitment and leadership

A study executed by Nguni et al. (2006) showed that both transactional as transformational leadership have a positive relation with subordinates’ organizational commitment. Contrary to the relation between transactional leadership and job satisfaction, in this case transactional leadership, as well as transformational leadership, seems to have a strong correlation with organizational commitment of employees. By using the comparison between the relations of leadership and job satisfaction and leadership and organizational commitment propositions 2a and 2b are constructed.

Proposition 2a: The correlation of organizational commitment and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transactional leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2b: The correlation of organizational commitment and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transformational leadership than those who declare to receive less.

3.2.2 Personality and leadership

Most theories that link personality with leadership are about the personality of the leader. In this case these theories aren’t usable, because the relation we’re trying to find is that between the personality of the subordinates and the style of leadership of their leader. Because

leadership style is a top down concept, it’s determined by the rules and objectives of a leaders supervisors and the characteristics of a leader himself, there is no direct relation with the characteristics of his subordinates. The subordinates don’t decide what kind of leader they are

going to get, that decision is being made higher in the organization. The other way around, leaders can’t change the personality characteristics of their subordinates. This means the only measurable factor between leadership and subordinates’ personality traits is the fit between them. This is only measurable indirectly, so another object need to be added to compute this fit. In this case, this will be done by using job satisfaction. There is no theory available about this relationship, so the propositions constructed will be unsure. Because both transactional and transformational leadership are positively related to job satisfaction, they will be expected to have a positive influence on the relationship between subordinates’ personality

characteristics and job satisfaction.

Proposition 2c: The relation between neurotic characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transactional leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2d: The relation between neurotic characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transformational leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2e: The relation between extraversion characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transactional leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2f: The relation between extraversion characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transformational leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2g: The relation between openness to experience characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transactional leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2h: The relation between openness to experience characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transformational leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2i: The relation between agreeableness characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transactional leadership than

Proposition 2j: The relation between agreeableness characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transformational leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2k: The relation between conscientiousness characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transactional leadership than those who declare to receive less.

Proposition 2l: The relation between conscientiousness characteristics and job satisfaction will be more positive with employees who declare to receive more transformational

leadership than those who declare to receive less. Figure 1: Conceptual model

Predictors of job satisfaction (Organizational commitment and personality characteristics)

Predictors of job satisfaction (Organizational commitment and personality characteristics)

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction Transactional leadership

4. Methodology

In this section the methodology of the study will be shown. First of all, the research design will be explained. Then the research sample will be clarified. The data collection will follow, where after the different measures that were used can be found. Finally there will be

explained what kind of methods for data analysis will be used. 4.1 Research design

This study will use a questionnaire in order to get the data that is needed. The study is deductive, as the questionnaire and propositions were constructed making use of existing literature (Saunders, Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The study is explanatory as it tries to explain differences in job satisfaction between groups using leadership. That is why a survey study, which leads to quantitative data, is the most useful. This quantitative data can be used to assess why different groups act the way they do.

The questionnaires will be self-administered, because this is the causes the least amount of inconvenience for the respondents. It is a quick way and makes it possible for a lot of questionnaires to be filled in at the same time. Because the questionnaires are completed by the respondents themselves, anonymity will be guaranteed and the influence of an interviewer will be avoided, what will increase the reliability (Saunders et al., 2009)

4.2 Sample

The sample that will be used is a non-random, self-selected sample. It will be distributed among the employees of the SKH, who decide for themselves whether they want to take part in this research. Using this population will have consequences for the generalizability of the outcomes. The conclusions will probably be true for this organization, but whether the same things occur in other organizations is questionable. Another possible cause for bias could be the self-selection of the respondents, because willingness to contribute to studies could be, directly or indirectly, of influence on the results. This means even internal generalizability could be under tension.

In order to be able to use statistical analysis, a simple should have a minimal size of 30 (Saunders et al., 2009). In that case, the sampling distribution for the mean will probably be close to a normal distribution, making it usable for statistics. Because a larger sample will result in more reliable results the aim for the sample will be to be bigger than 30.

In the end, 120 questionnaires were spread over the different locations, resulting in 77 completed questionnaires one week later (64% response rate). One questionnaire was

removed, due to incompleteness, resulting in a final data set of 76 questionnaires. 4.3 Data collection

the fact that they agreed for the study to take place. When the questionnaire was finished, a digital copy was send to the central bureau, for them to check whether it was alright to send out. A few little changes were made to the draft of the questionnaire, after which the bureau accepted is.

The questionnaire was send out on paper by personally delivering it to the different locations. This had the advantage that a personal connection was made and the study could be explained to the employees, so they would be more motivated to fill it in and they would understand what the questionnaire was about. This information could be found in the questionnaire itself too, together with some other information. In the introduction it was stressed that anonymity would be secured, increasing reliability, and what the questionnaire was for and who conducted it. As mentioned in Saunders et al. (2009), the questionnaire provided an opportunity to contact the researcher and ended with a small part thanking the respondents and giving the opportunity to get the result when the study would be finished. Finally, in order to motivate employees even more, a reward was set. Locations where all employees would fill in the questionnaire would be rewarded with a cake.

The fact that the questionnaire was handed out in paper form and with a simple but attractive layout, would increase the ease for respondents to fill them in, increasing to

probability of a higher response rate (Saunders et al., 2009). The questionnaire was written in Dutch, because it focusses on Dutch employees.

A week after the questionnaires were given out, they were personally collected. This one week period gave all employees the opportunity to fill in the questionnaire, even the ones who only worked for one day a week. The response rate was quite high (64%), so in the end the decision was made to reward all locations with a cake. This final contact moment was also a last moment for forgotten questionnaires to be handed in.

4.4 Measures

The questionnaire will consist of five multi-item scales. All the scales used in this study were validated in previous research. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scales in their original studies will be provided in this next section. All the scales were measured in comparable 5-point Likert-scales, to avoid confusing amongst respondents (Dillman, 2000). The scales ran from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree, or from 1, strongly dissatisfied, to 5, strongly satisfied. All the scales that were originally written in English were carefully translated into Dutch. 4.4.1 Personal characteristics

The original scale used to test individuals’ big five personality characteristics was a 44-item scale, developed by John et al. (1991). For this study this scale is too elaborate and would carry the risk of losing the focus of respondents. That’s why for this study the 10-item scale developed by Rammstedt and John (2007) was used. This scale is valid enough to use too, resulting in Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities ranging from .75 to .90 in previous research. The scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

The 6-item scale used to test employees’ organizational commitment was created by Brashear et al. (2003). Its original Cronbach’s alpha was .92. The scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

4.4.3 Job satisfaction

The concept of job satisfaction was measured using a 7-item scale, developed originally by the University of Minnesota, but adapted by Scott et al. (2003). It has a Cronbach’s alpha of .80. The scale ranged from strongly dissatisfied to strongly satisfied.

4.4.4 Transactional leadership

The scale used to measure transactional leadership consists of eight items and was constructed by De Hoogh et al. (2004). It measures the intensity that subordinates perceive of

transactional leadership performed by their leaders. It had an original Cronbach’s alpha .82. The scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

4.4.5 Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership was tested by the scale developed by De Hoogh et al. (2004) as well. It consists of 12 items and tests the intensity in which subordinates perceive their leaders to perform acts of transformational leadership. The original Cronbach’s alpha was .89. The scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

4.4.6 Control variables

Although it is important to have good control variables, this questionnaire only has few. Because all employees of the SKH are female, gender couldn’t be used as control variables. Income and education couldn’t be used because employees have the same job, so only minor differences would be found. For region of residence the same thing applies, because all respondents work in one city. All these factors improve internal validity, because all these factors don’t influence the outcomes, but will decrease generalizability, because in other places they will play a roll.

Age and experience are used as control variables, because these two do show differences among personnel. Age is scaled in five different categories, the same the UWV uses. Experience is scaled in six different categories, to distinguish between little experience and much experience.

4.5 Data analysis

Data analysis are conducted with the use of SPSS. First of all, incomplete and unusable questionnaires are removed from the dataset. This resulted in the removal of one questionnaire.

too low or the removal of one of the items will increase it significantly, the scale will be adjusted. After these adjustments, the complete variables can be computed.

When consistency of the scales is ensured, the distribution of the variables will be tested, using histograms. When the variables pass this test, they appear to be usable for the statistical analyses.

After this, the variables are ready to work with and descriptive statistics will be shown and correlations between variables will be given. These correlation measures show to what extend the variables are related to each other.

Finally, a hierarchical regression analysis will show whether the proposed moderating effect of leadership can be found in this dataset. These results will be used to assess the propositions in the discussion section.

5. Results

In the result section, the dataset formed by the questionnaires will be analyzed. First of all, the reliability and consistency of the variables will be tested. After that they will be tested to fit a normal distribution. Then descriptive statistics will be displayed, after which correlations between variables will be given. Finally a hierarchical regression analysis will be execute to test for moderation effects.

5.1 Dataset

The total amount of returned questionnaires was 77. One questionnaire was removed, due to incompleteness. 76 questionnaires remained, forming the total dataset.

5.2 Reliability analysis

The first test that will be executed will be the Cronbach’s alpha test. This test will check for internal validity. This means we will be able to check whether the items measure the concept they should measure (Saunders et al., 2009).

Because the personality characteristics only cover two items for each characteristic, Cronbach’s alpha isn’t usable. So the first multi-item variable to be checked using Cronbach’s alpha is organizational commitment. Reliability analysis showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .786. This is lower than the original .92, but high enough to be acceptable. It could be higher by removing the question 1 (Ik doe graag een stapje extra om de organisatie te helpen succesvol te zijn), but this would only result in a minor increase and might not outweigh the

disadvantages, so the scale stays intact.

The Cronbach’s alpha related to job satisfaction is .822. This is even stronger than the original (.80), so acceptable to keep. It could be even higher by removing question 4 (.847), but this won’t be necessary and could reduce the completeness, so the scale stays intact.

Transactional leadership showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .895, which is much higher than the original .82. All items will therefore remain and the variable will be computed.

The original Cronbach’s alpha of transformational leadership was .89. In this study a Cronbach’s alpha was found of .918. This is high enough, so the scale will stay intact. 5.3 Normality analysis

In order to be able to perform regression analysis, the variables need to be normally distributed. This will be tested using histograms. With these it’s possible to compare the distributions of the variables to a normal distribution. The histogram plots can be found in Appendix B.

SKH staff is quite satisfied with its work. It also shows that transformational leadership occurs more often than transactional leadership.

The 5% trimmed means show the means without the 5% most extreme outliers. None of the trimmed means differ significantly from the mean itself, indicating that no extreme values have to be removed.

Table 1: Descriptive statistics

Variable Mean 5% trimmed mean Std. Deviation

Neuroticism 2.434 2.412 0.59 Extraversion 3.908 3.932 0.66 Openness to experience 3.757 3.744 0.65 Agreeableness 4.144 4.175 0.65 Conscientiousness 4.243 4.278 0.55 Organizational Commitment 4.070 4.066 0.64 Job Satisfaction 3.853 3.871 0.42 Transactional Leadership 3.224 3.219 0.59 Transformational Leadership 3.648 3.643 0.52 5.5 Correlations

First, correlations between organizational commitment, job satisfaction, transactional leadership and transformational leadership will be shown. These can be found in table 2. Personality, age and experience and their connection with job satisfaction can be found in table 3. These factors are only shown in this way, because they are personal attributes and won’t change because of other factors.

Table 2: Correlations between organizational commitment, job satisfaction, transactional leadership and transformational leadership

Variable 1 2 3 4

1 Organizational commitment - 0.428** 0.147 0.332**

2 Job satisfaction 0.428** - 0.213 0.362**

3 Transactional leadership 0.147 0.213 - 0.639**

4 Transformational leadership 0.332** 0.362** 0.639** - **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The table shows that organizational commitment is correlated with job satisfaction in a positive way. This means that more organizational commitment will result in more job satisfaction or the other way around. The figure also shows positive correlations between transformational leadership and organizational commitment, job satisfaction and transactional leadership. So employees lead in a transformational way will be likely to be committed to the organization, be satisfied with their job and experience some form of transactional leadership too. Remarkably, transactional leadership seems to be unrelated to organizational

Variable Correlation with job satisfaction Neuroticism -0.160 Extraversion 0.347** Openness to experience 0.214 Agreeableness 0.193 Conscienstiousness 0.183 Age 0.226* Experience 0.321**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 3 shows that of the personality characteristics, only extraversion is correlated to job satisfaction. Neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness don’t have a significant relation with job satisfaction. This means only extraversion will influence job satisfaction. Age and experience are both positively related to job satisfaction too, so higher age and more experience will result in more job satisfaction.

5.6 Hierarchical regression analysis

In order to assess whether the forms of leadership moderate the predictors of job satisfaction, a hierarchical regression analysis will take place. This will show whether the relationship of the predictor with job satisfaction is influenced by leadership. For that reason, only

organizational commitment, extraversion, age and experience will be used. 5.6.1 Organizational commitment and transactional leadership

Hierarchical regression analysis on organizational commitment and job satisfaction with transactional leadership as moderator shows a significant correlation between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. It also shows the correlation between transactional

leadership and job satisfaction, which is not significant (0.149). The correlation between organizational commitment and transactional leadership and job satisfaction is even less significant (0.511).

5.6.2 Organizational commitment and transformational leadership

Hierarchical regression analysis on organizational commitment and job satisfaction with transformational leadership as a moderator shows a significant correlation between organizational commitment and job satisfaction. It also shows the correlation between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, which is significant too. The correlation between organizational commitment and transactional leadership and job satisfaction is not significant though (0.367).

5.6.3 Extraversion and transactional leadership

The regression analysis on the relationship between extraversion and job satisfaction with transactional leadership reveals a significant correlation between extraversion and job

significant too. The combined factor of extraversion and transactional leadership seems to be insignificantly correlated with job satisfaction though (0.486).

5.6.4 Extraversion and transformational leadership

Regression analysis on extraversion and job satisfaction with transformational leadership as moderator shows us that extraversion is significantly correlated with job satisfaction. Transformational leadership is significantly correlated with job satisfaction as well. The combination of both is however not significantly correlated with job satisfaction (0.209). 5.6.5 Age and transactional leadership

Hierarchical regression analysis on age and job satisfaction moderated by transactional leadership shows that age is correlated with job satisfaction significantly. Transactional leadership however does not have a significant correlation with job satisfaction (0.145). The significance of the combination of age and transactional leadership on job satisfaction is 0.562, making it uncorrelated with job satisfaction.

5.6.6 Age and transformational leadership

The relation between age and job satisfaction with transformational leadership as moderator is only just significant. The relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction is significant too. The combination of both, however, correlate with job satisfaction

insignificantly (0.701).

5.6.7 Experience and transactional leadership

Hierarchical regression analysis on the correlation between experience and job satisfaction with transactional leadership as moderator indicates a significant correlation between experience and job satisfaction. The correlation between transactional leadership and job satisfaction is insignificant though (0.130). The relation between the combined variable and job satisfaction is not significant either (0.207)

5.6.8 Experience and transformational leadership

Regression analysis on experience and job satisfaction with transformational leadership as moderator show a significant correlation between experience and job satisfaction (0.005). The correlation between transformational leadership and job satisfaction is significant too (0.002). The combined variable shows a significant correlation with job satisfaction as well (0.031). This means that in the case of the relation between experience and job satisfaction,

transformational leadership does have a moderating role. The R2’s of the variables are 0.103 for experience, 0.191 for transformational leadership and 0.231 for the combination. So experience moderated by transformational leadership explains 23.1% of the variation in job satisfaction. The moderating effect is shown in figure 5.

Figure 2: The moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relation between experience and job satisfaction

6. Discussion

In this part the results of the previous chapter will be interpreted and discussed. In the first part the propositions will be compared to the outcomes of the research. After that

contributions for theory and practice will be discussed. Finally, limitations of the study will be discussed and recommendations for future research will be given.

6.1 Discussion of results

Age and experience are factors influencing job satisfaction according to Glisson & Durick (1988) and Billingsly & Cross (1992). This research endorses these assumptions. As expected both age and experience were significantly correlated with job satisfaction. As expected the correlation was positive, so older employees will be more satisfied with their jobs and experienced employees as well.

The positive relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction is found throughout the literature (Curry et al., 1986; Brooke et al., 1988; Billingsly & Cross, 1992; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Unsurprisingly, this correlation was found in this study as well.

The big five personality characteristics were another predictor of job satisfaction, according to literature (Judge et al., 2002). This study only partially agrees with these claims. The fact that openness to experience wasn’t connected to job satisfaction was concluded in this research as well. The relation between neuroticism, agreeableness and conscientiousness and job satisfaction weren’t found in this study though. A possible explanation is that a 10-item scale was used instead of the 44-10-item scale created by John et al. (1991). This could possibly have led to a discrepancy between this study and the study performed by Judge et al. (2002). However, extraversion was found to have a positive, significant correlation with job satisfaction, as literature predicted.

A noteworthy and unexpected result of the study was the fact that transactional leadership had no connection with job satisfaction. Research had already suggested that the relation between transactional leadership and job satisfaction would be weaker than that of transformational leadership, but in this study no correlation was found at all (Morrison et al., 1997; Nguni et al., 2006).

Not all propositions could be tested in the end. A nonexistent relationship can’t be influenced by leadership, so can’t be tested. Propositions 2c, d, g, h, i, j, k and l were therefore rejected without even testing them.

The study showed that the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction wasn’t influenced by leadership. Although it was expected to happen beforehand, no proof was found at all. Although there is a connection between organizational commitment and leadership (Nguni et al., 2006), it is most probable that leadership doesn’t have an

influence on the relation between organizational commitment and job satisfaction because of the fact that organizational commitment and job satisfaction are very much alike (Curry et al., 1986; Brooke et al., 1988; Billingsly & Cross, 1992; Tett & Meyer, 1993).

The proposition that named leadership as a moderator between extraversion and job satisfaction could be backed up either. Although it seemed logical that it would it wasn’t true in the end. This is no incredible outcome, because the link between subordinate extraversion and suitable leadership is far from clear. The proposition was far from certain, so this

conclusion isn’t that strange. It does however, provide new information for further research about this subject.

Notable is the moderating influence of transformational leadership on the relation between experience and job satisfaction. It seems that here an influence of leadership is present. Understanding this role of transformational leadership more precisely can be the goal for further research. It does indicate however that experienced employees and

transformational leaders have a good fit. 6.2 Contributions to existing theory

This study tried to add its contribution to the existing literature about job satisfaction and leadership. The way in which this was done can’t be found in existing theory. Although the results aren’t as useful as they could be and don’t show groundbreaking new insights into this part of science, it does add to the general picture we have about the subjects researched. No evidence found is evidence as well.

Another contribution this study has for existing theory is that the relation between job satisfaction and transactional leadership should be reassessed. It could be caused by the small sample or by some other unknown bias, but the fact that the relation wasn’t measured does bring up questions.

This study could have been important for management in practice, but the results seem to add more questions than that they deliver answers. That’s why a specific recommendation to use in practice can’t be given. The only thing directly useful for management is probably the expected fit between experienced employees and transformational leadership. This is a conclusion they could keep in mind when matching leaders with subordinates.

6.4 Limitations and recommendations

There are a lot of limitations to this research. First of all, generalizability is really insecure. Respondents had the same job, worked at the same city and had the same gender. This means that the results are probably true for this group of people, but maybe not for others. Future research could repeat this on a larger scale to provide more information about this.

Another limitation is the way in which personality was measured. Personality is an extremely complex subject so trying to simplify it might almost be impossible. The use of the smaller scale makes this even worse. Although the literature suggested this smaller scale not to be significantly less useful than the larger scale, this could have been a negative factor to the reliability of the study. It could be an idea for further research to use the larger scale if possible, just to make sure.

There’s a limitation as well in the fact that employees were under great pressure when the research was done. Some were in their final weeks of employment and everyone knew that the sector, and therefore the organization as well, was suffering from great setbacks. This could have led to lack of motivation in answering the questionnaire in a truthful way or to a disproportionate dip in job satisfaction, organizational commitment and anything linked to the organization. These factors could have influenced the outcomes greatly.

The way in which the questionnaire was administered could be a source of bias. First of all, there was no time constraint, so employees had the opportunity to fabricate their answers, rather than giving authentic ones. Also, the questionnaires of every location were handed out to one person, who divided them amongst the rest. This interaction could easily have influenced the answers.

Finally, there’s the fact that all questionnaires were filled in subjectively. The conclusions are based on the fact how things come across, not necessarily the way in which they are. Future research could add other research methods, like observation or participation, to get more objective answers.

7. Conclusion

This research set out to investigate the way in which leadership influenced the relation

between job satisfaction and its predictors. The literature provided a lot of indications that this moderating role could exist. It showed what the causes of job satisfaction were and showed relations between these causes and leadership. The research however couldn’t support these predictions. Only in the relation between experience and job satisfaction there seems to be a moderating role for transformational leadership. The results did question existing literature and its claims on this subject, what can be a reason for further research.

Looking back, this study endorses the claims that job satisfaction is a more complex concept than it seems at first sight. More research will have to be done to get to completely understand it and this study could be a little step in the right direction.

Literature

Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. The Journal of Special Education, 25(4), 453-471.

BNR (2013). Meer werkloosheid bekent minder kinderopvang. Accessed on 27 juni 2013.

(http://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/beurs/617637-1306/meer-werkloosheid-betekent-minder-kinderopvang)

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction.Educational

Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.

Brashear, T. G., Boles, J. S., Bellenger, D. N., & Brooks, C. M. (2003). An empirical test of trust-building processes and outcomes in sales manager–salesperson relationships. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2), 189-200.

Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment.Journal of applied psychology, 73(2), 139.

CBS (2013). Werkloze en werkzame beroepsbevolking per maand. Accessed on 5 April 2013.

(http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=80479NED&D1=13-14&D2=0&D3=0&D4=91-102,104-115,117-128,l&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2,G3&VW=T)

Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 847-858.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17(5), 354-381.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method(Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications.

Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61-81.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure. Journal

of personality and social psychology, 59(6), 1216.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied

psychology, 87(2), 268.

Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 97(2), 251.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 530.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job

performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.Psychological bulletin, 127(3), 376.

Locke. E.A.. 1976, The nature and causes of job satisfaction, in: M.D. Dunnette. ed.. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Rand-McNally, Chicago).

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.Psychological bulletin, 108(2), 171.

Morrison, R. S., Jones, L., & Fuller, B. (1997). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on job satisfaction of nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 27(5), 27-34.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers' job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School effectiveness and school improvement, 17(2), 145-177.

Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German.Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212.

Saunders, M. N., Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Research Methods For Business

Students, 3/e. Pearson Education India.

Schleicher, D. J., Watt, J. D., & Greguras, G. J. (2004). Reexamining the job satisfaction-performance relationship: the complexity of attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 165.

Scott, D., Bishop, J. W., & Chen, X. (2003). An examination of the relationship of employee involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation, and intention to quit in US invested enterprise in China. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 3-19.

Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in relation to work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42(7), 625-638.

Telegraaf (2013). Ouders met jonge kinderen werken minder. Accessed on 18 Juni 2013

(http://www.telegraaf.nl/overgeld/arbeid/21659034/__Ouders_met_jongere_kinderen_werken_minder_ _.html)

Telegraaf (2012). Wat er in 2013 verandert met de kinderopvangtoeslag. Accessed on 7 April 2013.

(http://www.telegraaf.nl/overgeld/belastingen/21148631/__Wat_er_in_2013_verandert_met_de_kinder opvangtoeslag__.html)

Testa, M. R. (2001). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and effort in the service environment. The Journal of Psychology, 135(2), 226-236.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings.Personnel psychology, 46(2), 259-293. Torpman, J. (2004). The differentiating function of modern forms of leadership.Management

Decision, 42(7), 892-906.

(http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/3395005/2013/02/16/Kinderopvang-massaal-opgezegd.dhtml)

VU, afdeling Klinische Psychologie (2013). Advies inzake streefcijfer suïcide. Accessed on 25 Maart 2013.

(http://www.vu.nl/nl/Images/Advies%20inzake%20streefcijfer%20suicide%2026%20februari%202013_

tcm9-343812.pdf?utm_source=sub_persbericht&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=pb13074)

Wanous, J. P., & Lawler, E. E. (1972). Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Journal of

applied psychology, 56(2), 95.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194.

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Hierbij vraag ik u deze vragenlijst in te vullen. Mijn naam is Thijs Dekker, ik heb vier jaar op de Bazzeroet gezeten. Nu ben ik student aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam en uw antwoorden zullen gebruikt worden voor mijn Bachelorscriptie. Hierin doe ik namelijk onderzoek naar de werknemers van de SKH in de huidige situatie. De antwoorden die u geeft zullen niet naar u terug te leiden zijn en binnen dit onderzoek blijven. Doordat u anoniem blijft kunt u dus overal eerlijk op antwoorden. Het invullen kost u minder dan 5 minuten en wanneer iedereen op uw locatie de vragenlijst invult, wordt u beloond met een taart!

Wanneer u nog vragen of opmerkingen heeft kunt u mij bereiken op dit emailadres: thijs321@hotmail.com

Kunt u bij de volgende vragen het getal omcirkelen wat het best bij u past?

Ik zie mezelf als iemand die… 1=Erg mee oneens 2=Mee oneens 3=Neutraal 4=Mee eens 5=Erg mee eens

… terughoudend is

… goed van vertrouwen is 1 ₁ 2 ₂ 3 ₃ 4 ₄ 5 ₅

… de neiging heeft lui te zijn 1 2 3 4 5

… relaxed is, goed met stress om kan gaan 1 2 3 4 5

… weinig artistieke interesses heft 1 2 3 4 5

… sociaal is 1 2 3 4 5

… de neiging heeft de schuld bij anderen te zoeken 1 2 3 4 5

… zijn/haar werk grondig doet 1 2 3 4 5

… snel nerveus wordt 1 2 3 4 5

… een actieve verbeelding heeft 1 2 3 4 5

Kunt u bij de volgende zinnen aangeven hoe tevreden u ermee bent?

1=Erg mee oneens 2=Mee oneens 3=Neutraal 4=Mee eens 5=Erg mee eens

Ik doe graag een stapje extra om de organisatie te

helpen succesvol te zijn 1 2 3 4 5

Ik omschrijf deze organisatie tegen mijn vrienden

als een erg goede organisatie om voor te werken 1 2 3 4 5

Ik ben trots dat ik deel uitmaak van deze organisatie 1 2 3 4 5

Ik ben blij dat ik deze organisatie gekozen heb in

plaats van anderen toen ik besloot hier te gaan

werken 1 2 3 4 5

Ik vind de toekomst van deze organisatie belangrijk 1 2 3 4 5

Uw werkvoorwaarden _{1 2 3} 4 5

De mogelijkheid uw vaardigheden te gebruiken _{1 2 3} 4 5

Het belang van uw baan _{1 2 3} 4 5

Het gevoel van prestatie dat u van uw baan krijgt _{1 2 3} 4 5

Het werk dat u doet _{1 2 3} 4 5

De uitdaging die u uit uw werk haalt _{1 2 3} 4 5

Wat is uw leeftijd? O Tot 25 jaar O 25 t/m 34 jaar O 35 t/m 44 jaar O 45 t/m 54 jaar O 55 jaar en ouder

Hoe lang werkt u al bij de SKH?

Kunt u voor de volgende zinnen aangeven in hoeverre deze het gedrag van uw leidinggevende weergeeft?

Zij… 1=Erg mee oneens 2=Mee oneens 3=Neutraal 4=Mee eens 5=Erg mee eens

…praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen belangrijk is 1 2 3 4 5

…stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe manieren over

problemen na te denken 1 2 3 4 5

…heeft visie en een helder beeld van de toekomst 1 2 3 4 5

…straalt vertrouwen uit in haar visie en ideeën 1 2 3 4 5

…moedigt medewerkers aan om onafhankelijk te denken 1 2 3 4 5

…is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor haar plannen 1 2 3 4 5

…betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van belang zijn voor

hun werk 1 2 3 4 5

…stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te

ontwikkelen 1 2 3 4 5

…geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een belangrijk en

gemeenschappelijk doel te werken 1 2 3 4 5

…laat zien overtuigd te zijn van haar idealen, opvattingen en

waarden 1 2 3 4 5

…is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie 1 2 3 4 5

…delegeert uitdagende verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers 1 2 3 4 5

…vestigt de aandacht op vergissingen en uitzonderingen of

afwijkingen van wat er van mij verwacht wordt 1 2 3 4 5

…houdt fouten goed in de gaten 1 2 3 4 5

…is waakzaam ten aanzien van het niet behalen van normen 1 2 3 4 5

…let op fouten in prestaties die correctie behoeven 1 2 3 4 5

…laat weten wat ik krijg als mijn werk aan de eisen voldoet 1 2 3 4 5

…vertelt me wat ik moet doen om beloond te worden voor mijn

inspanningen 1 2 3 4 5

…komt met me overeen welke beloning ik krijg als ik doe wat

vereist wordt 1 2 3 4 5

O Korter dan 2 jaar O 2 tot 4 jaar O 4 tot 6 jaar O 6 tot 8 jaar O 8 tot 10 jaar O Meer dan 10 jaar

Appendix B: Histograms

Neuroticism

Openness to experience

Conscientiousness