Motivating your employees, a tricky business : the influences of the multi-dimensional construct empowerment on intrinsic motivation

Motivating your employees, a tricky business.

(The influences of the multi-dimensional construct empowerment on intrinsic motivation) Jasper Wiercx 10092242 Begeleider: S. Dominguez Martinez Bachelor Thesis Universiteit van Amsterdam Economie en Bedrijfskunde Organisatie Economie 25‐03‐2014 Word count: 8361

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to get better insights in the relationship of the multi-dimensional construct of empowerment with the intrinsic motivation of a worker. The perceived empowerment is determined by its four cognitive dimensions competence, self-determination, meaningfulness and impact. Each individual dimension and their relationships with intrinsic motivation have been analysed by several regressions. Furthermore, possible moderating effects of the dimensions on the relationships have been researched. By means of an online survey and the data of 82 respondents there has been attempted to explain these relationships. The research shows that only the dimension meaningfulness has a positive relationship with intrinsic motivation. All other dimensions did not show a significant relationship. Also, the dimension meaningfulness proved to be the mediator in the relationship of the dimension self-determination and intrinsic motivation. This study helps firms and employers understand several important determinants of motivation better.

Index Abstract………. 2 1. Introduction... 4 2. Literature review………... 5 2.1 Intrinsic motivation... 5 2.2 Empowerment……….. 7 2.3 Hypotheses………... 9 3. Methodology……….. 13 3.1 Method………. 13 3.2 Sample………. 13 3.3 Procedure………. 13 3.4 Conceptualisation……… 14 3.4.1 Empowerment……… 14 3.4.2 Intrinsic motivation……… 15 3.5 Analysis plan……… 15 3.5.1 Regressions……… 15 3.5.2 Moderation analysis………... 16 3.5.3 Mediation analysis……….. 16 4. Results……… 16

4.1 Outliers, heteroskedasticity and multicollinearity……… 16

4.2 Control variables……….. 17

4.3 Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d………... 18

4.4 Hypotheses 3 and 4……….. 20

5. Conclusion and Discussion……….. 22

6. Limitations and recommendations………... 24

1. Introduction

Measuring an employee’s job performance is difficult for the employer; often it is not a simple input - output chain. Job performance of the employee is a very important factor of the employee’s value to the firm. One could say that the value of the worker is high if his job performance is high. However, it is not easy for an employer to enhance the job performance of the worker. In a high variety of organisational

literature there is the opinion that motivation of the worker is a key determinant in the job performance. According to this literature, there are a wide variety of factors that enhances the motivation of the worker (McCullagh, 2005; Porter & Lawler, 1968). But which factor is key in this enhancement?

Various researchers suggest that empowerment is a key component in managerial and organizational effectiveness (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Gagné, Senégal & Koestner, 1997). Empowerment is a multi-dimensional construct that enhances the intrinsic motivation of the worker. Intrinsic motivation is widely seen as the most important form of motivation, simply because it is motivation that is not dependent on other factors than the worker himself (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Utman, 1997). One is motivated because the worker wants to please his inherent satisfaction (van Herpen, Kools & van Praag, 2005). An important notion of empowerment is that it is perceived by the worker itself. It is determined by the four dimensions meaningfulness, competence, self-determination and impact. These dimensions have individualrelationships with intrinsic motivation and relationships with each other (Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009; Gagné et al., 1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zhang & Bartole, 2010).

The purpose of this research is to achieve better insight in the relationship between the multi-dimensional construct empowerment and intrinsic motivation. By means of an online survey the following research question will be answered: In what

way is the multi-dimensional construct empowerment of the worker related to the intrinsic motivation in his job?

A lot of conceptual research in the construct of empowerment has been conducted. However, a lot less of empirical research has been conducted. This thesis is an addition to the existing literature. It seeks to clarify the current existing

contradictions. It is important for firms to optimise the job performance of workers. Therefore, it is important for these firms and its managers to have the correct insights

in what factors should be enhanced in order to achieve this optimisation. This thesis tries to clarify empowerment as one of these factors and its relationship with intrinsic motivation in order to give firms the proper knowledge.

In the remainder of this thesis the following will subsequently be addressed. First, the theoretical funding will be discussed. Second, the methodology of the research will be clarified. Third, by analysing several regression models the results will be examined. Fourth, the conclusion and discussion will be discussed.

2. Literature review

In the next paragraphs the theoretical groundwork of this research will be

systematically explained. First, the concept of intrinsic motivation will be clarified. Second, the construct of empowerment and its four dimensions will be described. In the last paragraph there will be attention for the influences of empowerment on intrinsic motivation. In the last paragraph several hypotheses will be constructed.

2.1Intrinsic motivation

Motivation is the willingness to actually do something, Ryan & Deci (2000) defines it as ‘to be motivated means to be moved to do something’. Research suggests that enhanced motivation promotes learning, performance and enjoyment (McCullagh, 2005). A positive influence of motivation on job performance is suggested by different theories. Porter and Lawler (1968) suggest adjusting the work environment in such a way that experience would lead to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which would lead to better job performance and satisfaction. This improvement can be accomplished by making jobs more interesting or giving larger rewards. Because of this enhanced job performance and satisfaction it is interesting for an employer to know how to motivate your workers.

A theory that suggests that higher motivation enhances the job performance and job satisfaction is the Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). In the SDT there are a lot of different types of motivation. The most basic distinction in these different types is between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic

motivation refers to being externally motivated, mostly by rewarding the employee with an incentivized income of some sort. The motivation to do the task is gained from an externally influenced satisfaction. The employee gets satisfied because of the reward it collects not because of the experience of the task. Intrinsically motivation

worker’s inherent satisfaction (van Herpen et al., 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Utman, 1997).

Utman (1997) concluded, in his meta-analyse, that in different research theories intrinsic motivation is an important form of motivation that enhances the flexible and creative response of workers, which indeed enhances the job

performance. These enhancements, among others, are supported by Thomas and Velthouse (1990). Their research suggest that enhancing intrinsic motivation is something one should precede because behaviour that follows from this specific motivation is not dependent upon supervision or upon rewards. This independence allows employees to work without supervision, but they may also show more flexibility, initiation of tasks, and resiliency to difficulties due to their own task management. These benefits emphasize the importance and the benefits of intrinsic

motivation of the employee.

Extrinsic motivation can actually lead to a decrease of job performance (Ariely, Gneezy, Loewenstein and Mazar, 2009; Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000;

Utman, 1997). Ariely et al. (2009) argue that relatively high monetary incentives can have troublesome effects on performance. In two experiments they concluded that higher monetary incentives enhance performance only when it is kept below a certain optimal level, if the raise in monetary incentives exceeds this level the performance actually declines. This relationship is predicted by the Yerkes-Dawson law which states that there is an optimal level of financial arousal, exceeding this level would have negative effects on the performance. This corresponds with, the widely

researched phenomenon of a decline in performance due to monetary incentives, the crowding out of intrinsic motivation. Crowding out refers to the phenomenon that monetary rewards diminish intrinsic motivation. Gneezy and Rustichini (2000) conducted an experiment in which high-school students collect donations, each randomly assigned group got payments differing in no payment, low payment and high payment. They concluded that students receiving low-payment actually

performed, on average, worse than students receiving no payment. The crowding out of intrinsic motivation is widely accepted as the explanation of this decrease in performance. Students receiving high-payment actually performed, on average, equal to students with no payments. Crowding out also suggests the importance of intrinsic motivation; the decrease in performance follows from a decrease in intrinsic

According to the previous stated benefits and arguments, intrinsic motivation is viewed as a key determinant in the job performance of employees. Therefore this research focuses on the intrinsic motivation.

2.2 Empowerment

The previous paragraph emphasizes the importance of the intrinsic motivation of the worker. An employee can be intrinsically motivated because he enjoys his job. This level of enjoyment is directly deducted from the experience of his job. Empowerment is a term used to describe the on-the-job experiences of individual workers (Gagné et al., 1997). Researchers believe empowerment is of importance because it is seen as a process that increases an employee’s task initiation, persistence and intrinsic

motivation (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). This relationship between empowerment and intrinsic motivation will be explained in the following two paragraphs.

Although different researchers have given empowerment a definition, there does not seem to exist a wide accepted definition of empowerment in the literature. There is one key distinction between the different believes of empowerment. Boren (1994) and Harari (1994) suggest that empowerment follows from a decision of the superior. They believe empowerment is the action of the superior in which he empowers the worker; empowerment is seen as authority delegation. This point of view suggests that empowerment is a product of the superior’s decision; a superior delegates power or authority to the worker. However, imagine a scenario where a superior empowers his worker but the worker does not experience his job as being more empowered. Is the worker empowered or not? Researchers criticize the previous stated point of view of empowerment. They believe another trend in which

empowerment is dependent on the perception of the worker; empowerment follows from the psychological state of a worker (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This point of view allows empowerment to be

subjective per individual. The previous mentioned scenario displays the importance of the perception of the worker especially when taking the individual’s intrinsic

motivation into account, which follows directly from the task experience of the worker. Intrinsic motivation is determined from within the worker, therefore it is important to consider the worker’s own perception of its empowerment. In this research the perception of the employee is of great importance, therefore the latter point of view will be used. The exact definition that will be used in this research is

one designed by Lee and Koh (2001, p. 686): ‘The psychological state of a

subordinate perceiving four dimensions of meaningfulness, competence, self determination, and impact, which is affected by empowering behaviours of the supervisor’.

There is a wide belief that empowerment is a multi-dimensional concept which determines the motivation of the employee (Thomas & Velthouse , 1990; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1996). However there seems to be a lot of discussion about the terminology of empowerment and if empowerment actually differs from similar concepts like authority delegation, self-efficacy, employee ownership, autonomy, self determination, management, control, self-leadership, high-involvement and participative management. Lee & Koh (2001) discussed the conceptual ambiguity of empowerment in their article. The researchers conclude that empowerment is indeed a unique concept, which enables a unique managerial approach for motivating employees.Many researchers and managers believe the only true competitive advantages within an organization are its employees. Therefore it is important how employees react and perceive empowerment, in order to make a clear judgement in which you can use empowerment to give employees the correct incentives (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Lee & Koh, 2001; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Empowerment is a process of psychological attitude displayed by four cognitions namely meaningfulness, competence, self-determination and impact. The dimensions can be related to different assessments of the task (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Several different researchers believe these four cognitions form the basis of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996; Gagné et al. 1997). Spreitzer (1995) showed these four dimensions together reflect the construct of empowerment. In the article it was researched if the items, also used in this article, measure each dimension and that each dimension is their own construct, which supports the discriminant validity. However, they also needed to establish convergent validity, while being distinct each dimension also contributes to an overall construct, empowerment. By using different analyses to test the reliability and validities, Spreitzer (1995) concluded that indeed each

dimension was discriminant valid, and together convergent valid.

Each individual dimension portrays a perceived feeling the employee has on different aspects of his job. Subsequently, the four dimensions will be discussed in more detail. Meaningfulness portrays the feeling how an employee views his task or

job as important, according to his own beliefs, values and behaviours. Competence portrays the feeling how an employee views his ability to complete a task

successfully. Self-determination portrays the feeling how an employee believes he has freedom in determining how he initiates and executes tasks. Impact is the perception of the degree to which an employee can influence the work outcome. Does he believe his work is important for the outcome (Lee & Koh, 2001; Spreitzer, 1995). It is believed that these four cognitions are at the basis of the multi-dimensional construct of empowerment, which enhances the intrinsic motivation (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Gagné et al. 1997; Lee & Koh, 2001; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer, 1996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). It is important to notice that each of these dimensions is subject to the perception of the individual. Therefore, each perceived dimension is of

importance. For example, the dimension meaningfulness captures how important the worker finds his task opposed to how important the task in reality is. The latter is not imporant in this reseach.

2.3 Hypotheses

Several researchers have already made an effort in investigating the effects of empowerment and its different dimensions on intrinsic motivation. This paragraph will compare the conclusions of the available literature in order to determine the relationship between empowerment and intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 1 will make a statement about the construct empowerment. Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d will make a statement about each individual relationship of the dimensions and intrinsic motivation. Hypotheses 3 and 4 will make a statement about possible moderating effects of the dimensions.

In their conceptual study Thomas and Velthouse (1990) investigated a new extensive cognitive model of intrinsic task motivation to describe the empowerment process in individuals. The researchers argued that the four dimensions of

empowerment, which they named task assessments, are ‘presumed to be a proximal cause of intrinsic task motivation and satisfaction’ (p. 678). This quote states that empowerment is a key determinant and stands at the very basis of intrinsic

motivation. This is supported by the empirical research of Zhang and Bartol (2010), although they did not make a distinction between the different dimensions, they hypothesised empowerment to be positively related to intrinsic motivation which it proved to be. This research was conducted by survey in a Chinese technology firm.

However, Zhang and Bartol (2010) proved that the western empowerment theories could successfully be applied to other cultural contexts.

H1: Empowerment is positively related to intrinsic motivation. In the following subsection, the existing literature of the individual

relationships of self-determination and competence with intrinsic motivation will be discussed. Simultaneously, the existing literature of the moderating effects of the dimension self-determination on the relationship between competence and intrinsic motivation will be discussed. At the end of the subsection, three hypotheses will be constructed.

Hypothesis 1 is partly consistent with the literature review of Ryan and Deci (2000). The SDT makes a clear distinction between social and environmental factors that facilitate or undermine intrinsic motivation. Two factors that are central to intrinsic motivation are self-determination and competence. Both the SDT and the multidimensional model of empowerment argue that workers need to experience a sense of self-determination and competence in order to be intrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Niemic & Ryan, 2009). As quoted by Ryan and Deci (2000, p.58), ‘for a high level of intrinsic motivation people must experience satisfaction of the needs both for competence and autonomy’. With autonomy being a synonym for self-determination. However there is one important notion that the SDT also suggests. According to the SDT, competence only enhances intrinsic motivation under conditions of some self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It is logical that competence only enhances intrinsic motivation if the worker is actually allowed to make his own decision in some extend. This is

confirmed by summarizing and analysing existing research on this specific notion of the SDT in a literature review by Ryan and Deci (2000), and again by Niemiec and Ryan (2009).

Markland (1999) performed an empirical study on this subject in which he studied aerobic classes and its female trainees. He concluded that self-determination has a positive moderating effect on the relationship of competence and intrinsic motivation. However, this only proved to be significant when the perceived competence is low, not when perceived competence is high. This conclusion is logical; a trainee exerts more intrinsic motivation in aerobics when her perceived

competence is low if she can determine on her own how she participates in the

classes. Simply, because she does not think of herself good enough in certain imposed tasks and therefore does not enjoy the class, however she will enjoy if she can decide herself how to participate. Determining how she participates is of less importance when the trainee is very competent in aerobics, she will perform well even if somebody else tells her how to participate. He also concluded that the perceived competence has a positive effect on intrinsic motivation without accounting for the self-determination. His research partly contradicts the SDT, mainly on the notion that perceived competence exclusively effects intrinsic motivation when there is some degree of self-determination. However, his research does support the moderating effect of self-determination on this relationship.

Taking these findings of previous research into account, the following research hypothesizes a positive relationship between the dimension self-determination on intrinsic motivation and a positive relationship between the dimension competence on intrinsic motivation. A positive moderating effect of self-determination on the relationship of competence and intrinsic motivation is also expected. The following hypotheses are constructed:

H2a: Competence is positively related with intrinsic motivation

H2b: Self-determination is positively related with intrinsic motivation. H3: Self-determination has a moderating effect on the relationship of

competence and intrinsic motivation.

In the following subsection the importance of the dimension meaningfulness will be discussed. The individual relationship of meaningfulness and intrinsic

motivation and the possible moderating effects of meaningfulness on the relationship of the other dimensions and intrinsic motivation will be addressed. Lastly, two hypotheses will be constructed.

Ryan and Deci (2000) concluded ‘it is critical to remember that intrinsic motivation will occur only for activities that hold intrinsic interest for an individual’. This is a clear quote. A worker might be very competent and autonomous in his task, but he will not be intrinsically motivated if the task does not appeal to him. The dimension of meaningfulness determines such intrinsic interest. At least this relationship is argued in a literature review of Chalofsky and Krishna (2009), they

believe meaningfulness is at the basis of intrinsic motivation. This is supported by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) who argue that a sense of purpose is needed in order to feel intrinsically motivated for a task. This sense of purpose depends highly on the workers own perception and a task needs to be aligned with this perception in order to be perceived meaningful. Chalofsky and Krishna (2009) even argue that

meaningfulness at work is at the very basis of intrinsic motivation. Meaningfulness is essential for being intrinsically motivated. They argue that the worker is intrinsically rewarded when his work is perceived meaningful to himself. This also implies that when his work is perceived meaningful the worker will be more intrinsically motivated. In the empirical research of Gagné et al. (1997), they found a positive effect of meaningfulness on intrinsic motivation.

Taking these findings of previous research into account, this research hypothesizes that the dimension of meaningfulness has a positive effect on the intrinsic motivation. Second, the dimension meaningfulness is a moderator in the individual relationship of each dimension and the intrinsic motivation. The following hypotheses are constructed:

H2c: The dimension meaningfulness is positively related to intrinsic motivation.

H4: The dimension meaningfulness acts as a moderator on each individual relationship of the dimensions and intrinsic motivation.

In the following subsection the dimension impact will be discussed. In the end, the last hypothesis will be constructed; the relationship of the dimension impact and intrinsic motivation.

The dimension impact also determines if the worker believes his task has a sense of purpose. Evidently, a worker does not believe his task is purposeful if he believes his task has no impact at all (Thomas &Velthouse, 1990). Gagné et al. (1997) hypothesized a positive effect of impact on the intrinsic motivation, however they did not find any significant relationship with intrinsic motivation. The following

hypothesis will be denied

3. Methodology

In the following paragraphs the methodology of research will be discussed. First, the method will be clarified. Second, the sample and the procedure will be discussed. Third, the conceptualization of the independent and the dependent variable will be clarified. Finally, the analysis plan will be discussed.

3.1 Method

In this research an online survey has been used. This online survey made the measurement of the relevant variables possible. There has been chosen for this method of research because it has a wide variety of benefits. An online survey is a relative cheap way of gathering information and it measures the respondent in his/her natural habitat (Boeije, Hart & Hox, 2009; Evans & Mathur, 2005). However, a survey is not without costs. The sequence and formulation of the questions can significantly affect the reliability of the answers (Boeije et al., 2009). In the

constructed survey there has been accounted for these possibilities. Survey tiredness is another persistent problem for research that uses surveys. The external validity can be compromised, due to the amount of refusals. However the possibility of a survey to collect a large amount of information in a relative short time interval is a large

benefit, certainly when keeping the time span of this research in mind. Since the benefits outweigh the costs in this specific research there has been chosen for an online survey.

3.2 Sample

For this research a survey was conducted among 94 respondents. These respondents were approached through Facebook and Email. This allowed for a snowball-method in which respondents could share the survey with relatives and friends. There has been chosen for this method of sampling to avoid a possible survey-tiredness and keeping the time-span in mind. Relatives and friends are more likely to participate in the research. Eight of the 94 respondents did not finish the survey. They had to be excluded from the data, giving a total of 86 respondents.

3.3 Procedure

The online survey has been created in the online program Qualtrics. When respondents wanted to participate in the research they had to click the given

hyperlink, which would forward them to the survey. The online survey began with an introduction. The introduction made sure the respondents were properly informed about the participation in the research. After this introduction they had to read a letter of consent, by agreeing they stated to be informed about the nature and method of this research. Next they had to fill in the survey. The entire survey can be found in the Appendix I.

3.4 Conceptualisation 3.4.1 Empowerment

Empowerment is the independent variable in this research. Empowerment was measured with Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item scale manifested in four different

dimensions. Three items measured each dimension. A 7-point Likertscale measured these items. The respondents had to indicate how much they agreed with each statement, with score indicating ‘completely not agree’ and score 7 indicating ‘completely agree’. A factor analysis of the 12 items proved that four components exist, each a dimension.

Three items measured the dimension meaningfulness. These items are (translated in to English): ‘The work I do is important to me’, ‘The work I do is meaningful to me’ and ‘I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities’. The component explained the variance of the items by 21.09%. This component will be used as the new variable of the dimension meaningfulness (M=5.20; SD=1.32). The reliability analysis proved that the variable is reliable (α=0.89).

Three items measured the dimension competence. These items are (translated in English): ‘I am confident about my ability to do my job’, ‘I have mastered the skills necessary for my job’ and ‘I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities’. The factor analysis proved that the component explained the variance of the items by 14.28%. The reliability analysis showed a poor result (α=0.61),

however excluding one of the three items does not improve the α. Therefore the decision of including all the items has been made. This component will be used as the new variable of the dimension competence (M=5.74; SD=0.86).

Three items measured the dimension self-determination. These items are (translated in English): ‘I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job’, ‘I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job’

and ‘I can decide on my own how to go about doing my job’. The factor analysis proved that the component explained the variance of the items by 19.30%. The reliability analysis proved that the variable is reliable (α=0.82). This component will be used as the new variable of the dimension self-determination (M=4.72; SD=1.46).

Three items measured the dimension impact. These items are (translated in English): ‘My impact in what happens in my department is large’, ‘I have significant influence over what happens in my department’ and ‘I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department’. The factor analysis proved that the component explained the variance of the items by 18.78%. The reliability analysis proved that the variable is reliable (α=0.81). The aforementioned component will be used as the new variable of the dimension impact (M=3.98; SD=1.45).

3.4.2 Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation is the dependent variable in this research. Intrinsic motivation was measured with van Herpen et al. (2005) 6-item scale. A 7-point Likertscale measured these items. The respondents had to indicate how much they agreed with each statement, with score indicating ‘completely not agree’ and score 7 indicating ‘completely agree’. Examples of these items are (translated in English): ‘My job is worth the effort’ and ‘I get much satisfaction of the work I do’. A factor analysis proved that one component explained the variance of the items by 63,13%%. This component will be used as the new variable of intrinsic motivation. (M=5.27;

SD=0.96).

3.5 Analysis plan 3.5.1 Regressions

After the different scales have been constructed for each variable, multiple regressions will be used in order to answer the research question.

Several regression analyses have been performed with dependent variable intrinsic motivation and independent variable empowerment. First, start with

regressions where each dimension is included separately. Second, analyse regressions with interaction terms in order to detect possible moderation. Third, analyse the multi-dimensional construct of empowerment in a regression with all four dimensions included, possible mediator roles between the dimensions can be analysed.

3.5.2 Moderation analysis

In order to make a statement about hypothesis 3 and 4 several moderation analyses need to be computed. A moderation analysis tests if the relationship between independent variable A and dependent variable B depends on the influences of independent variable C, the moderator. In order to compute this analysis both the moderator and the independent variable need to be standardised and variable D needs to be constructed, the interaction variable. Variable D is constructed by multiplying the standardized variables of both independent variables, A and C. Adding variable D and both standardised variables as independent variables and the dependent variable in a multiple regression, the effect of the moderator can be analysed. If the interaction variable D is significant, it seems that variable C acts as a moderator. However, moderation is only possible if the initial relationship between the variable A and B is significant.

3.5.3 Mediation analysis.

A mediation analysis indicates if a relationship between two variables is actually caused by a third variable, the mediator. Mediation is only possible if all three variables are related with each other. Sequentially, each individual relationship is analysed by regressions. Finally, a multiple regression will be analysed in order to determine the existence of a mediator. If the relationship between the initial two variables disappears when controlling with the third variable, it seems that the initial relationship is mediated by the third variable.

4.Results

In this chapter the results will be discussed in detail. First, the tests for outliers, heteroskedasticity and multicollinearity will be discussed. Second, the control variables will be examined. Third, the different hypotheses of each individual dimension on intrinsic motivation will be examined. Fourth, the influences of the different moderators on the relationships will be discussed. During this chapter the results will indicate if the hypotheses are verified or rejected. For a clear view of the results several tables have been included.

Before the different regressions were composed several outliers needed to be excluded from the data. Examining the standardised values of the four dimensions and the intrinsic motivation retrieved these outliers. After analysing the dataset itself, the respondents clearly did not pay attention when they made the survey as they did not account for the rescaling, what had been implemented to detect these sort of

responses. It seemed that 4 of the 86 cases, 4.65 %, needed to be excluded from the analysis.

The dimensions seemed to be linear and normally distributed when analysing the scatterplots and histograms of each dimension separately. This indicates

homoscedasticity. However, this is no statistically evidence. In order to compute such a statistical test a macro that allows the Koenker test for heteroskedasticity needs to be downloaded of the Internet, this test is not included in the original version of SPSS. Marta Garcia-Granero has developed this macro and the web link is included in the bibliography ([Macro Koenker test], n.d). The Koenker test explicitly allows to test for hetereoskedasticity when the sample is small. The sample size of this thesis is small (n=84). According to the Koenker test there is no indication of

heteroskedasticity, χ²=3.301, p=.553. Therefore, no adjustments of the standard errors or a robustness analyses is needed.

Neither of the dimensions show signs of any form of multicollinearity. The variables were tested on this subject by analysing the variance inflation factors (VIF), if a variable scores a VIF above 5 it is associated with multicollinearity. All variables scored very low on this test, no multicollinearity has been detected.

4.2 Control variables

In total 55 male and 27 female respondents participated in this research. The ages varied between 19 to 62 (M=23.90; SD=5.887). The average degree of education for non-student respondents is high (M=2.86; SD=0.961) on a scale of low to high, representing high vocational education and university. The education level of students is quite high, 22 respondents study at HBO level and 46 respondents study at WO level (Md = WO; SD=0.467). 50 respondents indicated to have a part-time job, 12 respondents indicated to have a full-time job and 20 respondents indicated to have an internship. A predominance of part-time jobs can be expected taking the distribution of students and non-students into account.

Table 4.1: Control variables. N M SD Md Age 82 23.90 5.887 - EDU student MBO: ₀ - .467 WO HBO: ₂₂ WO: ₄₆ EDU non-student Low ₁ 2.86 .530 - Medium ₀ High ₁₃ Job-type Part ₅₀ - - Part-time job Full ₁₂ Intern ₂₀ Study related job Yes No 45 37 .501 Yes

M is the mean, SD is the standard deviation and Md is de median. MBO is the Dutch term for

intermediate vocational education, HBO is the Dutch term for higher vocational education and WO is the Dutch term for university. Low includes primary education, lower general secondary education and intermediate vocational education. Medium includes higher general secondary education and pre-university education. High includes higher vocational education and pre-university.

4.3 Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d

The previously stated hypotheses (2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) are going to be analysed with a single regression model and a multiple regression model. In each regression one dimension is the independent variable and the intrinsic motivation is the dependent variable. In the multiple regressions several control variables are added in the regression. However, table 4.2 indicates the control variables ‘age’, ‘male’, ‘dummyjob1’ and ‘dummyjob2’ do not play a role of significance in the multiple regressions. All relationships did not prove to be significant. Only the variable ‘study related job’ seemed to be significant. Dummy variable ‘male’ takes value 1 if male and 0 if female. DummyJob1 scores value 1 if full-time job otherwise 0, Dummyjob2 scores value 1 if internship otherwise 0, the baseline is part-time job. There has been chosen for this baseline because an internship tends to have the least favourable monetary reward and therefore mostly dependent on intrinsic motivation. This is also

the reason why it is dummyjob2. The hypotheses will be discussed in alphabetical sequence. All results are included in table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Dimensions competence, self-determination, meaningfulness, impact.

Dependent variable: Intrinsic motivation

Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dim competence .105 (.124) p=.399 .134 (.123) p=.280 .101 (.109) p=.359 Dim_Self-deter .158* (0.071) p=.028 .196** (0.071) p=.007 .104 (.069) p=.138 Dim_meaning .435** (.065) p<.001 .442** (.079) p<.001 .421** (.083) p<0.001 Dim_impact -.009 (.074) p=.905 .013 (.078) p=.869 -.120 (.071) p=.094 Age -.006 (.018) p=.443 -.014 (.017) p=.426 -.021 (.015) p=.174 -.009 (.019) p=.634 -.017 (.016) p=.280 Male -.171 (.221) p=.746 -.402 (.225) p=.077 -.327 (.188) p=.086 -.188 (.231) p=.418 -.327 (.202) p=.109 DummyJob1 -.053 (.318) p=.869 .009 (.305) p=.977 -.149 (.269) p=.582 .157 (.309) p=.613 -.074 (.269) p=.784 DummyJob2 -.301 (.294) p=.310 -.391 (.274) p=.158 -.443 (.242) p=.071 -.396 (.291) p=.178 -.429 (.246) p=.086 Study related job .895** (.252) p=.001 .910** (.242) p<.001 .339 (.235) p=.153 .895** (.255) p=.001 .357 (.236) p=.135 Intercept 4.665 4.521 3.010 5.303 4.532 4.551 3.696 5.337 3.047 R2 .094 .059 .359 .000 .173 .239 .418 .160 .449

These regressions were estimated using the data collected by the survey in Appendix 1. Standard errors are given in the parentheses under the coefficients.The individual coefficient is statistically significant when indicated by a * (5%) and ** (1%). Dummyjob1 is full-time job, Dummyjob2 is internship, the baseline is part-time job. Male is dummy variable with value 1 when male.

From regression model 1 it follows that the relationship between the independent variable dimension competence and the dependent variable intrinsic motivation is positive (b=.105), but not significant (p=.399). Likewise, in multiple regression model 5 the relationship between competence and intrinsic motivation is not

significant (p=.280). It seems that the dimension competence is not positively related to intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 2a is rejected.

From regression model 2 it follows that the relationship between independent variable self-determination and the dependent variable intrinsic motivation is positive (b=.158; p=.028). Likewise, in multiple regression model 6 the relationship between self-determination and intrinsic motivation is positive (b=.196; p=.007). Hypothesis 2b is not rejected. Single regression model 2 indicates a weak positive relationship, 5.9% of the variance of the intrinsic motivation seems to be predicted by self-determination (R2=.059).

From regression model 3 it follows that the relationship between independent variable meaningfulness and the dependent variable intrinsic motivation is positive (b=.435; p<.001). Likewise, in multiple regression model 7 the relationship between meaningfulness and intrinsic motivation is positive (b=.442; p<.001). Hypothesis 2c is not rejected. In multiple regression model 7 the control variable ‘study-related job’ becomes not significant when controlling for meaningfulness, when comparing with the other multiple regressions (5, 6, 8). Single regression model 3 indicates a positive relationship, 35.9% of the variance of intrinsic motivation seems to be predicted by meaningfulness (R2 _{= .359).}

From regression model 4 it follows that the relationship between the independent variable impact and the dependent variable intrinsic motivation is negative (b=-.009), but not significant (p=.905). Likewise, in multiple regression model 8 the relationship between impact and intrinsic motivation is not significant (p=.869). Hypothesis 2d is rejected.

4.4 Hypotheses 3 and 4

First, the moderating effect of self-determination on the relationship of competence and intrinsic motivation will be tested (hypothesis 3). From regression model 13 it follows that the coefficient of the interaction between self-determination and competence is negative (b=-.115), but not significantly different from zero (p=.472). This means the moderator self-determination has no effect on the

relationship of competence and intrinsic motivation. This, of course, can be expected when the previous regression indicated that the dimension competence has no

relationship with intrinsic motivation. The importance of this relationship is indicated in paragraph 3.5.2. Hypothesis 3 is rejected.

Table 4.3: Moderation analyses

Dependent variable: Intrinsic motivation

Model 10 11*** 12*** 13*** Mean .559** (.102) p<.001 .627** (.113) p<.001 .635** (.118) p<.001 Zselfdeter .134 (.102) p=.192 0.322* (0.121) p=0.010 Zcomp .098 (.131) p=.458 0.072 (0.152) p=.639 Zimpact -.119 (.100) p=.239 Zmean X Zself -.176 (.110) p=.114 Zmean X Zcomp -.025 (.126) p=.846 Zmean X Zimp .096 (.114) p=.403 Zself X Zcomp -0.115 (0.158) p=0.472 These regressions were estimated using the data collected by the survey in Appendix 1. Standard errors are given in the parentheses under the coefficients. The individual coefficient is statistically significant when indicated by a * (5%) and ** (1%) using a two-sided test. Models indicated with *** did not fulfil the conditions that are needed to do a moderation analysis (as stated in paragraph 3.5.2). Z indicates that the variables are standardised.

(hypothesis 4). From regression model 11 it follows that the coefficient of the interaction between meaningfulness and competence is negative (b=.025), but not significantly different from zero (p=.846). Likewise, from regression model 12 it follows that the coefficient of the interaction between meaningfulness and impact is positive (b=.096), but not significantly different from zero (p=.403). Again, as in hypothesis 3, these results were expected when keeping the results of the previous regressions in mind. In both situations no relationship between the dimension

competence or impact and intrinsic motivation was found. However, such relationship does exist between self-determination and intrinsic motivation, therefore a moderation analysis of the dimension meaningfulness on the relationship of self-determination and intrinsic motivation is interesting. From regression model 10 it follows that the coefficient of the interaction between meaningfulness and intrinsic motivation is negative (b=-.176), but not significantly different from zero (p=.192). Therefore, hypothesis 4 is rejected.

Comparing model 6 and 9 indicates another explanatory effect of the dimension meaningfulness on the relationship of self-determination and intrinsic motivation. It indicates that meaningfulness acts as a mediator in this relationship. In model 6 self-determination is significant, b=.196, p=.007, when controlled for meaningfulness in model 9 this relationship disappears, b=.104, p=.138. As you can see in table 4.2, the effect of the control variable ‘study related job’ is also mediated by the dimension meaningfulness. Both in model 7 and 9 the regression coefficient of the variable ‘study related job’ is not significant, while being significant in all the other regressions.

5. Conclusion and discussion

The effects of the perceived empowerment of the worker on his intrinsic motivation are researched in this thesis. This has been analysed by examining the four cognitive dimensions of the construct empowerment. The inter-dimensional effects within the construct of empowerment are analysed as well. The results are analysed with the data of 82 respondents. These respondents participated in an online survey that retrieved characteristics and data about the key variables. The research question in this thesis is: In what way is the multi-dimensional construct empowerment of the worker related to the intrinsic motivation in his job? This research question is answered by verifying several hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 concerns the relationship of empowerment and

intrinsic motivation. Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d concern the relationships of each individual dimension on intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 3 concerns the possible moderating effects of the dimension self-determination on the relationship between the dimension competence and intrinsic motivation. Hypothesis 4 concerns the possible moderating effects of the dimension meaningfulness on the relationship between each dimension and the intrinsic motivation.

Several individual effects of the dimensions on intrinsic motivation did not correspond with previous research. The dimensions impact and competence did not prove to have a relationship with intrinsic motivation. This result of the dimension impact corresponds with the results of the previous paper of Gagné et al. (1997). However, it denies the statement that the dimension impact is part of the need of purpose explained by Thomas and Velthouse (1990).

This research showed that competence is not positively related to intrinsic motivation. This contradicts the results of Markland (1999) and the statements of Thomas and Velthouse (1990). Hypothesis 2a is rejected. However, this seems to correspond with the SDT that predicted that the dimension self-determination is an essential moderating effect on the influences of competence on intrinsic motivation. However, this research does not prove this prediction. Self-determination does not seem to have a moderating effect on the relationship between the dimension

competence and intrinsic motivation. This contradicts with the SDT and the research paper of Niemic and Ryan (2009).

The dimension meaningfulness is positively related with the intrinsic

motivation of the worker. This corresponds with the results of Thomas and Velthouse (1990) and Chalofsky and Krishna (2009). If a worker portrays his task as aligned with his own views and beliefs his intrinsic motivation in performing this task will be higher. Both earlier mentioned articles also believe that the dimension meaningfulness is an essential dimension in the construct of empowerment. Because both the

dimensions impact and competence did not prove to be significant, they could not be analysed for the moderating role of the dimension meaningfulness.

This research showed that the dimension self-determination is indeed positively related to the intrinsic motivation of the worker. This corresponds with the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the research of Niemic and Ryan (2009). However, the relationship of self-determination and intrinsic motivation proved to be mediated by the dimension meaningfulness. Although it is not the hypothesized

moderating effect, this result also shows the essential role of meaningfulness on the relationship of determination and intrinsic motivation. The dimension self-determination enhances the dimension meaningfulness, which in turn enhances the intrinsic motivation. It seems that when a worker perceives himself to have more freedom in his tasks, he perceives his task as more meaningful and therefore his intrinsic motivation enhances.

Also it seems that the dimension meaningfulness mediates the relationship of ‘study related job’ and intrinsic motivation. This mediation is interesting because it shows that students with a study related job are more intrinsically motivated. It seems that when a worker has a study related job, he perceives his job as more meaningful and therefore his intrinsic motivation enhances. Of course this is logical, if we presume that a worker chose a study which he perceived as interesting and meaningful, there is a significant chance that he perceives a study related job as meaningful as well.

This research has shown that the intrinsic motivation is positively related with the perceived empowerment of the worker. Simply, because the dimension

meaningfulness is positively related to intrinsic motivation and the dimension meaningfulness is a part of the empowerment. This corresponds with the predictions and hypothesis 1 is verified. This corresponds with the previous papers of Thomas and Velthouse (1990) and Zhang and Bartole (2010), they also suggested enhanced intrinsic motivation when empowerment of the worker is perceived higher.

6. Limitations and recommendations

This thesis was of scientific interest, because it gives insight in the possible influences of empowerment of the worker. Employers have the difficult task to motivate their employees in order to get better job performance. But what is a good way to motivate these workers? In this thesis employers are given better insights in the enhancing factors of empowerment on the intrinsic motivation of the worker. Hopefully this thesis helps clarify the empirical disagreement in the existing literature. This research confirms the importance of the multi-dimensional construct of empowerment on intrinsic motivation. However, this thesis is not without flaws. In the following paragraph some important restrictions are enumerated.

The first most important restriction in this thesis is the design of the research. In this research it is decided to measure the different variables by a simple

online survey. It would have been more ideal to construct different conditions in an experiment in which the respondents would be randomly selected. In such an experiment, you could analyse the differences between the conditions and it would become transparent which dimension actually matters. Because it is an experiment you can exclude certain factors of influencing the results. Perhaps a hypothesized game could be developed in which participants are given altered tasks with different levels of the perceived dimensions and analyse the differences in intrinsic motivation. This allows you to make conclusions about the causality of empowerment on intrinsic motivation, which is something this research lacks. However, because of the difficulty and the time needed to portray real life perceived feelings in such an experiment it was impossible to conduct it in this timeframe.

This leads us to the second restriction, which is the time span of the research. This thesis has been executed in a relative short time. A full research requires significantly more months of research. More time to research would mean a larger sample and perhaps more detailed results. With more time more variables could have been analysed which might influence the sole effects of the dimensions on the intrinsic motivation.

A third restriction is the fact that most of the respondents were students. Although there were no important differences found between the different job types, one would expect a lot of differences between people who are in a different stage in their career. A student who has a job just in order to pay rent might be less

intrinsically motivated than someone who does a job because he likes it. This is partly explained by the relationship between study related job and meaningfulness. In the end, one would expect that a student is more motivated for its study or study related job than for a part-time job that is not study related. Simply, because he finds the field of the study or job interesting and meaningful hence that is probably the reason why he studied that specific field. However, there still might be significant differences between the working class and students. Although, there has been accounted for these differences there were significantly more students than full-time workers. The small sample of full-time workers (n = 12) might not have given an accurate result for that group of people.

A fourth restriction is the variable intrinsic motivation itself. In what way can an employer increase the intrinsic motivation of the worker? Is this even possible? Or is the intrinsic motivation something that cannot be altered, simply because it is

determined from within the worker. This might be interesting to research, perhaps by analysing possible differences in the intrinsic motivation when certain dimensions of empowerment are enhanced in a longitudinal research.

A fifth restriction is the reliability of the dimension competence. The

cronbach’s alpha of competence is quite low. Therefore, one can doubt the reliability of the responses. This might have given incorrect results in the regressions. A more reliable dimension of competence might even have given different results.

Another restriction is the education level of most respondents. This does not portray an accurate view of the working class in the society. Therefore this research cannot generalize its results among the entire population. Besides higher educated people might react differently to empowerment than lower educated people. Most respondents were students as well; this again does not portray an accurate view of the working class. This research can primarily generalize to the student population; there are simply not enough non-student respondents (n=12) to make a scientific statement of the working class.

The possibility of biasedness among economic, business and psychology students has not been accounted for in this thesis and is therefore another restriction. Respondents, who study economics, business or psychology might have biased foreknowledge about empowerment and intrinsic motivation and thereby give distorted results. This could possibly challenge the validity of the research.

The last restriction is possible influences of monetary rewards. It might be interesting to control for monetary rewards. By analysing the results of the dummyjob variables an explanation for the results might be monetary rewards. The regression coefficients of dummyjob2 are all weak / moderate negative, whilst the regression coefficient of dummyjob1 are weak / very weak positive and negative. Dummyjob2 portrays an internship and internships have relatively low monetary rewards per hour compared to full-time or part-time jobs. There might be an interaction between monetary rewards and intrinsic motivation. Monetary rewards are part of the extrinsic motivation, therefore it might be wise to control for monetary / extrinsically rewards in order to make sure they do not influence the results.

In future research it would be interesting to engage in an experiment in order to control different conditions for each dimension. This, however, will be very time consuming and difficult, mainly due to the difficulty to implement certain levels of the perceived dimension because it is very dependent on the individual. The

experiment would allow analysing differences in the perception of the dimensions and what the causal effects on the intrinsic motivation are. Hopefully, such an experiment allows for causal statements about the effects of empowerment on intrinsic

7. Bibliography.

Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 451-469.

Boeije, H., ‘t Hart, H. & Hox, J. (red.). (2009). Onderzoeksmethoden (8e druk). Amsterdam: Boom Lemma.

Boren, R. (1994) ‘Don’t Delegate – Empower’, Supervisory Management 39(10): 10.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of management review, 13(3), 471-482.

Chalofsky, N., & Krishna, V. (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation.Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 11(2), 189-203.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet

Research, 15(2), 195-219.

Gagné, M., Senécal, C. B., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal Job Characteristics, Feelings of Empowerment, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Multidimensional Model1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(14), 1222-1240.

Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don't pay at all. The Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791-810.

Harari, O. (1994) ‘Stop Empowering Your People’, Small Business Reports, 19(3): 53–5.

Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept?. International

journal of human resource management, 12(4), 684-695.

[Macro Koenker test]. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.spsstools.net/Syntax/RegressionRepeatedMeasure/Breusch-PaganAndKoenkerTest.txt

Markland, D. (1999). Self-determination moderates the effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation in an exercise setting. Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 21(4), 351-361.

McCullagh, P. (2005). Sport and exercise psychology lecture. Cal State University

East Bay, 10, 27.

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and

Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American

psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 601-629.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management

review, 15(4), 666-681.

Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170-182.

Van Herpen, M., Van Praag, M., & Cools, K. (2005). The effects of performance measurement and compensation on motivation: An empirical study. De

Economist, 153(3), 303-329.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128

Appendix I: Survey

Amsterdam,

Geachte heer, mevrouw,

U bent uitgenodigd deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd voor mijn Bachelor Scriptie aan de faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde (FEB), onderdeel van de Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Het onderzoek waarvoor wij uw medewerking hebben gevraagd, is getiteld Baan. Doel van deze scriptie is om inzicht te krijgen in effecten van het delegeren van macht.

Tijdens dit onderzoek zullen wij u verschillende vragen stellen. Het onderzoek duurt maximaal 10 minuten.

Wanneer u dit onderzoek vervolgt garandeer ik u dat:

1. Uw anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat uw antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden zullen worden verstrekt, tenzij u hiervoor van tevoren uitdrukkelijk toestemming hebt verleend.

2. U zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of uw deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken.

3. Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico's of ongemakken voor u met zich meebrengt, geen moedwillige misleiding plaatsvindt, en u niet met expliciet aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden geconfronteerd.

Voor meer informatie over dit onderzoek en de uitnodiging tot deelname kunt u te allen tijde contact opnemen met de projectleider J.P. Wiercx; jasperwiercx@hotmail.com

Ik hoop u hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en dank u bij voorbaat hartelijk voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek dat voor mij van grote waarde is.

Met vriendelijk groet, J. Wiercx

Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mijn duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in de uitnodigingsmail voor dit onderzoek.

Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het onderzoek.

Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten gebruikt worden in wetenschappelijk publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming. Als ik meer informatie wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot J.P. Wiercx

(jasperwiercx@hotmail.com).

Wanneer u wil meewerken aan dit onderzoek moet u akkoord gaan met de volgende stelling: o Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek.

Wat voor baan heeft u? o Parttime baan o Full‐time baan o Stage Sluit uw baan aan bij hetgeen waarvoor u gestudeerd heeft? o Ja o Nee Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: Het werk wat ik doe is belangrijk voor mij. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens De verschillende functies die ik beoefen tijdens mijn baan betekenen veel voor mij. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Het werk dat ik tijdens mijn baan verricht betekent niet veel voor mij. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat capaciteiten goed genoeg zijn om mijn baan te verrichten. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Ik ben niet zelfverzekerd over mijn mogelijkheden om werkzaamheden uit te voeren in mijn baan. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Ik heb de benodigde vaardigheden van mijn baan onder de knie. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: Mijn invloed op de gebeurtenissen in mijn afdeling is groot. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Ik heb niet veel controle over de gebeurtenissen in mijn afdeling. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Ik heb aanzienlijke invloed in de gebeurtenissen in mijn afdeling. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen: Ik haal veel voldoening uit mijn werk. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens

Mijn baan is de moeite waard. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Ik ben zeer tevreden met mijn baan. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Ik moet mijzelf vaak dwingen om naar werk te gaan. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Over het algemeen ben ik vrij enthousiast over mijn baan. Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Terwijl ik aan het werk ben heb ik vaak het gevoel dat de dag nooit zal gaan eindigen Zeer mee oneens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zeer mee eens Wat is uw geslacht? o Man o Vrouw Wat is uw leeftijd?  ……….. Bent u een student? o Ja o Nee Alleen wanneer wel student: Wat is uw opleidingsniveau? o Middelbaaronderwijs o HBO o WO Wat studeert u? ……….. Alleen wanneer geen student: Wat is uw hoogs genoten opleiding? o Lager onderwijs o Mavo o Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs o Havo, Mulo o VWO (atheneum, hbs, gymnasium) o HBO o WO o Anders Wat heeft u gestudeerd? ………..

Dit is het einde van het onderzoek. Dank u wel voor uw medewerking! ‐