Stability of Self-Esteem as a Moderator of the Relation between Level of Self-Esteem and Job Satisfaction 

Stability of Self-Esteem as a Moderator

of the Relation between Level of

Self-Esteem and Job Satisfaction

Olivia Christmann

11866675

A Thesis submitted for the Bachelor of Business Administration at the University of Amsterdam for the Specialisation in Management and Leadership in the Digital Age.

This Thesis was written under the Supervision of Joanna Sosnowska

Word count: 5857 (incl. Abstract)

June 22nd

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Olivia Christmann, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are 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.

ABSTRACT

High self-esteem has originally been reported to be beneficial for various aspects including work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction. Recently, however, research about the stability of self-esteem, defined as fluctuations within self-esteem across time, has indicated that there might be downsides to high self- esteem, hence challenging the original thought.

This study will build on previous examinations between self-esteem and job satisfaction, by not only including levels of self-esteem but further investigating the consequences of its stability. We thereby asses a current gap in the literature, by applying a more dynamic approach within this area of research. Previous studies concluded that instability can induce negative consequences, such as depression or narcissistic behaviour. We will examine if those are relevant concerning job satisfaction. To test the assumptions, a cross-sectional study was conducted using convenience sampling, generating 138 responses, whereby participants were targeted within the broader network of the involved research students. The study included measurements for self-esteem, stability, and job satisfaction as well as some demographic questions.

The findings within the analysis did not sufficiently support any of the suggested hypotheses. Thus, self-esteem was not related to job- satisfaction, neither did stability of self-esteem yield more significant results. However, the paper still provides meaningful insights for understanding the importance of stability of self-esteem in general, which can still be of relevance in different areas.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

H1) The relationship between Self- Esteem and Job Satisfaction 17 H2) Influences of Stability of Self- Esteem on Job Satisfaction 18

Discussion 20

Limitations & Future Research 23

Practical Implications 23

Conclusion 24

References 25

Appendices 29

1. INTRODUCTION I.

Self-esteem has been a subject of research in different domains, to predict outcomes in personal and business careers, such as an academic achievement or life satisfaction (Hattie, 1992; Huebner, 1991). Often a high level of self-esteem is regarded as more beneficial to overall well-being (Diener, 1984; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Also, for job-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction, reviews demonstrate a positive correlation between self-esteem and satisfaction (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings & Dunham, 1989).

In the past, the research provided positive results of self-esteem on behaviours and attitudes within the work environment, whilst solely focusing on general levels of self-esteem, representing the overall evaluations of one’s self-worth on a continuous dimension ranging from low to high (Brockner, 1988; Judge & Bono, 2001; Korman, 1970, 1976; Pierce & Gardner, 2004).

However, recently scholars have shown, that indeed levels of self-esteem are not stable and eventually they fluctuate. Hence, individuals do not only differ in their general level of self-esteem. They can further diverge within this particular level of whether it is stable or not. Various studies suggest, that the interaction between baseline-level of self-esteem and stability can provide outcomes beyond baseline levels, as mentioned by Kernis (2005). The instability of self-esteem is regarded as the variability of one’s general level of self-esteem. Large fluctuations of such instability were often described in the literature as individuals heightened concerns or doubts about their self-view, aligned to an unstable self-concept. On the other hand, stability was reported within individuals, maintaining a clear self-concept.

Levels of self-esteem are proven to have an impact on job satisfaction. Despite the growing evidence, that stability of self-esteem can greatly influence various attitudes and behaviours apart from self-esteem per se, little research was conducted regarding work-related outcomes. There are clear indications, for example in the area of psychology, that self-esteem should not be studied in isolation. The aim of this research is to assess, whether an integrative approach of those two concepts will yield more meaningful insights for job satisfaction.

The following section will revise the literature on self-esteem, the stability of self-esteem, and job satisfaction. Thereafter the paper will report on the study’s methods and display generated results. The last section will discuss the results and suggest practical implications.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The concepts of self-esteem and stability of self-esteem

Global self-esteem is described as an overall self-evaluation of one's competencies (Rosenberg, 1965), which should then imply a favourable (high self-esteem) or unfavourable (low self-esteem) self-view. This view causes differences within people, (Baumeister, 1993; Solomon, Greenberg & Pyszcyznski, 1991) whether it is in their thoughts, moods, and/or in actions (Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993).

Recently, however, research has revealed that evaluating self-esteem on a continuous dimension, is not always sufficient. Thus, it is expected, that incorporating stability and fluctuations within baseline levels of self-esteem can provide more meaningful and distinct outcomes. This notion is supported and illustrated in research, proposing that individuals can differ beyond general levels of self-esteem (Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993).

The stability of self-esteem has been defined as the magnitude of fluctuations (Rosenberg) or the deviation of one’s global self-esteem level (Kernis et al., 1993). Hence, a larger deviation indicates a more unstable level of self-esteem. Thus, instability suggests that the average level of self-esteem can greatly fluctuate over time. Thereafter, even individuals maintaining higher levels of esteem can at times experience a dramatic decrease in self-esteem and vice versa (Hormuth, 1986). Based on those results it is debatable, whether within peoples’ differences can sufficiently be explained only by baseline levels of self-esteem.

Another important concept, which is commonly mentioned in line with the stability of self-esteem is self-concept clarity and self-view. As suggested by Kernis et al. (1993), instability in self-esteem can ultimately arise from a poorly developed self-concept. Wong, Vallacher& Nowak (2016) refer to this concept in their work as a clear or unclear self-concept. They imply that individuals with a clear self-concept hold an integrated and consistent view of themselves and their competences. This view remains stable, regardless of the circumstances. On the contrary, individuals with an unclear self-concept will not hold such consistent beliefs about themselves and their competences. Consequently, their self-esteem can change rapidly due to a heightened sensitivity to external or internal stimuli, challenging their self-view.

These impressions are supported by further findings, which indicate that individuals with unstable levels of self-esteem frequently perceive their self-concept or self- view to be “on the line", especially if self-esteem is high (Kernis et al., 1993; Kernis, Greenier, Herlocker, Whisenhunt, & Abend, 1997).

Considerable research in the past regarding self-esteem examined the concept on a continuous dimension. Largely, results provoked higher levels of self-esteem to be more favourable and beneficial concerning various relationships and aspects of work and well-being, such as for example health (Orth, Robins & Widaman, 2012). Nevertheless, some early research did eventually observe further differences, beyond a continuous level of self-esteem. They indicate that stable, high self-esteem people are more comfortable with themselves and will consequently not be offended by criticism. On the other hand, unstable individuals have an “inflated” self-view, which can lead to aggressive, hostile behaviours if their self-esteem is threatened (Pierce& Gardner, 2004). However, those insights were not found to be relevant enough for further investigations, which eventually caused a misconception, where higher self-esteem is perceived to be more desirable. The agreement on this statement might have caused scholars to oversee the following aspect: if high self-esteem is admirable, those who obtained higher levels of self-esteem across time might be afraid of losing it. Therefore, they protect themselves and their precious self-esteem by actions, which are more undesirable, as they are afraid of their potential fall height on the self-esteem continuum. This eventually induced a misunderstanding about the advantages of higher self-esteem. Current research reveals that indeed the stability of self-esteem might be the true advantage.

Kernis et al. (1993) demonstrate that although individuals high on self-esteem generally maintain a more favourable view of themselves, it can be more fragile for those, who are more unstable in their self-esteem. Potentially this comes as their self-esteem is largely inflated and artificially built by perceived capabilities and competences, rather than based on actual competences. Therefore, unstable high self-esteem individuals have greater positive feelings towards good feedback, as it enhances the view of themselves positively. However, they reject negative feedback as they perceive it as a threat to their fragile self-view. For them, it is challenging to acknowledge weaknesses, as they contradict with their high perception of themselves. This sometimes provokes defensive and hostile behaviour (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Additionally, Kernis, Granneman& Barclay (1989) mention that especially high

self-esteem individuals are much more responsive to events that threaten their positive but fragile self-views. Furthermore, they are vulnerable to challenge. Moreover, there is also evidence, that instability within high self-esteem people has a higher chance to lead to depression (Kernis, Grannemann, & Mathis, 1991).

On the other hand, instability in lower levels of self-esteem was reported to have less severe consequences regarding their behaviour and actions in comparison to high self-esteem levels. Although low self-esteem individuals generally hold a negative self-view, instability at times can serve as a mean to avoid this. This comes as those low self-esteem individuals try to escape their negative self-feelings, rather than further intensifying those feelings. Thus, they tend to show no reaction to positive feedback, but also fewer defensive actions towards negative feedback. Eventually, they find negative feedback to hold accuracy (Kernis et al., 1993). Moreover, no signs of potential depression were observed within unstable, low self- esteem individuals, but were found amongst high self-esteem ones (Kernis et al., 1991).

Based on these findings, it can be assumed that instability of self-esteem will lead to defensive actions in high self-esteem people since they try to overcompensate insecurities. On the other hand, instability for low self-esteem individuals can be described as avoidance of even more negative self-impression, where insecurities are generally present.

From those empirical findings, it seems that having an unstable self- esteem, especially a high one might be negatively influencing individuals in their feelings and actions. Thereby, the paper will now examine to what extent this might be relevant to job satisfaction, by incorporating the above findings within a theory of job satisfaction.

The role of stability of self-esteem on job satisfaction

Multiple theories in literature have reviewed potential sources of job satisfaction. One theory, which has gained much approval by other scholars was originally introduced by Super (Super, 1953, 1963). He concluded that the crucial factor for job satisfaction is the fit between self-concept and work environment - the perceived self and job and competencies in

correlation with job description (Super, 1953 & 1963). Rosman & Burke (1980) enhanced this line of reasoning, demonstrating that one essential aspect of satisfaction is the fit between

own competencies and the required competencies of the job. Their findings propose, that an ideal fit is not caused by higher self-esteem, but rather how well individuals can implement their self-concept in their job. Thus, fit occurs, if one’s perceived competencies fit those required for the work itself (Rosman & Burke,1980). It was assumed, that low self-esteem individuals are less satisfied, simply based on their occupation. Rosman & Burke (1980) believe this to be a misconception, as they report high self-esteem individuals to perceive themselves as generally more able, which therefore influences their occupational choice. Yet, the occupational choice per se does not result in job satisfaction, as commonly misperceived. Job satisfaction moreover results when necessary competencies for a particular job do fit with the competencies held by an individual. Since those competencies are rooted in a clear self-concept, rather than self- esteem, stability and a clear self-view will be of great advantage for job satisfaction.

As previously identified, self-concept is essentially aligned with the stability of self-esteem rather than with self-esteem itself. One can infer that stability indicates a clear self-concept, and consequently the awareness of one's competences conditionally influencing satisfaction. It can, therefore, be suggested that stable individuals, holding a clear self-concept, will yield more satisfactory results in their overall fulfilment than unstable ones. Hence, the effects of the baseline-level of self-esteem might indeed yield different results than previously

proposed, if one considers the influential role of its stability.

In summary of those findings, we aim to investigate, whether self-esteem indeed influences job satisfaction and/ or if this changes, when the stability of self-esteem is further

incorporated within this relationship.

The first purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between general self-esteem and job satisfaction, which was often reported to be positive. Therefore:

H1) Higher levels of self- esteem will relate to higher levels of job satisfaction. Next, we assume that in the high self-esteem condition, stability will generate stronger satisfaction, as a clear self-concept view achieves a better fit between oneself and work. Satisfaction will be lower for unstable individuals.

Induced by their poorly developed self-concept, those who are more unstable will reasonably experience insufficient fit with their job in general. This can promote further challenges when confronting individuals with potential weaknesses in the work environment, which could provoke defensive behaviour. Therefore:

H2a) Instability within high self-esteem individuals will negatively influence job satisfaction

On the other hand, low self-esteem individuals tend to perceive themselves as less able in general, causing initial lower levels of overall satisfaction. However, stable, low self- esteem individuals might increase job satisfaction due to the proper implementation of their self-concept. As proposed in previous literature, satisfaction can be obtained by the fit between self-concept and integrated competencies with those competencies required for a particular job. Instability, referred to as maintaining an unclear self- concept, will also negatively influence job satisfaction within lower levels of self-esteem, due to an inadequate job fit. On the other hand, instability in lower self-esteem people will doubtfully lead to even more negative views, but moreover, to increased positive views (Kernis et al., 1993). Thus, arising consequences in behaviour and attitudes are thought to be less severe in this condition, since the fall height in self-esteem is less than for those high in self-esteem.

H2b) Instability within low self-esteem levels will show less negative influence on job satisfaction than within higher levels of self-esteem

3. METHODS

3.1. Research Set-up

This study aims to identify whether the relationship between self-esteem and job satisfaction is influenced by the individual self-esteem level. This particular research topic is embedded in a larger field of investigation, examining self-worth and stability at work. This is essentially an overarching topic for a group of students conducting their Bachelor Thesis at the University of Amsterdam.

The study uses a cross-sectional and convenience sampling of an online questionnaire for individual data responses. The survey was assembled and distributed via the online database Qualtrics, by the previously mentioned group of students. The survey was only available in the English language, containing variables relevant to the involved students and their specific research. Consequently, not all of those questions were essential and included in this study.

3.2. Procedure

The participants were expected to be in the working population and currently employed. No restrictions were given regarding the type of contract, tenure time, business sector, or position. The questionnaire was sent out electronically, either by direct mailing or by employing social media channels.

Before participation, individuals were informed about the research goals, additional instructions, required completion time, and briefed about ethical or privacy considerations. The intension was to get about 150 responses to increase the strength of the data. Thus, each student was asked to approach about 50 individuals to receive approximately 30 answers.

3.3. Participants

After completion, the group was able to assemble 138 responses, which indicates an overall response rate of 58.72%. However, a few were largely unfinished - thus excluded. Subsequently, only 126 responses were incorporated into the final data set (See Appendix 1).

The average age of respondents was 36.09 years (SD = 14.23) and ranged from 19 to 69 years. The sample itself had an equal gender distribution, as 51.6% (n= 65) of participants were female and 48.4% (n= 61) were male.

More than half of individuals only obtained a bachelor’s degree, as depicted in Figure 2 below. Interestingly, although about 57.9% had only worked in their current organization for about four years, 51 of them (40.5%) reported holding a supervisory role (See Appendix 2).

Figure 2. Highest Educational Degree

3.4. Measures

The research included scales to test levels of self-esteem and its stability, which have previously been adopted in the literature. Secondly, overall job satisfaction was measured by a commonly used scale.

Self-Esteem was measured by 10 items, developed by Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989). Examples of these items are “I count around here”; “I am important”. These items were rated on a 5-point Likert-Scale (ranging from 1= completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). Cronbach´s alpha was reported to be 0.92 (See Appendix 3.1).

The stability of self-esteem was assessed by the Labile Self-Esteem Scale, including 5 items by Dykman (1998) (ranging from 1= completely disagree to 5 = completely agree). Example

items are "My self-esteem shifts rapidly from feeling good about myself on one day to feeling

bad about myself the next day” or "How I feel about myself stays pretty much the same from day to day" (reverse). Cronbach´s alpha was reported to be 0.87 (See Appendix 3.2).

Job satisfaction was measured by a 7- point Likert-Scale of Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997), ranging from 1= completely disagree to 7= completely agree, by the question How

satisfied are you overall with your job? The items measure an employee’s general perception

of overall satisfaction, without including any specific facets.

Control variables: To rule out alternative explanations, control variables were utilized which are often included and used in research concerning job-satisfaction or self-esteem. This paper incorporates the gender and age of the respondents as an additional control variable. Age was indicated in numbers and measured in years, whereas gender was measured as either male, female, or other. These controls are often examined in psychology literature and job satisfaction and provided significant differences in outcomes (Moksnes & Espnes, 2013).

3.5. Statistical Analysis

All of the following analyses were conducted in SPSS. Hypothesis 1 was tested by means of linear regression, to inspect the baseline relation between self-esteem level and job satisfaction.

To further test whether the stability of self-esteem influences the above relationship, a moderation analysis was administered. Generally, the research expects that self-esteem relates to satisfaction, whereby one’s stability in self-esteem can potentially alter this relation.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Descriptive & Correlations

First and foremost, to gain insights about the data, Table 1 exhibits that, on average individuals were highly satisfied with their jobs (M= 5.31, SD= 1.46). Furthermore, average self-esteem is respectively high with a mean of 4.2 (SD= 0.68) with only minor deviations.

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations. This reveals the general relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The only relation, which was found to be medium, negative, and significant is the one between age and instability of self-esteem (r= -0.305, p < 0.01). This association was initially not expected and implies that with increasing age, instability decreases, and people become more stable in their self-esteem. None of the other expected relations were significant. Consequently, the result will eventually influence further analysis, as the level of self-esteem tends to be unrelated to job satisfaction (r = 0.075, ns). Further consequences could appear for Hypothesis 2a and 2b, as self-esteem and fluctuation within stability show no association (r= 0.164, ns). Despite these findings, further follow-up analysis will test the original assumptions.

Table 1. Descriptive, including mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum

Variable N Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Outcome Variable

Job Satisfaction 126 5.31 1.46 1 7

Predictor Variable

Self Esteem 126 4.2 0.68 1 5

Table 2. Means, standard deviations (SD), and correlations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 1. Satisfaction 5.31 1.46 2. Self-esteem 4.20 0.68 .075 3. Instability 2.47 1.04 -.071 -.164 4. Gender 1.52 0.50 .053 .020 .143 5. Age 36.09 14.23 -.520 .002 -.305** -.173

Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), N=126

4.2. Hypothesis Testing Regression Analysis

Before running a linear regression to test the first Hypothesis whether self-esteem is related to job satisfaction, the assumptions of regression were tested. There was no multicollinearity present, as VIF scores were below 10 (highest VIF = 1.147), and tolerance scores above 0.2 (lowest tolerance score = 0.872). Further, the Durbin-Watson statistics showed that residuals are independent (1.94) (See Appendix 5.1).

Next, the assumption of normality of residuals was not perfectly met, however, did the P-Plot (Figure 3) not show any significant outliers, which still assures the validity of results.

The assumption of homoscedastic has been met, as they were not funneled, which can be seen from the scatterplot in Figure 4.

Lastly, by Cook’s Distance, we did not find any influential or biased cases, as the highest distance was reported to be 0.224, hence no individual influential cases were present (See Appendix 5.1).

Figure 3. Scatterplot

The Relation Between Self-Esteem and Job Satisfaction:

The first Hypothesis of this research assumes that a higher level of self-esteem will lead to a higher level of job satisfaction. Therefore, the following regression was conducted. The first model, which included the control variables age and gender, did not indicate a significant explanation for job satisfaction. The second model, incorporating self-esteem as a predictor indicates an augmentation in R-Square from 0.005(1) to 0.010(2). Therefore, by entering self-esteem as a predictor, the explained variance for the outcome variable increased from 6.9% (1) to 10.1% (2). However, the p-value implies, that the additional predictor will not influence the outcome significantly (p= 0.41).

The ANOVA Table suggests, that the second model is further not significant itself (F= 0.422, p = 0.738). Those result show that the predicting job satisfaction by self-esteem is not significant (b = 0.158, se =.192, n= 126, t = 122, p = .41, 95% CI [-.221; .54]).

The Beta values illustrate the influence of each independent variable on the outcome variable, yet none of them showed a significant impact (See Appendix 5.2).

We will, therefore, reject Hypothesis 1 and conclude that higher levels of self-esteem do not ultimately result in higher levels of job satisfaction.

Influences of Stability of Self-Esteem on the Relation between Self-Esteem and Job Satisfaction:

Hypothesis 2a)

We expect that for individuals with high self-esteem, instability will negatively influence job satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, the PROCESS Model 1 of Hayes (2019) was used. The model controls for age and gender, further mean cantering was conducted.

The results show that overall the model is insignificant, by only explaining 1.79% of variance (p = 0.82). Table 3 shows the generated results, where it becomes evident that the crucial interaction term for the tested hypothesis is statistically insignificant (b = 0.04; se = 0.17; t = 0.24; p =0 .81, 95% CI [-0.30; 0.39]). Further, zero is included in the confidence interval for the interaction term, which is disadvantageous and further supporting insignificant results (See Appendix 6).

Given these results, we reject the proposed hypothesis that instability will cause lower levels of satisfaction within high self-esteem individuals.

Hypothesis 2b)

Since the results of the previous Hypothesis were insignificant, stating that instability does not moderate the relationship between self-esteem and job satisfaction, further analysing conditional effects is meaningless (See Appendix 6).

Therefore, we reject the Hypothesis 2b, that for individuals lower in self-esteem instability will show less negative impact on job satisfaction than for those individuals higher in self-esteem.

Table 3. Linear Model of Predictors of Job Satisfaction

Note. R2_{= 0.0179}

Despite the insignificant findings for the moderation analysis some interesting patterns resolved by the visualization of the conditional effects. It is displayed, that there exists some positive association for satisfaction with augmenting levels of self-esteem. Further the plot visualizes the insignificant interaction term between self-esteem and instability, since all slopes are very similar in their gradients. Although the figure demonstrates that instability, regardless of the self-esteem level, induces smaller satisfaction it must be remembered, that there was not sufficient support for any conclusion.

Moreover, the slopes measuring higher unstable levels (Figure 5 in green) are somewhat steeper, which would indicate that instability can eventually yield more initial influence in satisfaction within lower levels of self-esteem.

b se b t p Constant 5.33 0.59 9.02 .0 [4.15, 6.49] Self-esteem (x) 0.12 0.20 0.63 0.53 [-0.26, 0.51] Instability (w) -0.12 0.14 -0.88 0.38 [-0.39, 0.15] X*W 0.04 0.17 .0.24 0.81 [-0.30, 0.39]

Figure 5. Conditional Effect of Instability on the Relationship between Instability and Job Satisfaction

5. DISCUSSION

Self-esteem was defined as possessing feelings towards oneself, which are either favourable or unfavourable, influencing one's thoughts, moods, or actions (Kernis et al., 1993). Recently, literature has increased awareness, that individuals can fluctuate in their level of self-esteem over time, causing further related changes in behaviour. Although in previous research the continuous dimension of self-esteem was often reported to show significant influence, it was increasingly criticized for omitting additional differences by underestimating the importance of stability (Kernis et al., 1993).

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether self-esteem on its own is coherent with job satisfaction and if it is moderated by instability in self-esteem. Thus, examining whether less the level of general self-esteem but its actual stability provides a stronger indicator. At first, the baseline relation between self-esteem and job satisfaction was probed to whether a higher level of self-esteem is more beneficial. However, the respective results showed no significant correlation.

Hereafter, the more dynamic approach was embodied in Hypothesis 2a and 2b, to capture further within-person differences, based on fluctuating levels of self-esteem. Hypothesis 2a proposed that instability for individuals higher in self-esteem will result in lower levels of satisfaction, as instability weakens the main relation. Hypothesis 2b, which was intended to enhance the previous hypothesis, suggested that the effect of instability on job satisfaction will be less severe for individuals, maintaining lower levels of self-esteem.

Both Hypotheses, 2a, and 2b were disregarded as results were not significant. This signals that self-esteem is not related to job satisfaction and is further not affected by how stable one is in their self-esteem.

On the other hand, a remarkable finding was depicted by correlations since instability was significantly, negatively correlated to age. This indicates that self-esteem becomes more stable over time and with age.

High self-esteem was traditionally reported to be beneficial, substantially implying a better psychological adjustment of individuals in different scenarios and circumstances (Orth et al., 2012). Thereby it could be argued that the insignificant relation between self-esteem and job satisfaction in the present study appeared as job satisfaction is neither representing or linked

either small or no direct impact on job satisfaction, which is in line with the results obtained in this study (Howell, Bellenger& Wilcox, 1987; Greenier, Kernis, Mcnamara, Waschull, Berry, Verlocker & Abend, 1999). However, it was observed that individuals high in self-esteem might excel in managing stress. This was found to consequently and significantly influence job satisfaction, as proposed by Howell et al. (1987). Indeed, Orth et al. (2012) also point out that people lower in self-esteem are less able to cope with stress and suffer from decreased productivity. In summary, those findings suggest that self-esteem and job satisfaction are only related positively when stress is managed well in one's work. Since the study was conducted during a worldwide pandemic, and therefore during a period where the majority of the population was confronted with previously unknown challenges and stressful situations, possibly, even high self-esteem individuals experienced larger difficulties than usual. Thereby current results might be distinct from those suggested by Howell et al. (1987). Lastly, there is also evidence in the literature that satisfaction is indeed not caused by self-esteem itself, but rather by success, and that increases with age (Greenier et al., 1999; Orth et al., 2012).

Yet, this study controlled for age in each analysis, we cannot confirm job satisfaction to strengthen with age. Secondly, work- success was not measured or incorporated in this study but could thereupon be of interest in further examinations.

Additionally, the current paper reports an insignificant relationship between the stability of self-esteem and self-esteem itself, further not affecting job satisfaction. Initially, we assumed that maintaining a clear self-view implies clarity and stability of one’s self-concept, which could result in a better person-organization fit, thus impacting satisfaction. This was not supported by the findings. Although there is increasing attention towards the importance of respecting the influence and impact of stability on self-esteem, Okada (2010) claimed that outcomes have been contradicting. He further mentions, that stability should not be confused with self-concept clarity as they represent different concepts.

Regardless of whether previous observations on the interaction of the stability of self-esteem and general self-esteem were significant, the interaction is perhaps meaningless for job satisfaction (Greenier et al., 1999). The majority of research confirming an interaction between stability and baseline self-esteem concluded it to be crucial for social acceptance or rejection (Greenier et al., 1999). Arguably, job satisfaction is not such a social construct, provoking insignificant outcomes.

Further, Okada (2010) reports that although self-esteem and stability are related, they measure different constructs, thereby they eventually do not interact. Yet, both of them were shown to predict behaviour they might be inadequate for predicting job satisfaction. This could serve as an explanation of the present findings.

Respectively, this paper identified a potential negative relationship between the instability of self-esteem and participant’s age, which indicates that stability becomes more stable and mature when gaining experience but was not further examined in the research. Nevertheless, previous studies concluded self-esteem to become more stable and mature in the course of an increase in age (Meier, Orth, Denissen & Kühnel, 2011). The present sample population was moderately high in age. Based on the previous notion of Meier et al. (2011), it could hence be argued that the current investigated sample consisted of more stable than unstable individuals, whereby we were not able to sufficiently capture differences in levels of stability. This is important as previous research indeed suggested with age, people find greater acceptance and become more stable since they can comparably better admit their strengths and weaknesses – thus show characteristics of stable self-esteem (Meier et al., 2011) and a clear self-concept. Further, it was proposed, that with age humans are less affected by events, which were sometimes reported to induce fluctuations in self-esteem. Eventually, findings proposing that unstable individuals are more vulnerable by events threatening their self-esteem. The effects of those events might decrease with experience and more enhanced confidence. Literature also mentions, that self-concept clarity enhances with age, which was assumed at the beginning of this study to alter differences in satisfaction, but results did not confirm this assumption.

Remarkably, instability was often observed within lower levels of self-esteem (Greenier et al., 1999). In the present sample, we identified only a few, yet less than 10 individuals indicating low levels of self-esteem. Given that, the sample was presumably not sufficient for providing differences in the outcomes.

A further remark is that this paper did control for gender in all of the analysis, as it was suggested to generate differences in outcomes. This was not confirmed in present results, which is in line with Meier et al., (2011), showing that differences in gender do not show an impact on baseline self-esteem or its stability.

5.1. Limitations& Future Research

The measurement of instability by a single administration evokes two potential limitations: First Okada (2010) identified that especially high self-esteem people evaluate their stability to be robust in a one-time measure, thereby questioning if generated results are truly representing reality. Besides, since stability fluctuates over time, a one-time measure does not capture the extensiveness of those fluctuations. Further research could highly benefit from conducting a longitudinal study, to assess and compare those fluctuations over time and prove or disprove their relevance.

The composition of our sample data could also be a limitation for the analysis. The sample might not be a true representative of the population of interest. Since the distribution of the survey was largely within the broader network of the five research students, the investigated sample might not have been varied enough in terms and characteristics regarding instability, such as depression, hostile or aggressive behaviour.

Furthermore, the data was collected in times of COVID- 19, eventually influencing responses and results. Based on the current circumstances, it can be assumed that individuals in the investigated sample were largely in isolation, thereby not stimulated by the regular work-environment, hence a representative judgment could not be assumed.

Furthermore, it might be of importance to measure job satisfaction, not by a general measurement, but rather include different facets of job satisfaction, such as work, payment, co-workers or supervision, which are proposed in the JDI (Job Descriptive Index).

The influence of stability of self-esteem might be observable in specific aspects, rather than being a general influence. Also, research could investigate if there are other aspects, essential for satisfaction, which differ within the general level of self-esteem, stability level - or both.

5.2. Practical Implications

Present findings suggest some practical implications. Job satisfaction within the workforce is a major concern in many businesses but enhancing self-esteem alone might not be a factor determining satisfaction. Nevertheless, it should still be of interest to increase an

individual’s self-esteem for overall well-being and health. Especially in organizations, striving for employee empowerment and individual responsibility, higher levels of self-esteem can foster employees' confidence. A more confident workforce can also result in more efficiency and productivity, which is another benefit of augmenting self-esteem within the organizational context. This could be potentially achieved through seminars and training, provided by the organization for both management and employees. Although this paper did not report any significant influence of instability, it might be meaningful to incorporate the role of stability of self-esteem in the present and future. This could induce a self-reflection process within individuals and raise awareness of potential consequences, thereby causing individuals to strive towards stable levels of self-esteem, to mitigate possible negative effects such as depression or narcissist behaviour.

Since the findings indicate the stability of self-esteem to become more stable with age, those previously mentioned interventions might be especially important for organizations with a young workforce, which could be relevant for many start-ups, often composed of younger people.

6. CONCLUSION

In summary, the present study examined several hypotheses regarding associations between self-esteem, its stability, and job satisfaction. Those hypotheses were based on previous findings and theory, which gave reason to expect that the baseline relation between self-esteem and job satisfaction could be influenced by one’s stability of self-esteem. It was proposed that instability would weaken the relation, especially for those maintaining higher self-esteem.

Yet, the findings of this current study highlight that neither self-esteem per se or by incorporating its stability resolves in changes for satisfaction. Following this, there is also no evidence to assume that stability is identical with a clear self-concept. Nevertheless, even if the results of this study were not significant, it should be of interest to further inspect self-esteem stability, ways to enhance it, and which aspects of life or work-life are more affected by the particular interaction. Also, there might be a reason to assume that results were influenced by some of the presented limitations, such as the sampling method or the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this paper offers some valuable theoretical and practical implications, since self-esteem should be of interest to the individual, but also on an organizational level.

7. REFERENCES

Baumeister, R. L. (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum Press. Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Theory, research, and practice. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Book

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.

Dykman, B. (1998). Integrating Cognitive and Motivational Factors in Depression: Initial Test of a Goal-Orientation Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 139–158.

Greenier, K., Kernis, M., Mcnamara, C., Waschull, S., Berry, A., Herlocker, C., & Abend, T. (1999). Individual Differences in Reactivity to Daily Events: Examining the Roles of Stability and Level of Self‐Esteem. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 187–208.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Howell, R., Bellenger, D., & Wilcox, J. (1987). Role Stress, and Job Satisfaction Among Marketing Managers. Journal of Business Research, 15(1).

Huebner, E. S. (1991). Correlates of life satisfaction in children. Social Psychology Quarterly, 6, 103–111.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 31–41.

Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1, 50–63.

Hormuth, S. (1986). The sampling of experiences “in situ.” Journal of Personality, 54(1). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1296607631/

Kernis, M. (2005). Measuring Self‐Esteem in Context: The Importance of Stability of Self‐ Esteem in Psychological Functioning. Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1569–1605. Kernis, M., Cornell, D., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s More to

Self-Esteem Than Whether It Is High or Low: The Importance of Stability of Self-Self-Esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 1190–1204.

Kernis, M., Greenier, K., Herlocker, C., Whisenhunt, C., & Abend, T. (1997). Self-perceptions of reactions to doing well or poorly: The roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(6), 845–854.

Kernis, M., Grannemann, B., & Barclay, L. (1989). Stability and Level of Self-Esteem as Predictors of Anger Arousal and Hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 1013–1022.

Kernis, M., Grannemann, B., & Mathis, L. (1991). Stability of Self-Esteem as a Moderator of the Relation Between Level of Self-Esteem and Depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 80–84.

Meier, L., Orth, U., Denissen, J., & Kühnel, A. (2011). Age differences in instability, contingency, and level of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 604– 612.

Moksnes, U., & Espnes, G. (2013). Self-esteem and life satisfaction in adolescents-gender and age as potential moderators. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 22(10), 2921–2928

Okada, R. (2010). A meta-analytic review of the relation between esteem level and self-esteem instability. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(2), 243–246.

Orth, U., Robins, R., & Widaman, K. (2012). Life-Span Development of Self-Esteem and Its Effects on Important Life Outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1271–1288.

Pierce, J., & Gardner, D. (2004). Self-Esteem Within the Work and Organizational Context: A Review of the Organization-Based Self-Esteem Literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591–622.

Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Cummings, L., & Dunham, R. (1989). Organization-Based Self-Esteem: Construct Definition, Measurement, and Validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622–648.

Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosman, P., & Burke, R. (1980). Job Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and the Fit between Perceived Self and Job on Valued Competencies. The Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 259–269. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J. & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social

behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 23, pp. 91-159).

Super, D. (1953). A theory of vocational development. American Psychologist, 8(5), 185–190 Super, D. E. (1963). Career development: self-concept theory: Essays in vocational

development. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.

Tharenou, P. (1979). Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15(3), 316–346.

Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Hudy, M. (1997). Overall Job Satisfaction: How Good Are Single- Item Measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.

Wong, A., Vallacher, R., & Nowak, A. (2016). Intrinsic dynamics of state self-esteem: The role of self-concept clarity. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 167–172.

Zeigler‐Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies Between Implicit and Explicit Self‐Esteem: Implications for Narcissism and Self‐Esteem Instability. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 119–144.

8. APPENDECIES

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Appendix 3.1. Reliability Analysis Self- Esteem

Self- Esteem

Appendix 3.2. Reliability Analysis Stability of Self- Esteem

CORRELATIONS

HYPOTHESIS 1- ASSUMPTION & LINEAR REGRESSION

HYPOTHESIS 1: LINEAR REGRESSION

HYPOTHESIS 2a &b: MODERATION BY HAYAS

Appendix 6. Moderation Analysis

Run MATRIX procedure:

************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 3.2.02 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com Documentation available in Hayes (2018).

www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 ******************************************************************** ****** Model : 1 Y : Job_Sati X : SE_mean W : Instabil Covariates: Gender Age Sample Size: 126 ******************************************************************** ****** OUTCOME VARIABLE: Job_Sati Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,1338 ,0179 2,1682 ,4376 5,0000 120,0000 ,8215 Model coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 5,3252 ,5906 9,0169 ,0000 4,1559 6,4945 SE_mean ,1234 ,1958 ,6304 ,5297 -,2642 ,5111 Instabil -,1211 ,1373 -,8819 ,3796 -,3930 ,1508 Int_1 ,0419 ,1749 ,2397 ,8110 -,3044 ,3883 Gender ,1523 ,2681 ,5681 ,5710 -,3785 ,6830 Age -,0067 ,0100 -,6668 ,5062 -,0266 ,0132

Product terms key:

Int_1 : SE_mean x Instabil

Covariance matrix of regression parameter estimates:

constant SE_mean Instabil Int_1 Gender Age constant ,3488 ,0004 -,0094 -,0078 -,1214 -,0041 SE_mean ,0004 ,0383 ,0043 -,0022 -,0019 ,0001 Instabil -,0094 ,0043 ,0189 ,0041 -,0038 ,0004 Int_1 -,0078 -,0022 ,0041 ,0306 -,0013 ,0004 Gender -,1214 -,0019 -,0038 -,0013 ,0719 ,0003 Age -,0041 ,0001 ,0004 ,0004 ,0003 ,0001

Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p X*W ,0005 ,0574 1,0000 120,0000 ,8110 ---

Focal predict: SE_mean (X) Mod var: Instabil (W)

Data for visualizing the conditional effect of the focal predictor: Paste text below into a SPSS syntax window and execute to produce plot.

DATA LIST FREE/

SE_mean Instabil Job_Sati . BEGIN DATA. -,6846 -1,0424 5,3860 ,0000 -1,0424 5,4406 ,6846 -1,0424 5,4952 -,6846 ,0000 5,2299 ,0000 ,0000 5,3144 ,6846 ,0000 5,3989 -,6846 1,0424 5,0737 ,0000 1,0424 5,1882 ,6846 1,0424 5,3026 END DATA. GRAPH/SCATTERPLOT=

SE_mean WITH Job_Sati BY Instabil . *********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95,0000

NOTE: Variables names longer than eight characters can produce incorrect output.

Shorter variable names are recommended. --- END MATRIX ---