The moderating role of employee empowerment on the relationship between person-job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement

(1)

The moderating role of employee empowerment

on the relationship between Person-Job fit and

job satisfaction & work engagement

Master Thesis

Author: Juliette Verheij (10678077)

University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business MSc. In Business Administration – Leadership and Management track

31st of January 2015

Under supervision of: mw. Dr. C.T. Boon, Faculty Economy and Business, section HRM & Organization Behavior at the University of Amsterdam

Second assessor: Dr. F.D. Belschak, Faculty of Economics and Business, section HRM & Organizational behavior at the University of Amsterdam.

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Juliette Verheij who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

Much research has been conducted on the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement, and it has been argued that there is a positive relationship. However, potential moderators have been studied much less frequently. This study aimed to examine the influence of employee empowerment on the relationship between Person-job satisfaction and work engagement and work satisfaction. Data was collected from 127 supervisors and 201 employees in random organizations throughout the Netherlands. Results showed that the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement contributes to the theory stating that there is indeed a positive relationship. Only one dimension of employee empowerment, self-determination, showed a moderating effect on the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction. Employees with lower Person-Job fit will receive higher job satisfaction only when there is high self-determination.

Key words: Person-Job fit, Demand-Abilities, Needs-Supplies, work engagement,

(4)

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 1 Operationalization of the independent variable 26 Table 2 Operationalization of the dependent variable

Job satisfaction 27

Table 3 Operationalization of the dependent variable

work engagement 28

Table 4 Operationalization of the moderating variable 29

Table 5 Reliability statistics 31

Table 6 Correlation matrix 34

Table 7 Regression analysis for the relationship of

Person-Job fit on job satisfaction 35

Table 8 Regression analysis for the relationship of

Person-Job fit on work engagement 36

Table 9 Regression analysis for the relationship of Person-Job fit on job satisfaction with

empowerment as moderator 37

Table 10 Regression analysis for the relationship of Person-Job fit on job satisfaction with the

dimensions of empowerment as moderator 38 Table 11 Regression analysis for the relationship of

Person-Job fit on work engagement with

(6)

dimensions of empowerment as moderator 39 Table 13 Regression analysis for the relationship of the

item-variables of Person-Job fit on job satisfaction with the item-variables of

Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual framework 23

Figure 2 Conceptual framework 36

Figure 3 Interaction effect of the moderator self-determination on the relationship

(7)

Introduction

Congruence between employees’ characteristics and their work environment, also known as Person-Environment fit, is one of the most widely researched topics in organizational behavior (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Person-Environment fit is described by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) as ‘‘the compatibility between an individual

and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched’’ (p.

281). There are two types of Person-Environment fit: Supplementary and complementary congruence (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Supplementary congruence occurs when “a person fits into some environmental context because he

or she supplements, embellishes, or possesses characteristics which are similar to other individuals in this environment” (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 269).

Complementary congruence occurs when “the characteristics of an individual serve

to ‘make whole’ or complement the characteristics of an environment’’ (Muchinsky

& Monahan, 1987, p. 271). Person-Environment fit could be divided into several types of fit, such as Person-Job fit, Person-Group fit, Person-Supervisor fit, and Organization fit (Kristof-brown et al., 2005). This study focuses on Person-Job fit. Person-Person-Job fit can be defined as “the relationship between a person’s

characteristics and those of the job or tasks that are performed at work”

(Kristof-brown et al., 2005, p. 284). Whereas complementary congruence has dominated the Person-Job ﬁt literature, supplementary ﬁt has been the focus of other fits (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Employees’ well-being is an important factor in researching Person-Job fit (Kristof-Brown, 2005). Well-being is an overall concept with different operationalizations, in which job satisfaction is the more traditional form of well-being, and work engagement is a more recently studied form of well-being (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) argued that both job satisfaction and

(8)

work engagement are forms of well-being and are best chosen because Person-Job fit focuses more on the individual level of employees. Central to this paper is that Person-Job fit has a positive effect on job satisfaction and work engagement (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Previous studies stated that poorer Person-Job fit was significantly associated with lower well-being, such as job satisfaction and work engagement (French et al., 1982).

This study aims to contribute to the establishment of Person-Job fit through job satisfaction and work engagement by analyzing the role of employee empowerment. The direct relationships between fit and multiple individual-level outcomes, such as job satisfaction, have been studied in previous literature (Gregory, Albritton, & Osmonbekov, 2010), but potential moderators of these relationships have been studied much less frequently. Hochwälder (2007) studied the relationship between various work environment variables on various behavioral outcomes. The effect of a given work environment variable on a given behavior outcome might depend on the level of employee empowerment (Hochwälder, 2007). In addition, empowerment can be linked to respect, trust, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and lower levels of burnout (Laschinger et al., 2006).

Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined empowerment as an ‘‘increased

intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role because empowerment cannot be captured by a single concept’’ (p. 1443). Spreitzer (1995) suggested that further

research on empowerment should go beyond a simple combination of all four dimensions and should establish the construct’s independence from theoretically related constructs, such as organizational commitment. In this study, employee empowerment is divided into four dimensions: Meaning, competence,

(9)

self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995). This study predicts that empowerment is a motivational construct created in an employee’s perception of having choice, having the ability to perform the job well, and having an impact on the environment, as well as the meaningfulness of the job, which might increase the level of job satisfaction and work engagement (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Therefore, employee empowerment has an enhancing effect because empowerment increases the ability of need fulfillment in which employees will experience more positive attitudes when their needs are being fulfilled.

Research was conducted on employees working throughout the Netherlands; in total 201 employees completed the questionnaire. The research contributed to other studies regarding Person-Job fit increasing job satisfaction and work engagement. From the four dimensions of work engagement, only self-determination showed a significant effect on the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction. Therefore, high self-determination is always desired in order to increase job satisfaction, but it depends on the degree of Person-Job fit whether high or low self-determination is needed. When there is poor Person-Job fit, high self-self-determination is needed in order to increase job satisfaction, whereas in high Person-Job fit, there can be low self-determination in order to increase job satisfaction.

This academic paper is structured as follows; first, a critical review of the existing literature will be outlined. Second, a research design will be drawn. Subsequently, the results of this empirical research will be outlined, followed by a discussion section. Finally, the main conclusions and contributions of the paper to both theory and practice will be presented.

(10)

1 Literature review

This chapter will discuss the main insights of the existing literature on the topic. First, the concepts of Person-Job fit, job satisfaction, and work engagement will be explored. Secondly, the relationship between the concepts will be discussed. Finally, the role of employee empowerment on the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement will be discussed.

1.1 Person-Job fit

Within the literature, fit can be divided into many different types. Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) discussed Person-Environment fit, which is the overall concept of fit. Person-Environment fit has been described as ‘‘the compatibility between an

individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched’’(Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 281). In other words, Person-Environment fit

is an interaction between the person and environment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In the Person-Environment fit literature, there are two main conceptualizations: Supplementary fit and complementary fit (Kristof 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan 1987). Supplementary congruence occurs when “a person fits into some

environmental context because he or she supplements, embellishes, or possesses characteristics which are similar to other individuals in this environment”

(Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 269). Complementary congruence occurs when

“the characteristics of an individual serve to ‘make whole’ or complement the characteristics of an environment’’ (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987, p. 271), and ‘‘Complementary fit occurs when a person’s characteristics ‘make whole’ the environment or add to it what is missing’’ (Kristof, 1996, p. 3).

Past fit research has distinguished between Person-Organization fit perceptions and Person-Job fit perceptions. Person-Organization fit perceptions have most often

(11)

referred to judgments of congruence between an employee’s personal values and an organization’s culture, whereas Person-Job fit perceptions have referred primarily to judgments of congruence between an employee’s skills and the demands of a job (e.g., Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof-Brown, 2000). Person-Organization fit is often conceptualized as a supplementary fit and Person-Job fit as a complementary fit (Edwards 1991; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Lauver & Kristof-Brown 2001). Person-Job fit has been seen as more proximal to behavior and visible in others’ behaviors than as a fit on values (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). In other words, the “job” lies most central in the working experience of people. Person-Job fit is defined as the match between the abilities of the person and the demands of a job or the needs or desires of a person and what is provided by a job (Edwards, 1991), corresponding with complementary fit. It can be classified as the relationship between a person’s characteristics and those of the job or tasks that are performed at work (Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996). Edwards (1991) outlined two basic conceptualizations of complementary fit, also classified as Person-Job fit. The first is the Demands-Abilities fit, in which employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities are commensurate with what the job requires. Demands-Abilities fit occurs when an employee’s abilities satisfy the demands of the organization (Boon et al., 2011). The second form of Person-Job fit occurs when employees’ needs, desires, or preferences are met by the jobs that they perform. This type of fit, often labeled Needs-Supplies fit, has been the emphasis of various theories of adjustment, well-being, and satisfaction (French, Kaplan, & Harrison, 1972; Harrison, 1978; Kaplan, 1983; Locke, 1969). Needs-Supplies fit perceptions are judgments of congruence between employees’ needs and the rewards they receive in return for their services and contributions on jobs (e.g., training, rewards, and benefits) (Cable & DeRue, 2002). According to Cable and DeRue

(12)

(2002), Needs–Supplies fit may be the most important type of fit from an employee perspective because part of the basic motivation for people to enter the labor market and accept jobs is to gain access to the rewards that organizations offer as inducement (Simon, 1951).

1.2 Work engagement and work satisfaction

Employees’ well-being is an important factor in researching Person-Job fit (Kristof-Brown, 2005). Well-being is an overall concept with different operationalizations, such as job satisfaction, work engagement and motivation, and employee satisfaction. Warr and Inceoglu (2012) stated that ‘‘there have been

surprisingly few conceptually based empirical comparisons between the correlates of different forms of well-being’’ (p. 129). They argued that it is important to identify

different key elements in well-being because their contradictory characteristics can also have contrasting causes and consequences (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).

Both work engagement and job satisfaction are well-being related variables (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). These types of well-being are used in this study because Person-Job fit focuses more on individual characteristics (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Different forms of well-being vary in their motivations, as well as valences and energy-related stimulations, in addition to whether they are negative or positive (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).

Job satisfaction can be referred to as an acceptable level rather than as an enthusiastic, energized state (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012): “Whatever its target (a job,

oneself, or something else), satisfaction is a positive affect with moderate-to-low arousal’’ (p. 129). Locke (1969) defined job satisfaction as ‘‘the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values’’ (p. 316). Therefore, job satisfaction implies

(13)

satiation, which means it is more sensitive in terms of feelings about what has already been accomplished and is likely to be accomplished, whereas work engagement implies activation (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).

Work engagement has recently received more attention from organizational behavior scholars and was first theorized by Kahn (1990), who described work engagement as engaged employees who focus their physical, emotional, and cognitive energy ion the pursuit of role-related goals (Lu et al., 1990). Later, different definitions of engagement were established. Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) defined work engagement as an active, positive work-related state that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy, insistence at work, and mental persistence (Lu et al., 2014). Bakker, Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) stated that work engagement can be defined in terms of ‘‘high levels of energy and

high levels of involvement in work’’ (p. 22). Previous literature has shown that

employees tend to take actions more actively; they will build valued resources, and they will create a preferred workplace if there is a resourceful and challenging work environment (Bakker, 2010). According to Kahn (1990), engaged employees are motivated to expend energy, even in difficult situations and threats to their well-being (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). In addition, work engagement is significantly associated with reduced burnout and depression (Hakenen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008). Job resources, such as feedback, social support, and skill variety can play either an extrinsic or an intrinsic motivational role (Bakker et al., 2012). According to Bakker et al., (2012) ‘‘extrinsic motivation plays a role because they are instrumental in

achieving work goals and intrinsic motivation because they foster employee’s growth, learning, and development’’ (p. 1363). Research has shown that when there are high

(14)

resources fulfill basic needs, such as autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Bakker et al., 2012).

The primary roles of job satisfaction and work engagement differ, but wants and feelings are central to both (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). Activated well-being is illustrated by job engagement and quiescent well-being is illustrated by job satisfaction (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). According to Warr and Inceoglu (2012),

‘‘these two types of well-being differ in their level of activation or arousal’’ (p. 129).

Hence, engaged workers are energized people and thus necessarily satisfied in some respects, but satisfied workers can or cannot be engaged (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).

1.3 Person-Job fit in relation to job satisfaction and work engagement French et al. (1982) focused on Person–Job fit as a specific form of Person-Environment fit and predicted that poorer Person-Job fit was expected to be significantly associated with lower well-being in terms of dissatisfaction. Although their findings revealed this relationship only sometimes, later research confirmed that poorer Person-Job fit is widely associated with lower job satisfaction and greater stress (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).

Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) argued that both job satisfaction and work engagement are forms of well-being and are best chosen because Person-Job fit focuses more on the individual level of employees. In addition, Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) stated that Person-Job fit has strong correlations with job satisfaction (sig. =

0.56); job satisfaction was most strongly related to Person-Job fit (Kristof-Brown et

al., 2005; Kristof, 1996). In addition, existing literature mentioned a positive relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction (Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001; Yoo & Hyun, 2003) and a positive relationship between Person-Job fit and work engagement (Lascbinger et al., 2006; Maslach & Leiter, 2008; Schuck et al.,

(15)

2011). In Cable and DeRue’s (2002) study, results showed a higher correlation between Person-Job fit and an attitude, such as job satisfaction. They found that both Demands-Abilities fit and Needs-Supplies fit are complementary, which means that both types of fit are highly correlated. This conclusion was previously stated by other practioners (Edwards 1991; Lauver & Kristof-Brown 2001), but in the same study, only Needs-Supplies fit was positively related to job satisfaction (β = 0.45; sig. =

0.01)(Cable & DeRue, 2002).

Theories of need fulfillment (Locke, 1976; Rice et al., 1985) explain the primary mechanism by which complementary Needs-Supplies fit influences attitudes, such as job satisfaction. As Locke (1976) argued, ‘‘it is the degree to which the job

fulfills or allows the fulfillment of the individual’s needs that determines his degree of job satisfaction’’(p. 1303). These theories both argued that people will experience

more positive job attitudes when their needs are satisfied. Recently, it has been argued that supplementary fit may also function through the process of need fulfillment (Van Vianen, 2000). As mentioned earlier, supplementary fit focuses more on the Person-Organization fit in which a person fits into some environmental context because he or she supplements, embellishes, or possesses certain characteristics (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Achieving supplementary fit is one way to meet personal needs, but achieving Needs-Supplies fit is more direct. The theory of need fulfillment predicts that satisfaction will increase if Needs-Supplies fit increases toward desires (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Therefore, supplementary fit has a somewhat weaker relationship with job attitudes than Needs-Supplies fit (Brown et al., 2005): “Consistent with this

logic, demands–abilities fit should have the smallest relationship with job attitudes because it emphasizes meeting environmental, rather than individual needs’’

(16)

perception of employees’ need fulfillment with their jobs would likely have a negative impact on employee performance. When there is a Person-Job fit in which the abilities and skills of an employee match his or her job requirements, it provides opportunities for employees and this will result in higher job satisfaction (Boon et al., 2011). In other words, the theory of need fulfillment indicates that people become dissatisfied when the supplies provided by the environment fall short of what the person desires (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Therefore, when there is a poor Person-Job fit, results will show lower job satisfaction and work engagement. Subsequently, the theory of reasoned action suggests that when an individual’s needs are met at work, positive attitudes will result (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977): ‘‘The theory of reasoned

action suggests that attitudes toward a given object will generally result in behaviors that are consistent with those attitudes’’ (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 289).

In the mid-1990s, Hesketh (1995) studied a theory of work adjustment to career enhancing strategies. Person-Job fit has been the emphasis of theories of adjustment (Kristof-Brown, 2005). The theory of work adjustment provides a structure for assessing people and their environments, for evaluating the nature of the relationship between people and their environments, and for studying the adjustment processes used by both parties to achieve improved correspondence (Hesketh, 1995). Hesketh stated that correspondence between people and their work environments is a function of the extent to which the environments meet individuals’ needs and values, leading to satisfaction (Hesketh, 1995). The theory of work adjustment suggests that job satisfaction represents an employee’s personal evaluation of the degree to which his or her requirements match the job demands and requirements (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). In addition, Bretz et al. (1994) argued that a theory of work adjustment may have a direct influence on extrinsic measures of career success, such as job

(17)

satisfaction (Bretz et al., 1995). They stated that the theory of work adjustment creates a successful state of fit between an individual and environmental characteristics (Bretz et al., 1994). Subsequently, ‘‘job satisfaction represents the individual

worker’s subjective evaluation of the degree to which his or her requirements are met by the work environment’’(Bretz et al., 1995, p. 32). Magee (1976) argued that most

theories of job satisfaction incorporate, in some manner, the concept of job satisfaction as a function of the fit between the individual and his work.

Warr and Inceoglu (2012) studied the relationship among job engagement, job satisfaction, and contrasting associations on Person-Job fit and Needs-Supplies fit and argued that poor fit can lead to reduced hedonic well-being: “In hedonic terms, a

happy person is one who experiences pleasure and avoids pain” (p. 130). However,

there are differences between more hedonic terms (satisfaction of wants is considered paramount (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012)) and forms of well-being that are more activity-based. In hedonic terms, when good Needs-Supplies fit is expected to promote satisfaction, the primary influence is likely to be from job to person (a person responds with positive feelings to environmental conditions, which match those that are desired). In addition, feelings of dissatisfaction are likely to increase Needs-Supplies misfit because people who are dissatisfied notice negative aspects of their environment (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).

To summarize, according to Warr and Inceoglu (2012), poor fit does not reduce all forms of well-being, but it can be associated with well-being constructs that include energized elements, like work engagement. Work engagement tends to be more activity-based; causal processes are likely to originate more from the person to his or her perception of the job (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).

(18)

Although Warr and Inceoglu (2012) stated that there might be a negative relationship between some concepts of well-being, previous studies linked the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and job engagement. Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) mentioned the effect of both types of Person-Job fit on employee and organizational behaviors and attitudes. Congruent environments provide job satisfaction for the employees because, in a work environment, people have similar values and they can perform their tasks, which they enjoy and are able to do (Furnham & Schaeffer, 1984).

Based on the previous studies on the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement, the following hypotheses were created:

Hypothesis 1: Person-Job fit is positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Person-Job fit is positively related to work engagement.

1.4 Moderating role of employee empowerment

Empowerment is defined by Conger and Kanungo (1988) as the motivational concept of self-efficacy. Both organizational researchers and practitioners have identified psychological empowerment as a construct meriting critical inquiry (Kanter, 1989; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Despite growing attention to empowerment in organizational studies literature, the lack of a theoretically derived measure of psychological empowerment in a work context has deterred substantive research on empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995).

The roots of employee empowerment started decades ago with the introduction of the human relations movement in organization theory (Herrenkohl, Judson, & Heffner, 1999). Later, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined empowerment more broadly as ‘‘increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a

(19)

set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role because empowerment cannot be captured by a single concept’’ (p. 1443). Those four

cognitions reflect an active orientation to a work role. In this context, active can be understood as how an individual wishes and feels able to shape his or her role and context. In line with Thomas and Velthouse (1990), Spreitzer (1995) described employee empowerment as a four-dimensional motivational construct composed of four cognitions:

• Meaning: The value of a work goal or purpose. It involves a fit between the requirements of a work role and beliefs, values, and behavior (Spreitzer, 1995). This dimension concerns a sense of feeling that one’s work is personally important (Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

• Competence: An individual’s belief in his or her capability to perform activities with skill. According to Spreitzer (1995), ‘‘this dimension is labeled

competence here rather than self-esteem because I focused on efficacy specific to a work role rather than on global efficacy’’ (p. 1443).

• Self-determination: An individual’s sense of having choice in initiating and regulating actions (Deci, Connel, & Ryan, 1989). This dimension reflects autonomy in the initiation and continuation of work behaviors and processes, such as decisions about work methods, pace, and effort (Spector, 1986). • Impact: The degree to which an employee can influence strategic,

administrative, or operating outcomes at work (Ashfort, 1989).

Spreitzer (1995) argued that all four factors were significantly correlated. In addition, Spreitzer (1995) suggested that further research on empowerment should go beyond a simple combination of all four dimensions and should establish the

(20)

construct’s independence from theoretically related constructs, such as organizational commitment. Hence, this study focuses on every dimension.

The direct relationships between fit and multiple individual-level outcomes, such as job satisfaction and in-role performance, have been previously studied in the literature (Gregory, Albritton, & Osmonbekov, 2010). Prior empirical evidence has found a positive relationship between a person’s job fit and job satisfaction, but potential moderators of these relationships have been studied much less frequently. Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) argued that one limitation is the number of studies available for moderator analyses.

According to the study of Laschinger et al. (2006), employee empowerment does affect work engagement through its effect on Person-Job fit and thus helps achieve greater work engagement and lower burnout. This means there is a connection among Person-Fit, empowerment, and work engagement. Laschinger et al. (2006) saw structural empowerment as ‘‘a fit between their own values and those of

the organization’’ (p. 364). In addition, empowerment can be linked to respect, trust,

organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and lower levels of burnout (Laschinger et al., 2006).

Hochwälder (2007) studied the relationship between various work environment variables on various behavioral outcomes. The effect of a given work environment variable on a given behavioral outcome might depend on the level of employee empowerment (Hochwälder, 2007). Hochwälder (2007) studied burnout as a behavior outcome, whereas Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) argued burnout is the opposite of work engagement. Their results showed that an increase in demands is related to a decrease in emotional exhaustion with high empowerment (Hochwälder, 2007). Therefore, this study can contribute by stating that employees working in

(21)

plausible work environments in which the demands of a job or the needs or desires of the employee match with the abilities of the employee, with high levels of empowerment, lead to higher work engagement (Edwards 1991).

Erdogan and Bauer (2009) stated that ‘‘when empowered, employees feel that

they have the ability to determine work outcomes, and feel competent to achieve their goals, and believe that they have an impact on the work environment’’ (p. 558). In

addition, when employees work proactively and independently and the organization trusts their judgments and competence, employees tend to have higher commitment to their jobs, which will result in higher job satisfaction and work engagement. Thus, employee empowerment has an enhancing effect because empowerment increases the ability of need fulfillment in which employees will experience more positive attitudes when their needs are satisfied.

Nederveen Pieterse et al. (2010) argued that empowered individuals see themselves as competent and able to influence their jobs and work environments (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Empowerment is a motivational construct created by an employee’s perception of having choice, having the ability to perform the job well, and having an impact on the environment, as well as the meaningfulness of the job, which might increase the level of job satisfaction and work engagement. In fact, empowerment involves offering employees the control, freedom, and information to participate in decision-making (Daft, 2001). Buchanan (1974) described three components necessary in order to be committed to an organization: 1) Identification, 2) Involvement, and 3) Loyalty. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that when individuals believe their tasks have meaningful purposes, those employees are committed, involved, and focused. Moreover, empowered employees are aware of

(22)

factors that influence their individual and organizational well-being, their perceived higher capacity, and their self-efficacy (Zimmerman, 2000).

This study argues that when committed to a job, employee empowerment plays an active role, which might result in a positive effect on job satisfaction and work engagement. Although no empirical work has tested previously this prediction, empowerment has been shown to be related to positive attitudes and behaviors (Ahearne et al., 2005). Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 3: Employee empowerment moderates the relationship between

Person-Job fit and work engagement, such that the relationship is stronger for high empowerment.

Hypothesis 3A: Meaning has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between

Person-Job fit and work engagement, such that the relationship is stronger for high meaning.

Hypothesis 3B: Competence has a positive moderating effect on the relationship

between Person-Job fit and work engagement, such that the relationship is stronger for high competence.

Hypothesis 3C: Self-determination has a positive moderating effect on the

relationship between Person-Job fit and work engagement, such that the relationship is stronger for high self-determination.

Hypothesis 3D: Impact has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between

Person-Job fit and work engagement, such that the relationship is stronger for high impact.

(23)

Hypothesis 4: Employee empowerment moderates the relationship between

Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, such that the relationship is stronger for high empowerment.

Hypothesis 4A: Meaning has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between

Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, such that the relationship is stronger for high meaning.

Hypothesis 4B: Competence has a positive moderating effect on the relationship

between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, such that the relationship is stronger for high competence.

Hypothesis 4C: Self-determination has a positive moderating effect on the

relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, such that the relationship is stronger for high self-determination.

Hypothesis 4D: Impact has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between

Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, such that the relationship is stronger for high impact

(24)

1.5 Research model

Based on the hypotheses outlined in the literature review section, the following conceptual model was drawn:

(25)

2 Methodology

In the following chapter, the research approach and design of this study will be explained. Fist, the research design will be presented. This section will continue with a description of the sample and the data collection method. Finally, a description of the measurement variables will be outlined.

2.1 Research design

In order to research the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, using the moderating variable employee empowerment, quantitative research was held.

The questionnaire method allows the researcher to flexibly gather large amounts of data while keeping the variables standardized across large samples (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Furthermore, using a questionnaire allows the data to be easily analyzed and interpreted (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

This questionnaire was used by a previous study and includes all the variables required for this study. This questionnaire has been set up two-fold: One questionnaire explicitly for supervisors and one questionnaire explicitly for employees. Both supervisors and associated employee(s) received unique codes so that a link could be made between them for the study. This thesis only studies the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement of the employee; therefore, only the employee questionnaire was of interest.

These questionnaires were sent to the respondents via electronic mail. This approach enables the researcher to conduct the results flexibly and quickly because it eliminates any time losses that might occur if questionnaires were sent by regular post. Furthermore, an overview could be held to send reminders after a three week notice.

(26)

2.2 Sample

The study’s target sample was a total of 350 respondents. The questionnaires were distributed among random supervisors and linked employees in the period of September until November 2014. Then, data were collected from employees in a wide range of functions, departments, and hierarchical levels in all kinds of organizations in the Netherlands.

By using self-selection sampling and snowball sampling, a wide variety of supervisors and employees were selected. Furthermore, difficult to reach supervisors and employees could be reached more easily (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). A total of 328 respondents completed questionnaires, in which a total of 201 employees completed the employee questionnaire and a total of 127 supervisors completed the supervisor questionnaire. Snowball and self-selection sampling are good ways to reach more people, but unfortunately they have some downsides. Because they are non-probability sampling techniques, they are not able to make comprehensive generalizations about the entire population (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). As Saunders and Lewis (2012) argued, ‘‘it will not represent your population statistically’’ (p. 134).

In this study, a total of 201 employees completed the form. In the sample, the average age was 33.5 (SD = 12.025). During this study, more women completed the questionnaire than men (M = 1.57; SD = 0.496; 57.1% women and 42.9% men). The average highest accomplished education of the respondents was University of Applied Science (HBO), with a total of 45.3% (M = 3.03; SD = 1.35). Overall, employees had an average working history of 6.8 years at the same organization (M = 6.76; SD =

(27)

average of 6.8 years working at the same organization, employees had an average collaboration of 2.7 years working with the same supervisor (M = 2.73; SD = 3.12).

2.3 Measurement of variables

This section will describe the measurement of the variables. First, the independent variable will be defined and described; after that, the dependent variable will be explained. Finally, the moderating variable will be explained.

Person-Job fit

Person-Job fit perceptions were assessed using Cable and DeRue’s (2002) three-item scale for Needs-Supplies (NS) fit and the three-item scale for Demands-Abilities (DA) fit. The five-point response scale ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). In Table 1, the different aspects of both Demands-Abilities fit and Needs-Supplies fit are described.

Table 1. Operationalization of the independent variable No. Independent

variable

Item(s) Key

References

1 DA fit - Occupational commitment

- Future in-role job performance - Future pay raises

Cable & DeRue (2002)

2 NS fit - Turnover decisions

- Job satisfaction - Career satisfaction - Occupational commitment Cable & DeRue (2002) Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured based on the scale of Cammann et al. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire was developed as an alternative to the Job Diagnostic Survey and thus includes subscales that assess the

(28)

variables identified by Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job Characteristics Model (Bowling & Hammond, 2008).

Responses were given on a five-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (5). In Table 2 below, the items of job satisfaction are described.

Table 2. Operationalization of the dependent variable job satisfaction

No. Dimensions Items Key References

1 Job attitudes - Facet satisfaction

- Organizational commitment - Job involvement

- Career satisfaction - Organizational justice

Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh (1979).

2 Strains - Job tension

- Anxiety - Depression - Emotional exhaustion - Frustration - Physical strains Cammann,

Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh (1979).

3 Life satisfaction Cammann,

Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh (1979).

Work engagement.

In order to measure work engagement, a nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) based on Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker (2002) was used. Originally, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale consisted of 19 questions, but the short UWES scale shares more than 80% of its variance with the corresponding longer original version (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Schaufeli et al. (2006) stated that work engagement is considered the antipode of a burnout. Work engagement can be defined as a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The associated questions relate to how work is experienced and what feelings can relate to

(29)

it. Responses were given on a six-point scale ranging from “never” (1) to “Always every day” (6). In Table 3, the three different dimensions are explained.

Table 3. Operationalization of the dependent variable work engagement

No. Dimensions Items Key

References

1 Vigor scale - High level of energy

- Mental resilience while working - Willingness to invest effort in one’s

work

- Persistence even in the face of difficulties

Schaufeli et al., 2002

2 Dedication scale - Being strongly involved in one’s work - Experiencing a sense of significance,

enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge

Schaufeli, et al., 2002

3 Absorption scale - Fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work - Time passes quickly

- Difficulties with detaching oneself from work

Schaufeli, et al., 2002

Employee empowerment.

For the purpose of the current academic paper, one moderating variable, defined as employee empowerment, was used. As previously discussed, employee empowerment is understood as ‘‘increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a

set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role because empowerment cannot be captured by a single concept’’ (Thomas

&Velthouse, 1990, p. 1443). Meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact are the four-dimensional motivational construct. In this study, respondents had to answer questions related to all four categories of employee empowerment; the

(30)

questions are based on Spreitzer’s (1995) study. Table 4 shows the different dimensions of employee empowerment.

Table 4. Operationalization of the moderating variable

No. Dimensions Items Key

References

1 Meaning - Importance of job characteristics

- Importance of job proceedings - Meaningfulness of job

Spreitzer (1995)

2 Competence - Confidence in job ability

- Confidence in job ability to perform duties - Mastering required skills

Spreitzer (1995)

3 Self-determination - Large degree of autonomy - Degree of decision-making - Room for autonomy and freedom

Spreitzer (1995)

4 Impact - Degree of impact in department

- Degree of control in department

- Significance of influence in department

Spreitzer (1995)

(31)

3 Results

This section will report the results of this study. First, the results of the reliability analysis for the measured variables will be reported. Cronbach’s alpha was analyzed for the independent variable, Person-Job fit; dependent variables, job satisfaction and work engagement; and moderating variables, the dimensions of employee empowerment (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact). Next, a correlation analysis was completed and the most significant correlations will be reported. Subsequently, multiple regression analyses were completed to determine if the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement was moderated by one of the dimensions of employee empowerment and thus test the hypotheses that were formulated in the theoretical framework in this study.

3.1 Reliability analysis

In total, eight variables were measured using multiple questions. The different dimensions of Person-Job fit where measured, and job satisfaction, work engagement, and the different dimensions of the moderating variable employee empowerment were measured, which resulted in a total of eight variables.

The independent variable, Person-Job fit, was captured using two types of fit: Demands-Abilities fit and Needs-Supplies fit. Both Cronbach’s alphas were greater than or equal to 0.89. Table 5 shows the reliability statistics. Saunders and Lewis (2012) stated that when Cronbach’s alpha is higher than 0.70, the variable has good internal consistency.

When examining the dependent variable, job satisfaction, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the three-item scale used to capture this variable indicated an internal consistency of 0.90. The nine-item scale used to measure work engagement

(32)

captured an internal consistency of 0.89. Both the dependent variables are considered to have acceptable reliability (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

The moderating variable, which consists of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact, indicated an internal consistency ranging from 0.89 to

0.92, which is shown in the reliability statistics table (Table 5).

To conclude, all item variables had good internal reliability with an average Cronbach’s alpha of 0.907.

Table 5. Reliability statistics

Variable Items Cronbach's

Alpha N

Person-Job fit DA fit 0.896 3

NS fit 0.890 3 Job satisfaction 0.897 3 Work engagement 0.893 9 Employee Meaning 0.892 3 empowerment Competence 0.913 3 Self-Determination 0.905 3 Impact 0.917 3 3.2 Correlations analysis

Table 6, Correlation Matrix, outlines the results from the bivariate correlation analysis of the variables. The most significant correlations have been marked with an asterisk (*) when there was a significance level of 0.05 or two asterisks (**) when there was a significance level of 0.01. The correlations were investigated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Table 6 indicates the set of correlations with the significance levels, as well as Cronbach’s alphas.

The most important correlations with significant coefficients at or below the 0.05 significance level will be discussed. First, the correlations between the

(33)

independent variables and the dependent variables will be presented. Subsequently, the most important correlations between the independent variables and the moderating variables will be discussed. Finally, some of the correlations between the moderating variables and the dependent variables will be addressed.

Demands-Abilities and Needs-Supplies fit are the two dimensions of Person-Job fit. In this study, the two dimensions were highly correlated (Pearson correlation

coefficient = 0.724; Sig. = 0.01). When Person-Job fit was tested in the presence of

job satisfaction, the independent variable was positively correlated with the dependent variable job satisfaction (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.573; Sig. = 0.01). In addition, the relationship between the independent variable, Person-Job fit, and the dependent variable, work engagement, were positively correlated (Pearson

correlation coefficient = 0.641; Sig. = 0.01).

Considering the correlations between the independent variables and the moderating variables, Person-Job fit and the different dimensions of employee empowerment were positively correlated. When examining the different components of employee empowerment, all four components were correlated with Person-Job fit. The highest correlation was between Person-Job fit and meaning (Pearson correlation

coefficient = 0.733; Sig. = 0.01). Furthermore, Person-Job fit had a strong correlation

with self-determination (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.364; Sig. = 0.01) and with impact (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.222; Sig. = 0.01). The component competence had the weakest correlation with Person-Job fit (Pearson correlation

coefficient = 0.141; Sig. = 0.053), resulting in no significance level.

Additionally, when examining the moderating variables and the dependent variables, more positive significances were found. When examining the different dimensions of the moderating variable, the highest positive correlation was found

(34)

between work engagement and meaning (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.677;

Sig. = 0.01). Job satisfaction and meaning also had the highest positive correlation

(Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.549; Sig. = 0.01) regarding all the different dimensions of empowerment. The lowest correlation was found between impact and work engagement (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.135; Sig. = 0.066), because there was no significant correlation, and with job satisfaction (Pearson correlation

(35)

(36)

Regression analysis

Hierarchical multiple regression was performed to investigate the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement, after controlling for gender and education. First, a regression of the overall variables was held. Subsequently, a regression of all different item-variables was held.

The first hypothesis to be tested was “Person-Job fit is positively related to job

satisfaction”. The results of the regression are outlined in Table 7. In the first step of

hierarchical multiple regression, two predictors, gender and education, were entered and explained 0.2% of the variance in job satisfaction. After the entry of Person-Job fit in Model 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 35% (β =

0.590; Sig. = 0.001), meaning that Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 7. Regression analysis for the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction

Models R R2 R2 change B SE Beta T

Model 1 0.116 0.002 0.013 Gender 0.208 0.154 0.102 1.356 Education -0.057 0.057 -0.074 -0.992 Model 2 0.601 0.351*** 0.348*** Gender 0.210 0.124 0.103 1.700 Education -0.067 0.046 -0.088 -1.455 Person-Job fit 0.509 0.051 0.590*** 9.881

Note: statistical significance: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

In addition, Hypothesis 2 states that Person-Job fit is positively related to work engagement. The results of this hypothesis are summarized in Table 8. In the first step of hierarchical multiple regression, two predictors, gender and education, were entered and explained 0.7% of the variance in work engagement. After entry of Person-Job fit in Model 2, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was

(37)

Table 8. Regression analysis for the relationship between Person-Job fit and work engagement

Models R R2 R2 change B SE Beta T

Model 1 0.064 0.007 0.004 Gender 0.145 0.187 0.058 0.775 Education 0.016 0.070 0.018 0.233 Model 2 0.651 0.414*** 0.420*** Gender 0.148 0.142 0.060 1.038 Education 0.002 0.053 0.003 0.045 Person-Job fit 0.676 0.059 0.648*** 11.423

Figure 2 (below) shows the conceptual model with the correlation coefficients included.

Figure 2. Conceptual model

Testing the moderating effect of employee empowerment and its dimensions on the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, the results from the analysis are outlined in Table 9. The results show that 39% of the variance of the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction is explained (β = -0.097; Sig. = 0.0755). This means that the interaction of employee empowerment with the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction is almost significant. Because the

(38)

moderating variable, employee empowerment, consists of four dimensions, a more detailed regression analysis was completed.

Table 9. Regression analysis for the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, with empowerment as moderating variable

R R2 Coefficient SE T P

0.6236*** 0.3889*** 0.0000

Person-Job fit 0.8621** 0.2906 2.9669 0.0034

Empowerment 0.8357** 0.2689 3.1075 0.0022

Interaction -0.0974 0.0545 -1.7879 0.0755

Hypothesis 3 is divided into sub-hypotheses in which regression analyses were held to examine the four item-variables separately regarding the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction. The results of all the item-variables of the moderating variable are presented in Table 10. The results show that there was only one negative significant interaction within the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, with self-determination as the moderating variable (β = -0.1318;

Sig. = 0.0014). Based on the results shown in Table 10, Hypotheses 3, 3A, 3B, and

3D are not supported and Hypothesis 3C is partly supported, considering the negative significant interaction instead of the positive significant interaction as proposed in the Hypothesis.

Figure 3 shows the interaction effect of this relationship. The relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction is positively correlated. As shown in Figure 3, high Person-Job fit and the degree of self-determination does not matter, but it matters when there is low Person-Job fit. When there is a low Person-Job fit, high self-determination is needed to increase job satisfaction. In other words, job satisfaction will increase when there is high self-determination, but the degree of influence of Person-Job fit on job satisfaction is higher when there is low

(39)

self-determination, or the degree of self-determination is higher when there is poor Person-Job fit.

Figure 3. Interaction effect of the moderating variable, self-determination, on the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction

Table 10. Regression analysis for the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, with the item variables of empowerment as moderating variables

Models R R2 Coefficient SE T P Model 1 0.6041*** 0.3649*** 0.0000 Person-Job fit 0.2577 0.1925 1.3388 0.1823 Meaning 0.1868 0.1361 1.3723 0.1716 Interaction 0.0107 0.0321 0.3332 0.7393 Model 2 0.5846*** 0.3417*** 0.0000 Person-Job fit 0.8203 0.4357 1.8828 0.0613 Competence 0.4158 0.3511 1.1845 0.2378 Interaction -0.0564 0.0715 -0.7890 0.4311 Model 3 0.6485*** 0.4205*** 0.0000 Person-Job fit 1.1196*** 0.2247 4.9830 0.0000 Self-determination 0.8702*** 0.1965 4.4272 0.0000 Interaction -0.1318*** 0.0405 -3.2514 0.0014 Model 4 0.5768*** 0.3327*** 0.0000 Person-Job fit 0.5732*** 0.1623 3.5310 0.0005 Impact 0.1319 0.1549 0.8512 0.3958 Interaction -0.0200 0.0333 -0.5991 0.5499

Note: statistical significance: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Low Person-Job fit High Person-Job fit

Job s ati sfac ti on Low Self-Determination High Self-Determination

(40)

When examining Hypothesis 4, “Employee empowerment moderates the

relationship between Person-Job fit and work engagement,” results show that there is

no significant interaction between Person-Job fit and work engagement that should be moderated with employee empowerment (β = -0.0657; Sig. = 0.2936). Results of this interaction are shown in Table 11. This means that Hypothesis 4 is not supported.

Table 11. Regression analysis for the relationship between Person-Job fit and work engagement, with empowerment as moderating variable

R R2 Coefficient SE T P

Model 1 0.6696*** 0.4484*** 0.0000

Person-Job fit 0.8660** 0.3325 2.6045 0.0100

Empowerment 0.6928* 0.3077 2.2514 0.0255

Interaction -0.0657 0.0623 -1.0534 0.2936

When examining the dimensions of employee empowerment, results show that there was no significant interaction. Table 12 shows the results. Overall, there was no moderating effect of employee empowerment on the relationship between Person-Job fit and work engagement.

Table 12. Regression analysis for the relationship between Person-Job fit and work engagement, with the item variables of empowerment as moderating variable

Models R R2 Coefficient SE T P Model 1 0.7133*** 0.5088*** 0.0000 Person-Job fit 0.0485 0.2039 0.2376 0.8524 Meaning 0.2564 0.1442 1.7785 0.0770 Interaction 0.0496 0.0339 1.4608 0.1458 Model 2 0.6495*** 0.4218*** 0.0000 Person-Job fit 0.8412 0.4918 1.7106 0.0889 Competence 0.3309 0.3962 0.8350 0.4048 Interaction -0.0322 0.0807 -0.3989 0.6904 Model 3 0.6570*** 0.4317*** 0.0000 Person-Job fit 0.9930*** 0.2680 3.7056 0.0003 Self-determination 0.4836* 0.2344 2.0630 0.0405 Interaction -0.0707 0.0484 -1.4611 0.1475

(41)

Model 4 0.6415*** 0.4115*** 0.0000

Person-Job fit 0.7482*** 0.1836 4.0753 0.0001

Impact 0.0624 0.1752 0.3560 0.7222

Interaction -0.0179 0.0377 -0.4753 0.6351

To examine the independent variable, Person-Job fit, in more depth, a regression analysis was held to examine the relationship between Demands-Abilities fit and Needs-Supplies fit on job satisfaction, since Table 10 showed that there was a significant effect (β = -0.1318; Sig. = 0.0014). Table 13 shows a more in-depth view of the dimensions of Person-Job fit, Demands-Abilities fit, and Needs-Supplies fit and tests if there is a difference in one of the dimensions of the relationship with job satisfaction, with self-determination as moderating variable. As shown in Table 13, the item-variable self-determination had a negative significant effect on Demands-Abilities fit and job satisfaction (β = -0.1154; Sig. = 0.0105) and on the relationship between Needs-Supplies fit and job satisfaction (β = -0.1162; Sig. = 0.0008). In other words, both Demands-Abilities fit and Needs-Supplies fit are highly correlated, which makes the dimensions complementary.

Table 13. Regression analysis for the relationship between the item-variables of Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, with the item-variables of empowerment as moderating variables

NS fit DA fit Coefficient P Coefficient P Empowerment -0.1042 0.0294 -0.0843 0.1488 Meaning -0.0247 0.4188 0.0330 0.2880 Competence -0.0277 0.6371 -0.0744 0.3498 Self-determination -0.1162*** 0.0008 -0.1154** 0.0105 Impact -0.0098 0.7288 -0.0254 0.4964

(42)

4 Discussion

This study tested how employee empowerment could moderate the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement. This study hypothesized that the different dimensions of empowerment positively moderate the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction, as well as work engagement. Results showed otherwise; results were incongruent with the suggested assumptions, with one small exception. In this section, this study’s finding and the contributions to the theory will be presented and discussed. First, the theoretical and practical implications will be presented related to the independent variable, Person-Job fit, and the dependent variables, job satisfaction and work engagement. Subsequently, the moderating variables will be discussed as contribution to the theory. This chapter will end with an overview of the study’s limitations and suggestion for future research.

4.1 Person-Job fit related to job satisfaction and work engagement

Person-Job fit is a type of fit concerning the person and environment. Dividing all types of fit provides a meaningful way of assessing how fit, with various aspects of the work environment, influences individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Person-Job fit refers primarily to judgments of congruence between an employee’s skills and the demands of a job (e.g., Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof-Brown, 2000). In conjunction with Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), this study found that job satisfaction was strongly influenced by Person-Job fit (Pearson correlation

coefficient = 0.573; Sig. = 0.01). As anticipated, there was also a positive relationship

between Person-Job fit and work engagement (Pearson correlation coefficient =

0.641; Sig. = 0.01). However, in this study, the relationship between Person-Job fit

and work engagement was slightly higher than the relationship between Person-Job fit and job satisfaction. As Warr and Inceoglu (2012) argued, there are differences

The moderating role of employee empowerment on the relationship between person-job fit and job satisfaction and work engagement