GETTING THEM TO JOIN
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPMENT AMONG EMPLOYEES IN SOCIAL WORK PROVISION
Master’s Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
August 5, 2011 Geert Beerens Student number: 1586122 Schuitendiep 70 A 9711 RG Groningen + 31 (0) 6 30 39 44 43 g.beerens@student.rug.nl
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
In Dutch social work provision, the issue of getting employees involved in developmental activities has been on the agenda for some time. Organizations responsible for social work provision offer accompanied jobs to those that have difficulties working in regular circumstances or need a stepping stone towards regular employment. Over the last few years, focus in the field has shifted from mere provision of labor towards development of individuals (Lankhuijzen & Graafsma, 2008). Encouraging employees to make full use of their possibilities and striving for outflow to regular jobs has now become core policy. With this, a national trend was followed: changes in Dutch organizational life and employment culture, such as the need for flexibility and employability, led to different views on the development of the working population. Phrases like continuous development and lifelong learning have become widespread. For example, for 2010, Dutch government set the goal that at least
20% of adults aged 25to64would betaking partineducational ortraining activities (Ministerie van
OCW, 2003). The flexibility issues of the rapidly changing economy apply principally to high-educated workers, but low-educated workers are also more and more encouraged to keep involved in self-developmental activities during the course of their careers (Keijzer, Oomens & Hazelzet, 2009). Yet, societal shifts seem not sufficient to change what happens in lower aggregation contexts, such as organizations. Indeed, development participation among low-educated employees has even been shown to decrease in recent years (Hazelzet, Oomens & Keijzer, 2009).
In social work provision, recent participation figures have led managements to wonder about the intentions of their workforces with regard to engaging in training opportunities. Numerous voluntary developmental programs are offered that are rated as very useful with regard to outflow, but employee interest for these activities has been much lower than expected. Their intention to participate appears to vary widely: some have a strong motivation to join in, others seem to be not interested at all. Especially now outflow has become an urgent topic due to government cuts, managers want to anticipate. In order to do this, it is necessary to understand which people ponder to participate, for what reasons, to what extent and what steps, if any, can be taken to increase participation intention among employees. This matter is all the more poignant, as most studies on this topic were performed among high-educated employees, often even at managerial level. Few researchers have looked into educational background, other than that low-educated employees are less inclined to set self-developmental goals and engage in development opportunities (Birdi, Allan & Warr, 1997; Lankhuijsen & Graafsma, 2008). In social work provision, individuals have a mental, psychic and/or physical impairment. Not all have lower cognitive abilities, but the generally low level of education distinguishes these employees profoundly from individuals under scrutiny in many other studies. There is a need to discover whether the conclusions from these sources apply to this situation in the same way or not.
the individual itself. So, the decision to take part is (and will remain) voluntary. In that case, participation intention is a strong predictor of actual participation (Hurtz & Williams, 2009; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Second, the presence of the will to take part within participating individuals is fundamental for a successful outcome of the development activity (Baldwin, Magjuka & Loher, 1991; Ryman & Biesner, 1975; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Indeed, being motivated is one of the key principles behind adult learning (Cross, 2001; Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 2007). This effect even goes beyond the impact of cognitive ability and educational background, two factors that play a major role in the particular case of social work provision employees.
So, the question how this participation intention is brought about in low-educated individuals forms the centerpiece of this study. This is a matter from the realm of behavioral science. In his theory of planned behavior, Ajzen (1985) reasoned it is the result from intention, which in turn is mainly a product of an individual’s beliefs about and attitudes towards the behavior. To answer how this process works in the case of intention to participate in development activity, two questions need to be addressed: first, what beliefs and attitudes influence this intention? and second, what factors determine these beliefs and attitudes? For each of these questions respectively, the following frameworks serve as the fundaments to our theoretical model.
Regarding the first question, the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) serves as the framework that underpins our primary assumption. Beliefs about the ability to perform the behavior (in this case represented by development self-efficacy) and attitudes regarding the value of the behavior (represented by the perceived value of the development activity) together form a motivational component that induces the intention to participate (Noe, 1986).
support (or lack of support) that people around the individual provide (Hurtz & Williams, 2009). In this study, this is represented by supervisor support, coworker support and home support for participation. Informational influences (“the way things are”) are cues from the environment that are not perceived as values but as truth; in this study they are represented by information that individuals get about the development activity. Figure 1 shows the conceptual model and its hypothesized relationships of how individual and situational antecedents influence participation intention through the concepts derived from the expectancy theory.
The aim of this research is to answer the question how the intention to participate in development activity within low-educated individuals in a social work facility is brought about by factors within and outside the individual through development self-efficacy and perceived value, and whether that intention is influenced more strongly by individual or situational factors. In order to do this, a model is proposed and tested. From here on, first the theory of how the intention to participate in development activity is determined will be explored in further detail. Quantitative data were gathered at a social employment facility to test the model. Method and findings will then be presented and a discussion interpreting the results will conclude the report.
FIGURE 1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Development activity and participation intention
It is helpful to first shed more light on some of the concepts that are employed. Development activity is an organized set of educational actions aimed at improving the recipient’s performance or to help him or her attain a certain level of knowledge or skill. This definition excludes circumstantial learning at the workplace, but comes down to trainings, courses and other educational programs. The intention to take part consists of three elements. First, any intention is partly formed by how much anyone wants to do something. Second, people are not only guided by what they want, but also by what they think is right. Third, the prediction of the individual what will actually happen is an often used conceptualization of intention. Hurtz and Williams (2009) propose a view of intention that incorporates these three dimensions and capture it comprehensibly in the sentiments “I want, I should and I will.” Participation intention is thus defined as the desire, felt responsibility and self-prediction to engage in development activity within the next year.
The motivational model: development self-efficacy and perceived development value
As touched upon in the introduction, the rationale supporting the assumptions about the direct influences on intention comes from the field of motivation theory. According to the expectancy view, motivation is a state or attitude that works as a psychological link between expectations about behavior on the one hand and occurrence of behavior on the other (Knowles et al., 2007). Also important is the degree to which possible outcomes are valuated. When an individual beliefs engaging in a particular behavior will a. result in an outcome that is b. valued by the individual, he or she develops favorable attitudes towards the behavior (Noe, 1986). These two components a. and b. are also referred to as the expectancy component and valence component respectively. Any favorable attitudes motivate the individual and increase the probability one plans to engage in the behavior: intention is the final step between attitudes towards the behavior and the behavior itself.
In a meta-analysis of development activity motivation research, Colquitt et al. (2000) established that, through the process of expectancy discussed above, two constructs related to expectation and valuation are often found to mediate between individual and situational characteristics and participation intention. Development-related self-efficacy and perceived value of the activities were most consistently recognized as the variables that influence intention directly (Colquitt et al., 2000). We first discuss these variables and their effects on participation intention, after which we complete the model by linking them to the individual and situational characteristics.
Development self-efficacy. Whereas generalized self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities
Barbeite, 2003). In this case, the distinction is added that the development takes place within organized activities directed at development.
The relationships between self-efficacy and various attitudes towards development activities have been established and shown consistently (Noe & Wilk, 1993; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Indeed, self-efficacy has been found to be an important antecedent of participation intention and even one of the most crucial concepts in this regard (Colquitt et al., 2000; Breland & Donovan, 2005). Even more predictive is the self-efficacy that regards an act itself: intentions to engage in a behavior have long been shown to be influenced by individuals’ confidence in their ability to perform that behavior (Bandura, Adams, Hardy & Howells, 1980). More specifically, Maurer et al. (2003) demonstrated that the belief that one is capable of improving himself or herself through learning has a strong positive impact on the intention to participate. One can be expected to be more eager to take part whenever he or she feels that the goals of the activity, namely to improve one’s skills, can indeed be realized. In this case, development self-efficacy represents the expectancy component of our framework. It is in fact a characteristic that can be influenced (Button, Mathieu & Zajac, 1996). Maurer (2001) stresses that this malleability implicates that participation intention can be increased through development self-efficacy.
The question rises how much confidence people that received little or no education have in their own abilities with regard to development. Although the presence of learning disabilities does not have a detrimental effect on development efficacy (Pintrich, Anderman & Klobucar, 1994), self-efficacy within low-educated individuals could be lower through previous non-successful learning experiences (Hurtz & Williams, 2009). In the current setting, a leveling effect can be expected, because the level of the development activity is relatively low. Research suggests the influence of development self-efficacy on their participation intention is indeed present within low-educated individuals (Lankhuijsen & Graafsma, 2008).
H1a: Development self-efficacy is positively related to participation intention.
Perceived development value. The second direct influence on participation intention is the
value employees attach to the possible outcomes of taking part in development activities (Colquitt et al., 2000). More precisely, it regards the extent to which one believes outcomes from involvement in development activities are favorable (Maurer et al., 2003). Of course, although outcomes may be the same for two different individuals, they can represent a different value altogether for both of them: it is the perception of the value that is discussed here. This perceived value represents the valence component of the underlying expectancy framework.
activity recognized not all benefits could be divided that easily within those two categories. Nordhaug’s (1989) examination of perceived benefits led to the identification of three types: learning, career and psychosocial benefits. Whereas the concept of learning benefits closely models intrinsic rewards and career benefits are similar to extrinsic rewards, a third type was distinguished that has some of both but is also distinctly different. Psychosocial benefits can be the stimulation of confidence or an improved ability to participate in nonwork activities (Noé & Wilk, 1993). Maurer and Tarulli (1994) combined these classifications into a framework of three types of anticipated development activity benefits: intrinsic, extrinsic and psychosocial.
The relationship between the perceived extent to which the development activity provides for these three types of benefits and the intention to participate has indeed been established (Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd & Kudisch, 1995). When someone considers a particular development activity to be enjoyable or leading to a result he or she cherishes, taking part becomes attractive. Anticipated intrinsic and psychosocial benefits generate stronger motivational forces for participation than extrinsic benefits (Facteau et al., 2005; Knowles et al., 2007). Indeed, extrinsic benefits may even have a very small negative effect, but this is strongly outweighed by the positive impact of intrinsic and psychosocial benefits (Maurer et al., 2003).
H1b: Perceived development value is positively related to participation intention.
As a final remark on these subjects, these two concepts cannot be seen loose from each other. Taken together, they can be regarded as the motivational component that causes the intention to take part in development activities. Only when someone values the outcome of an action and deems himself of herself able to realize this outcome by taking part in the action will he or she be optimally motivated and could the intention to participate be maximized. From this point on, for practical purposes, these two concepts and their hypothesized effects on participation intention will be referred to as the motivational model.
Individual vs. situational factors: core self-evaluations, support and information
As stated above, many researchers in the field of motivation for development agree that both individual and situational characteristics account for differences in attitudes towards development activity (Colquitt et al., 2000). The remaining step is to investigate what factors can have what kind of effect on the two direct influences on intention, development self-efficacy and perceived value, starting with the individual characteristics.
Individual factors. Personality and age are recognized as the individual characteristics that
relatively stable characteristics of individuals (other than ability) that influence their cognition and behavior” (Colquitt et al., 2000: 679). Personality differences between individuals will lead to differences in motivation, through different cognitive construction of their abilities, needs and environment (Kanfer, 1991). Indeed, these differences will eventually causes differences in behavior.
Core self-evaluations. The most extensively applied way in which personality traits have been
studied, as part of the Big Five, has been never free of criticism (e.g., Block, 1995). It accounts for five dimensions of personality: agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness and neuroticism (or emotional stability) (Goldberg, 1990). While several of the five factors have consistently shown their value, most notably conscientiousness, critics suggest the Big Five is in fact of a number of separate concepts instead of a framework that binds different dimensions of personality together. Aside from this fragmentation issue, it does not fully capture differences between how people look at themselves (Kacmar, Collins, Harris & Judge, 2009).
Not satisfied by this approach, Judge, Locke and Durham (1997) tried to capture personality in a broad personality trait called the core self-evaluations, consisting of four well-established personality traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability. Self-esteem is “the overall value that one places on oneself as a person” (Harter, 1990). Generalized self-efficacy is one’s own evaluation of his or her capabilities, or: “not the skills one has but the judgments of what one can do with the skills one possesses” (Bandura, 1986). Locus of control is “the degree to which individuals believe that they control events in their lives or believe that the environment or fate controls events” (Rotter, 1966). Finally, emotional stability is the extent to which the negative constituent of self-confidence (or neuroticism), which makes one feeling anxious and insecure, can be restrained
(Costa & McCrae, 1988).Judge and his colleaguesfelt that these traits had a common core and indeed
proved this. The resulting construct of core self-evaluations represents a “basic, fundamental appraisal of one's worthiness, effectiveness, and capability as a person.” (Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2003: 304). In practice, this means that individuals that have high core evaluations are positive and self-confident human beings.
self-evaluations, have more confidence in their own ability to learn new things (Martocchio & Judge, 1997). All these relationships make it plausible that core self-evaluations result in a higher belief that one can learn the contents of developmental activities: in other words, a higher development self-efficacy.
Erez and Judge (2001) have shown high core self-evaluations are connected with both expectancy and valence components in the shape of goal commitment: once a goal is set, commitment is determined by the belief in the ability to complete it and the attractiveness of the goal - both boosted by high core self-evaluations. This attractiveness appears similar to the concept of perceived value. Core self-evaluations may thus also positively influence value perceptions, although low-educated employees are somewhat less likely to set goals (Birdi et al. 2000).
H2a: Core self-evaluations are positively related to development self-efficacy. H2b: Core self-evaluations are positively related to perceived development value. H2c: Core self-evaluations are positively related to participation intention.
H2d: The relationship between core self-evaluation and participation intention is mediated by development self-efficacy.
H2e: The relationship between core self-evaluation and participation intention is mediated by perceived development value.
Situational factors. Aside from individual factors, characteristics of context both inside and
outside the organization can influence attitudes towards development activity. Situational circumstances have been established, albeit mediated, as important antecedents of participation intention (Colquitt et al., 2000; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Normative influences can cause shifts in an individual’s beliefs and values towards those of others (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1985). From their environment, employees perceive the extent to which individuals important to them feel they should participate in development activities and are influenced by these so-called subjective norms (Hurtz & Williams, 2009). Such norms are provided by means of supervisor, coworker and home support. Informational influences on the other hand are pieces of information that are perceived as true and through this can also change one’s beliefs and values (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1985).
Supervisor support and coworker support.Work support can appear at different levels relative
to the employee, such as organizational, staff and even subordinate support. At levels close to the
employee, this support is most important (Baldwin & Magjuka, 1997).Supervisor support is the extent
to which supervisors facilitate, encourage, and support participation in development activities offered by the organization (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994), whereas coworker support regards the extent to which coworkers believe that development activities are important and are supportive of endeavors to take part (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994).
Both supervisor and coworker support increase anticipated intrinsic, psychosocial and extrinsic benefits and thus have a positive effect on perceived value (Maurer et al., 2003). In comparison to high-educated employees, the effects of work support could be even larger for low-high-educated workers. As they are less inclined to set learning goals for themselves, their perceived need for development might be more susceptible to input from others (Lankhuijsen & Graafsma, 2008). Indeed, supervisor support was shown to be important with regard to participation intention of low-educated employees (Keijzer et al., 2009). Migliore, Grossi, Mank & Rogan (2008) established the importance of encouragement by supervisors for employees in social employment environments to pursue their ambitions. They argue that, for this group of people that is naturally prone to prefer the ‘safer option’, any push in the right direction is especially welcome, and supervisors can install confidence in their learning abilities. Coworker support can also install this confidence. Self-efficacy and perceived value may be low through previous negative experience with learning. Positive experiences from coworkers that possess similar qualities can help. If development activity is recommended by a credible person, a role that a
close peer at work could well fulfill, perceived value is higher (Clark, Dobbins & Ladd, 1993). This
way, aside from a normative influence, support from supervisors and coworkers could to some extent be an informative influence, as what they say might be perceived as how things really are.
H3a: Supervisor support is positively related to development self-efficacy. H3b: Supervisor support is positively related to perceived development value. H3c: Supervisor support is positively related to participation intention.
H3d: The relationship between supervisor support and participation intention is mediated by development self-efficacy.
H3e: The relationship between supervisor support and participation intention is mediated by perceived development value.
H4a: Coworker support is positively related to development self-efficacy. H4b: Coworker support is positively related to perceived development value. H4c: Coworker support is positively related to participation intention.
H4d: The relationship between coworker support and participation intention is mediated by development self-efficacy.
H4e: The relationship between coworker support and participation intention is mediated by perceived development value.
Home support. The support that an employee can experience is not restricted to the workplace
major part in determining how one feels about development activities. Morningstar (1997) found that any attempts to get social work facility employees to engage in development activity greatly benefit from getting the home system involved. People working in accompanied jobs are generally very receptive to the thoughts and views of the home system, as they often live in a dependent home situation (Migliore et al., 2008). Because of this, any support may well contribute to the confidence that the individual is able to perform well when engaging in development activity. Maybe in an even stricter definition than support of the work environment, home support can be regarded as a normative influence. As people at home are not likely to have a lot of knowledge about development opportunities at the workplace, their support will not easily be interpreted as an informational cue.
H5a: Home support is positively related to development self-efficacy. H5b: Home support is positively related to perceived development value. H5c: Home support is positively related to participation intention.
H5d: The relationship between home support and participation intention is mediated by development self-efficacy.
H5e: The relationship between home support and participation intention is mediated by perceived development value.
Information. The final antecedent discussed is the information about the development options
that employees feel they have. It has been shown that the more they know about the nature, goals and contents of the activities, the higher development self-efficacy they report (Guerrero & Sire, 2001). In addition, knowing more about the development options offered may also affect the value that employees place on possible outcomes. The question is whether this knowledge will increase or decrease that value. A better understanding may enthusiast, but information might also be disappointing compared to preexisting expectations, resulting in a lower perceived value. In any case, without information one’s perceived value is purely based on reputation; by knowing more, the employee can pass better judgment on the benefits he anticipates from participation (Facteau et al, 2005). Guerrero and Sire (2001) showed that information has a positive effect and indeed, lack of information about the contents of a course can be a severely de-motivating factor with regard to participation (Cross, 2001).
H6a: Information is positively related to development self-efficacy. H6b: Information is positively related to perceived development value. H6c: Information is positively related to participation intention.
H6d: The relationship between information and participation intention is mediated by development self-efficacy.
Interaction. On a final note in this theoretical review, it must be addressed that examining the
dispositionist and situationist views does leave open the third option. Interactionists believe no behavior can ever exclusively be an outcome of either one’s individual characteristics or situational cues (Krueger, 2009). Models such as the trait activation theory suggest that personality and situational
factors can also interact to influence behavior (Tett&Guterman,2000).This theoryholds that, in order
for some aspects of personality to be expressed, relevant cues need to present in the environment. Based on views like this, it is not implausible that interactional effects between individual and situation characteristics could occur. A full examination of these effects is beyond the scope of this study.
However, with regard to the dispositionismvs.situationismframework, a basic reviewcould form an
interesting addition. Therefore, in a purely explorative manner, interaction effects have been included in this research.
METHOD
Procedure
Data were gathered at a social work provision organization active in the western half of the Dutch province of Friesland. The composition of the target population was a matter of consideration during the design of the study. The social employment facility workforce consists of people who are not able to work under normal organizational conditions, for reasons of mental, psychic and/or physical impairments. As such, interviews were held that were based on a questionnaire, rather than handing out the questionnaires, as some people had trouble reading and others were also expected to need support with answering the questions. Furthermore, items taken from other studies had to be severely simplified in order for all respondents to fully understand what was asked. This was done according to standards
that apply to research within the disabled care sector (ITS, 2010). Implemented recommendations were:
a short questionnaire (40-50 items), items formulated in simple language and unambiguous manner and a response scale of not too many points. After the development of a simplified questionnaire, a pilot study was held. A sample consisting of 5 people were interviewed and understanding of the questionnaire was tested. After this, minor modifications were made and the interviews were started.
The target population of the study consisted of paid employees that were active in the social work facility (so not staff and support employees). Based on the assumed response rate, a sample of 200
people was drawn, representative for gender, age and tenure.These employees were informed by their
self-evaluations. Questions and possible answers were read out loud while the participant was able to look at the questionnaire; the answers given were filled out by the interviewer.
Respondents
Of the sample, 121 people were found to be available and were asked to participate, of which 114 agreed, resulting in an overall response rate of 57%. 10 interviews could not be completed to due lack of understanding of the questions on behalf of the respondent, resulting in 104 completed interviews. 31% of respondents were female, average age was 44.96 years (SD = 9.66), average tenure was 13.70 years (SD = 8.57). 43% of them had a mental challenge as primary impairment, 34%
primarily a psychic challenge, whereas 23% had a physical challenge as primary impairment. 75% of
them were non-severely impaired, whereas 25% had a severe impairment.
Measures
Participation intention was measured using three items referring to desire, felt responsibility and self-prediction respectively (e.g., ‘I feel I should participate in a course over the coming year’), adapted from Hurtz & Williams (2009). A 4-point response scale was used, ranging from 1=yes, 2=maybe, 3=probably not, 4=no. Cronbach’s alpha was .92.
Development self-efficacy was measured using three items (e.g., ‘I think I am able to improve on
my skills when taking part in a course’) adapted from Maurer et al. (2003). A 4-point response scale
was used, ranging from 1=yes, 2=maybe, 3=probably not, 4=no. Cronbach’s alpha was .84.
Perceived value was measured using six items (e.g., ‘To learn new things in a course gives me a good feeling about myself’), of which one general item and two, one and two items regarding internal, psychosocial and external benefits, respectively. The first four were adapted from Maurer et al. (2003),
the latter two from Hurtz & Williams (2009). A 4-point response scale was used, ranging from 1=yes,
2=maybe, 3=probably not, 4=no. Cronbach’s alpha was .84.
Core self-evaluations were measured using eight items (e.g., ‘I am capable of dealing well with most problems’) adapted from the Dutch 12-item scale validated by De Pater, Schinkel and Nijstad
(2007). A 4-point response scale was used, ranging from 1=yes, 2=often, 3=usually not, 4=no.
Cronbach’s alpha was .72.
Supervisor support was measured using four items (e.g., ‘My supervisor encourages me to
participate in courses’) adapted from Maurer et al. (2003).A 4-point response scale was used, ranging
from 1=yes, 2=often, 3=usually not, 4=no. Cronbach’s alpha was .81.
Coworker support was measured using three items (e.g., ‘My coworkers encourage me to
participate in courses’) adapted from Maurer et al. (2003).A 4-point response scale was used, ranging
Home support was measured using two items (e.g., ‘At home I am encouraged to participate in
courses’) adapted from Maurer et al. (2003).A 4-point response scale was used, ranging from 1=yes,
2=often, 3=usually not, 4=no.Cronbach’s alpha was .87.
Information was measured using two items created especially for this study (e.g., ‘I know what courses are offered’). A 4-point response scale was used, ranging from 1=yes, 2=often, 3=usually not, 4=no. Cronbach’s alpha was .82.
Answers on all scales where recoded reversely after the data collection, to ensure that positive scores on the scales were associated with higher values.
Data Analyses
Multiple regression analyses were executed in the statistical program SPSS to test the hypotheses underlying the model. All included the control variables gender, age and tenure. Three sets of analyses were executed: first, the motivational model was tested: the effects of development
self-efficacy and perceived value on participation intention. Second, the effects of the individual factors
(i.e.,core self-evaluations)on all threeaforementioned conceptswere tested. Third, the effects of the
situational factors on development self-efficacy, perceived value and participation intention were tested. A fourth set of analyses tested the interaction between individual and situational factors as possible effects on both the mediators and the dependant variable. For this we used the (standardized) products of core self-evaluations with each of the four situational variables, respectively (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics and correlations regarding the control variables and all variables used in the model are presented in Table 1. Results show several strong significant positive relationships between participation intention on the one hand and development self-efficacy (r = .54, p < .01), perceived value (r = .73, p < .01) and the three situational factors regarding support on the other. Virtually no significant relationships were reported between core self-evaluations and any of the other variables. Core self-evaluations only correlated significantly with information (r = .19, p < 0.05). Furthermore, all situational variables significantly correlated with each other and with development self-efficacy and perceived value in a positive manner.
As far as the control variables are concerned, age correlates significantly negatively with participation intention, development self-efficacy and perceived value (r = -.21, r = -.17 and r = -.19 respectively, all p < 0.05). Core self-evaluations are negatively related with being female (r = -.34, p < 0.01). Supervisor support is negatively associated with tenure (r = -.18, p < 0.05) and coworker support (r = .17, p < 0.05) and home support (r = .20, p < 0.05) are positively associated with being female.
Regression analyses and bootstrapping
Motivational model. The results of the regression analysis testing the motivational model are
presented in Table 2. The effects of both development self-efficacy and perceived value on participation intention were tested. Results indicate that only perceived value has a significant effect on participation intention (β = .66, p < .01). Hypothesis 1b is thus supported, whereas hypothesis 1a is not, as development self-efficacy showed no effect when testing the model in which these two factors apply at the same time.
Individual factors. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the effects of the core
self-evaluations on development self-efficacy, perceived value and participation intention, respectively (see Table 3). Results show no significant effects of core self-evaluations on any of the other variables. This means that hypothesis 2a, 2b and 2c are not supported: no significant relations were found with development self-efficacy, perceived value and participation intention respectively. The reported R squared and the significance of the corresponding F-statistic suggest indeed that none of the models is statistically significant. These results made the testing of hypotheses 2d and 2e, assuming that the effect of core self-evaluations was mediated by other concepts, futile and they are therefore not reported in Table 3. By default, these hypotheses can also be rejected.
Situational factors. In these multiple regression analyses, shown in Table 4, the effects of the
The results of Table 4 demonstrate that supervisor support and coworker support do not have significant effects on development self-efficacy. Therefore, hypotheses 3a and 4a can be discarded. Significant positive effects on development self-efficacy were established from both home support (β = .26, p < .01) and information (β = .26, p < .01). Hypothesis 5a and 6a can thus be confirmed.
As far as the effects on perceived development value are concerned, supervisor support is shown to have a significant positive influence (β = .36, p < .01), as does indeed home support (β = .20, p < .05). This supports both hypothesis 3b and 5b, respectively. On the other hand, no significant effects from coworker support and information on perceived value were found, consequently showing that hypotheses 4b and 6b should be rejected.
The third series of tests show that hypotheses 3c ought to be rejected, as no significant positive relationship was established between supervisor support and participation intention. Indeed, the first analysis showed no effect, whereas controlling for the mediators led to a negative significant effect (β = -.24, p < .01). However, hypotheses 4c and 5c should be supported, as significant positive effects on participation intention were measured in the case of coworker support (β = .31, p < .01) and home support (β = .30, p < .01). Also, hypothesis 6c should be rejected, as information had no significant effect on participation intention.
Supervisor support, coworker support and home support were tested for mediation through development self-efficacy and perceived value, as Table 4 shows outcome differences when controlling for mediators. Information was also tested for mediation, as at least one relationship is reported, and the lack of a direct effect does not ascertain lack of an indirect effect (Hayes, 2009). As Table 5 reveals, mediation of supervisor support is confirmed, as the indirect effect for the total model is significantly different from zero (confidence interval (CI) of .1086 to .3316). Supervisor support is not mediated through development self-efficacy (CI of -.0116 to .0597), rendering hypothesis 3d unsupported, whereas it is in fact shown to be mediated through perceived value (CI of .1037 to .3248), offering support for hypothesis 3e. Mediation of coworker support is neither confirmed for the total model (CI of -.0109 to .3582) nor through development self-efficacy, which leaves hypothesis 4d unsupported. However, perceived value is found to mediate the effect of coworker support on participation intention (CI of .0006 to .3486), which means hypothesis 4e can be accepted. The total indirect effect of home support through the two mediators is confirmed (CI of .0708 to .4112). No mediation through development self-efficacy is demonstrated however, and thus hypothesis 5d is not supported (CI of -.0297 to .1141). On the other hand, mediation through perceived value (and as a consequence: hypothesis 5e) is indeed supported (CI of .0687 to .3765). There are no variables mediating the effects of information, as no indirect effects are significantly different from zero.
Interaction. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the results of interaction
participation intention (β = -.24, p ≈ .06). As no significant effects at the 95% level were found, there was no indication for the possible presence of mediation and as such no additional tests were performed.
DISCUSSION
This research was conducted to answer the question how the intention to participate in development activity within low-educated individuals in a social work facility is brought about by factors within and outside the individual through development self-efficacy and perceived value, and whether that intention is influenced more strongly by individual or situational factors. A model, based on the expectancy theory, the dispositionism vs. situationism framework, the normative vs. informational influence framework and previous research in the development activity motivation field, was proposed and tested. The study focused on effects of the personality factor core self-evaluations and four situational variables (supervisor support, coworker support, home support and information). The results that are reported below should help to broaden the current knowledge about how individual and situational characteristics affect the participation intention of social work facility employees. Managements within the social work provision field could use the outcomes of this study to better understand what it is that drives their employees to take part in development opportunities or not.
Findings
Founded on previous research results, a number of hypotheses were put forward, assuming a motivational model in which development self-efficacy and perceived value positively influenced participation intention. Furthermore, it was expected that core self-evaluations, supervisor support, coworker support, home support and information all had positive effects on participation intention and that all these effects were mediated by both development self-efficacy and perceived value.
Regarding the so-called motivational model, both development self-efficacy and perceived value showed high correlations with participation intention. However, combined in one model the regression analyses showed that only perceived value had a significant effect on this intention. The belief in one’s own capabilities to improve appears to be a less discriminant factor than the value individuals assign to the possible outcomes of the development activity.
represented the only individual characteristic that was considered. Consequently, this result means no effects of personal factors were found.
Analysis of influences of the four situational variables showed mixed results. On a rather intriguing note, the direct effect of supervisor support, when controlling for the mediators, is negative, but the indirect effect of supervisor support on intention - mediated through perceived value - is positive. This means that supervisor support influences participation intention both negatively (directly) and positively (indirectly), resulting in a non-significant total effect close to zero. This phenomenon, described as inconsistent mediation, is not altogether uncommon (MacKinnon, Fairchild & Fritz, 2007). In case of multiple paths, different effects could be opposite in sign. The negative component of the effect is difficult to explain, especially why the intention to take part decreases whenever higher values of supervisor support are reported. However, in this regard it is important to observe that supervisor support still has a significant positive correlation with intention: to some extent, the reported effects are a result of a strong overlap with other concepts such as other types of support (see Table 1).
Moving to the other factors, coworker support and home support were shown to be the most important antecedents of participation intention. Results just showed a small amount of mediation through perceived value, but coworker support influences participation intention primarily in a direct manner. The effects of home support were indeed indirect and mediated through perceived value. Examining effects of information yielded no significant results. Having more information about the development options does increase employees’ belief they can improve themselves, but not the intention to actually participate. These results suggest that the primarily normative influences brought about by support from others affect attitudes to a greater extent than informational influences.
Limitations
Before the implications of the study can be discussed, it is necessary to evaluate possible
limitations. First off, the results show a number of notably high correlations, in particular between the three concepts of the motivational model (see Table 1). This is possibly a result of common method variance. Particularly when the collected data exclusively consist of self-reports, as is the case in this study, the use of one single method may inflate correlations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). However, high correlations may also indicate a lack of discriminant validity between different constructs (Kenny, 1979). Although the highest reported correlation of .73 does not surpass the critical limit of .85, thus demonstrating that sufficient distinctiveness exists (Kenny, 1979), the situation is still a point of concern. Especially when mediational effects are tested, doubts over discriminant validity should make researchers careful when interpreting results (Zhao, Lynch & Chen, 2010).
The characteristics of the people under investigation called for some methodological modifications that may have compromised results. First, validated questionnaire items and response scales had to be simplified in order for them to be understood by even the most severely impaired respondents. These changes may have decreased the content validity of the scales. Second, due to cognitive disabilities, there was a need to obtain answers through verbal instead of written response. Especially the core self-evaluations’ items, referring to one’s truest beliefs about oneself, may have put respondents in a vulnerable position during the interviews. As a consequence, they have possibly been subject to social desirability bias. This type of bias can indeed be an issue in case of self-reports on personality (Just, 2011). Therefore outcomes of this study, in particular regarding the core self-evaluations, have to be treated with caution.
Theoretical implications
impaired also have a diminished capacity to achieve self-regulation, which is the ability to recognize and modulate one’s own thoughts, feelings and behavior (Varsamis & Agaliotis, 2011). Although mental disability does not apply to all respondents, this phenomenon could partly explain why specific self-efficacy, perceived value and intention were not influenced by self-reports on personality. Such a relationship has not yet been proposed in the theory: this study contributes in the sense that no effects of the self-concept on attitudes and beliefs regarding development participation were found, indicating that self-regulation capacity of employees might be a factor of interest in social work provision.
The obvious effects of coworker support and home support confirm expectations that the receptiveness of social work facility employees for influences from the environment is high. The current study shows that this relationship indeed applies with regard to attitudes toward development opportunities. In this respect, it is remarkable that the supervisor support concept did not turn out to be as important. As the social work provision setting is characterized by relatively highly dependent employees, one would expect influences from individuals above them would generate notable effects. However, one could be more likely to consider coworkers, family and friends to be his or her close peers than the boss at work, and this will have an effect on the perceived distance of the relationship. As pointed out before, support close to the employee is most important (Baldwin & Magjuka, 1997). Indeed, when workplace support on other motivational attitudes was considered, it was shown that proximal support (i.e., of close peers) has a stronger influence than distal support (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Martin, 2010). The results appear to confirm that this is the case as well with regard to the intention to take part in development. In relation to the topic of self-regulation that we discussed above, the clear effects of these situational cues raise an intriguing question. Possibly, the self-regulation abilities of these individuals are stronger when opinions of others are the input, or their thoughts and actions are very much governed by what peers feel and think. Such considerations might give a clue about the processes that cause that these individuals are less likely to set learning goals.
Furthermore, the finding that the effects of normative influences seem stronger than those of informational influences is interesting. This distinction has not yet been investigated in relation to attitudes toward development activity. However, we are reluctant to draw a firm conclusion from this result, because - particularly if no specific items about this distinction feature in the data collection - the boundary between when an influence is perceived as normative and when as informational is difficult to establish (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1985).
Practical implications
1), but other factors appear to have stronger impacts. Indeed, the unequivocal findings on the effects of coworker support and home support lead to the conclusion that these should be the focal points of any intervention. There are two sides to the support coin that are important to recognize. First, the colleague or family member must acknowledge the value of either the development activity itself or a supportive attitude. This might be difficult to ensure in employees’ homes, but in the organization, a credible way should be found in which the virtues of development are advocated on all levels. Second, support can only be expressed whenever development is a conversation topic. Respondents that scored low on coworker support and home support often indicated that they did not talk at all about the possibility of development with either their colleagues or their family. So, somehow development needs to become a talking point. Awareness and consideration should be generated both on and off the work floor, so that participation turns into an issue that people actively contemplate and discuss with peers, instead of a remote opportunity that not many know of. Indeed, although information did not turn out to be a significant predictor, respondents in the current study reported high dissatisfaction with the level of information provided.
more appealing; sometimes there is more to it than just perception. In the current study, development self-efficacy was reported as quite high and did not turn out to be a decisive influence: such a result might indicate the courses on offer are really not challenging enough.
Future research
Although great diversity on many levels exists within the social work facility workforce, this was not expressed in the personality measurements, that showed a relatively low standard deviation (see Table 1). This suggests that different concepts related to personal factors account for this variety among individuals. Of course, this is not to say that these other concepts, as opposed to the core self-evaluations, will explain differences in attitudinal constructs such as participation intention. It seems unlikely though that with regard to intention there is no dispositional attribution whatsoever in this setting. Researchers in social work provision could investigate other concepts related to the individual to help to explain differences in intention.
The most important antecedents established in this study, coworker support and home support, are partially defined by measures of communication. As communication is never one-sided, further research could look into what proportion of these concepts is determined by reciprocity, and in what way. In other words: these situational aspects do not appear to be fully situational: characteristics of the individuals themselves are expected to explain to some extent differences in the contacts with colleagues, family and friends.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. 1991. The perils of participation: Effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 51-65.
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. 1997. Training as an organizational episode: pretraining influences on trainee motivation. In J. K. Ford, S. W. L. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas & M. S. Teachout (Eds.),
Improving training effectiveness in organizations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundation of thoughts and action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. 1980. Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(1): 39-66.
Biersma, S. & Bieleman, B. 2007. Kwalitatief onderzoek niet-participerende jongeren. Groningen/Rotterdam: Intraval.
Bipp, T. 2010. What do People Want from their Jobs? The Big Five, core self-evaluations and work motivation. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 18(1): 28-39.
Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. 1997. Correlates and perceived outcomes of 4 types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6): 845-857.
Block, J. 1995. A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological
Bulletin, 117(2): 187-215.
Breland, B. T., & Donovan, J. J. 2005. The role of state goal orientation in the goal establishment process. Human Performance, 18: 23-53.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2008. Do Peers Make the Place? Conceptual Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Coworker Effects on Perceptions, Attitudes, OCBs, and Performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(5): 1082-1103.
Clark, C. S., Dobbins, G. H., & Ladd, R. T. 1993. Exploratory field study of training motivation: Influence of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate. Group & Organization Management, 18(3): 292-307.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression-correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A.. 2000. Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 678–707.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. 1988. From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2): 258-265.
Cross, K. P. 1981. Adults As Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
De Pater, I. E., Schinkel, S., & Nijstad, B. A. 2007. Validatie van de Nederlandstalige core self-evaluations vragenlijst. Gedrag & Organisatie, 20(1): 82-100.
Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6): 1270-1279.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. 1995. The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21(1): 1-25.
Goldberg, L. R. 1990. An alternative "description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6): 1216–1229.
Guerrero, S., & Sire, B. 2001. Motivation to train from the workers' perspective: example of French companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(6), 988-1004.
Hansen, F., Smith, M., & Hansen, R. B. 2002. Rewards and recognition in employee motivation.
Harter, S. 1990. Adolescent self and identity development. In S. Feldman and G. Elliot (Eds.), At the
Threshold: The Developing Adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Hayes, A. F. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium.
Communication Monographs, 76 (4): 408-420.
Hazelzet, A. M., Oomens, S. & Keijzer, L. 2009. Wat prikkelt laagopgeleide werknemers voor scholing? Resources Development, 5(2): 53-60.
Hurtz, G., & Williams, K. 2009. Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation in voluntary employee development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3): 635-653.
ITS. 2010. CE-index. Verstandelijke Gehandicaptenzorg. Meetverantwoording cliënten-raadpleging. Nijmegen: ITS.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. 2005. Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2): 257-268.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2003. The core self-evaluations scale: development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2): 303-331.
Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. 2001. Dispositional source of job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 67–98.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. 1997. The Dispositional Causes of Job Satisfaction: A Core Evaluations Approach. In L. L. Cummings, B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior. 19: 151-188.
Just, C. 2011. A review of literature on the general factor of personality. Personality & Individual
Differences, 50(6): 765-771.
Kamer, B., & Annen, H. 2010. The role of core self-evaluations in predicting performance appraisal reactions. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69(2): 95-104.
Kanfer, R. 1991. Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 1:75-170. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Keijzer, L., Oomens, S. & Hazelzet, A. M. 2009. Scholingsintentie van lager opgeleide werknemers. Resultaten van een eerste meting. Opleiding & Ontwikkeling, 22(5): 23-26.
Kenny, D. A. 1979. Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. A. 2007. The Adult Learner, Sixth Edition: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Krueger, J. I. 2009. A componential model of situation effects, person effects, and situation-by-person interaction effects on social behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 127-136.
Lankhuijzen, E. S. K., & Graafsma, L. 2008. Leren op de werkplek (1): Kansen in het Groen. Arbeidscompetent door werkplekopleiden in de Sociale Werkvoorziening. Opleiding & Ontwikkeling, 21(5): 10-14.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. 2007. Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58(1): 593-614.
Martin, H. J. 2010. Workplace climate and peer support as determinants of training transfer. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1): 87-104.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. 1997. Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: Mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(5): 764-773.
Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. 1994. Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79(1): 3-14.
Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. 2003. A model of involvement in work-related learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 707-724.
Migliore, A., Grossi, T., Mank, D., & Rogan, P. 2008. Why do adults with intellectual disabilities work in sheltered workshops? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(1), 29-40.
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur & Wetenschap. 2003. Actieplan EU-Benchmarks Onderwijs. Den Haag: Ministerie van OCW.
Morningstar, M. E. 1997. Critical issues in career development and employment preparation for adolescents with disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 18(5): 307.
Noe, R. A. 1986. Trainees' attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness. The
Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 736-749.
Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. 1993. Investigations of factors that influence employees’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 291–302.
Nordhaug, O. 1989. Reward Functions of Personnel Training. Human Relations, 42(5): 373-388.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. 1985. The impact of normative social influence and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing approach. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 58(3), 193-206.
Pintrich, P., Anderman, E., & Klobucar, C. 1994. Intraindividual differences in motivation and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(6): 360.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood: Irwin.
Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcements.
Psychological Monographs, 80(609): 1-169.
Ryman, D. H., & Biesner, R. J. 1975. Attitudes predictive of diving training success. Personnel
Psychology, 28, 181-188.
Tannenbaum, S., & Yukl, G. 1992. Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review
of Psychology, 43:399-441.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. 2000. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4): 397-423.
Varsamis, P., & Agaliotis, I. 2011. Profiles of self-concept, goal orientation, and self-regulation in students with physical, intellectual, and multiple disabilities: Implications for instructional support.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(5): 1548-1555.
Vroom, V H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. 1993. Turning work into play: implications for microcomputer software training. Journal of Management, 19: 127-146.
