1 WHY ARE SELF-EMPLOYED MORE SATISFIED WITH THEIR JOBS: THE PERSPECTIVE O

(1)

WHY ARE SELF-EMPLOYED MORE SATISFIED WITH THEIR JOBS: THE PERSPECTIVE OF HERZBERG’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY

Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 14, 2015 JANA KRÁTKA Student number: S2751364 Riouwstraat 26a 9715BW Groningen e-mail: j.kratka@student.rug.nl Supervisor dr. P.H. van der Meer

Co-assessor drs. M. Fennis-Bregman

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank dr. P.H. van der Meer for his supervision of my research, guidance, and many helpful comments that have led to a great improvement of the research.

(2)

WHY ARE SELF-EMPLOYED MORE SATISFIED WITH THEIR JOBS: THE PERSPECTIVE OF HERZBERG’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY

ABSTRACT

Past research has found that self-employed are more satisfied with their jobs than employees. This study applies the Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory of motivation and hygiene factors in order to examine the causes of the difference. The drivers of job satisfaction and the impact of self-employment are studied for self-employed professionals and employees from 34 countries drawing on the data from ISSP Work Orientations III survey. The results show that the motivation and hygiene factors mediate the effect of self-employment on job satisfaction. However, the findings indicate that there are both positive and negative effects of self-employment, as I found it to have a negative im-pact on an individual’s personal life. Additionally, the study has found that job autonomy, although generally positively related to job satisfaction, may actually hurt above a certain point. This study, therefore, explains the difference in job satisfaction of self-employed and employees as well as points out the importance of taking the negative effects of self-employment and excessive autonomy into consideration.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

The importance of job satisfaction has long been recognized (Clark, 1997).It has been found out that job satisfaction has a positive impact on organizational performance and employee commit-ment (Levy, 2003). On the other hand, it has a negative impact on absenteeism and turnover intentions (Yousef, 2000). Moreover, it is one of the most important determinants of well-being (Argyle, 1989). Many scholars studying motivation have focused on job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1968). Keeping the effects of job satisfaction in mind, it can be con-cluded, that understanding this phenomenon is important from many reasons – for example, the ability to influence job satisfaction may help organizations to improve their performance and to decrease ab-senteeism and turnover; or designing jobs with the aim to increase job satisfaction can increase overall well-being of the employees.

In this study I focus on the difference in job satisfaction between self-employed individuals and employees. With regard to this issue, I apply a motivation theory, namely the two-factor theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) to explain the differences and to identify factors which are the cause to the dif-ference. By focusing on these issues I contribute to two literature fields.

Firstly, I aim to contribute to the motivational literature field, more specifically two-factor motivational theory (Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1968) by the application of the theory on self-employed individuals. Prior studies have focused on the employees(Herzberg, 1968; Vroom, 1964) and the self-employed individuals are largely omitted by motivational literature (Eden, 1973). There-fore, a complex established motivational theory, such as Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory, has not yet been used to compare the job satisfaction of employees and self-employed individuals and to ex-plain the difference.

Secondly, this study contribute to entrepreneurship literature field by investigating the causes of the higher job satisfaction of self-employed compared to employees by applying an established mo-tivation theory by Herzberg (1959). Prior research indicates that the job satisfaction of self-employed is significantly higher than the job satisfaction of employees (Benz & Frey, 2008a; Bradley & Roberts, 2004). However, the explanation of the difference is lacking in the literature. Although, some authors tried to explain the increased job satisfaction of self-employed by selected factors (Hundley, 2001), a complex established motivational theory has yet to be applied and investigated, which leads to my research question: Which factors cause the difference in job satisfaction between self-employed and employees?

(4)

Due to the mature state of the relevant literature fields and the theories used, I follow theory-testing approach. Additionally, I chose to conduct a quantitative research, because it is more appropri-ate for this research than a qualitative research. Therefore, I am going to use the data from Work Ori-entations III survey from International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). ISSP conducts various stud-ies every year on different topics. In 2005, the third round of Work Orientations survey, measuring attitude to work, work orientation and work contents, was carried out (“ZA4350: International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientation III - ISSP 2005,” 2005).The constructs covered by the survey and the number of respondents makes it a suited source of data for my research.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Self-Employment

In my research, I examine two types of employment – organizational employment (i.e. em-ployees) and self-employment (i.e. self-employed). The difference between the work of self-employed and employees is well illustrated by Benz and Frey (2008b) who compare it to the difference in the two decision-making procedures – market and hierarchy. While self-employed maintain independent position on the market and enjoy higher freedom, employees are subjects to hierarchy and therefore are dependent on the orders from their superiors (Benz & Frey, 2008b). This difference affects an in-dividual’s psychological health (Hundley, 2001). The effect is, however, a controversial issue, due to conflicting views – some praising self-employment for the independence and growth opportunities, others warn about the high small business failure rates and little discretion as to how to do the work, owing to the small size of the businesses (Hundley, 2001). Thus, the controversy is worth studying.

Self-employed individuals have long been neglected by organizational psychology research (Eden, 1973). However, in recent years, self-employed individuals are getting more attention by scholars. The effect of self-employment on personal well-being (Benz & Frey, 2008b; Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998; Feldman & Bolino, 2000; Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001) and job satisfaction (Benz & Frey, 2008a; Blanchflower, Oswald, & Stutzer, 2001; Blanchflower, 2000; Bradley & Roberts, 2004; Hundley, 2001) has been studied by many authors. Although past research shows that self-employed individuals have significantly higher job satisfaction than employees (Benz & Frey, 2008a; Bradley & Roberts, 2004), an integrated theory of job satisfaction is yet to be applied to ex-plain the difference.

Job Satisfaction

(5)

satisfaction as „a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from an appraisal of one’s job or job experiences“ (Locke, 1976: 1300).

Multiple authors have studied the determinants of job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1968; Locke, 1976). A general view of the determinants of job satisfaction can be gained from Clark’s (1997) formula, representing utility from work, which, ac-cording to the author, can be considered to be job satisfaction. The author argues that job satisfaction (utility from work) is a function of income, hours of work, individual characteristics and job-specific characteristics (Clark, 1997), demonstrating that job satisfaction is a function of several complex phe-nomena.

Two-factor theory. Herzberg’s view of employee motivation and job satisfaction provides variables that could explain the differences in job satisfaction of self-employed and employees. In his study, Herzberg (1959) examined factors causing job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Managerial and professional workers in manufacturing were asked to recall situations when they felt either satisfied or dissatisfied with their jobs. Interviewers then classified the factors causing the feelings into two cate-gories – motivation factors, responsible for satisfaction and hygiene factors, responsible for dissatis-faction. Motivation factors were found to be intrinsic motivators, such as opportunities for advance-ment and growth, responsibility, and interesting work. On the other hand, hygiene factors, lack of which was related to dissatisfaction, are extrinsic characteristics of the job, namely working condi-tions, salary, job security, or supervision. The proposition that monetary reward does not increase job satisfaction caused a significant debate in academia (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Herzberg (1959) argued that inadequate salary can cause demotivation, however above a threshold it doesn’t motivate anymore.

(6)

Even few decades after the introduction of Herzberg’s theory, there is still some controversy surrounding it. However, the academic debate about the theory evolved into a series of claims and counterclaims of authors trying to prove they are right and others are wrong (Behling, Labovitz, & Kosmo, 1968). Despite the large number of critics, there are many studies supporting Herzberg’s find-ings (e.g. Gaziel, 1986; Kacel, Miller, & Norris, 2005; Sharp, 2008). Moreover, Sachau (2007) calls for resurrection of the theory based on new directions in positive psychology field. Finally, conclud-ing from an integrative literature review, Stello (2011) recommends not to try to validate the theory anymore but to focus on its practical applications.

The Impact of Self-Employment on Job Satisfaction

As was mentioned earlier, job satisfaction is a function of income, hours of work, individual characteristics and job-specific characteristics (Clark, 1997). Based on this formula, we can expect that the different job-specific characteristics of the jobs of self-employed (Benz & Frey, 2008b; Bradley & Roberts, 2004; Feldman & Bolino, 2000) cause a difference in job satisfaction of self-employed individuals in comparison to employees. By application of the Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) we can identify which of the motivation or hygiene factors impact the job sat-isfaction.

Job satisfaction of self-employed individuals. As was mentioned earlier, past research offers many findings showing that self-employed are more satisfied with their jobs than employees (e.g. Benz & Frey, 2008a; Bradley & Roberts, 2004; Hundley, 2001). Based on the findings I offer the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. Self-employed individuals are more satisfied with their jobs than em-ployees.

Motivation factors. As was discussed earlier, self-employed individuals enjoy an independent position on the market with all of its benefits, such as freedom and autonomy (Benz & Frey, 2008b). This position makes self-employed less dependent on the decisions of others, possibly reflecting in a higher fulfillment of motivation factors as I discuss bellow in a larger detail.

Firstly, self-employed, relative to employees, have a better opportunity to choose, design their own work and to do what they like (Benz & Frey, 2008a). They are able to design their work in a way that it is interesting to them. In fact, the opportunity to design own work is one of the main motivators to become self-employed (Taylor, 1996). Hence, I expect self-employed individuals to perceive their work as more interesting than employees.

(7)

Thirdly, the possibilities for advancement in growing entrepreneurial ventures are higher than in established organizations. Many self-employed individuals start their ventures because they feel like they have reached a plateau in their job (Feldman & Bolino, 2000). Therefore, the perceived op-portunity for advancement of self-employed is expected to be higher compared to employees.

Fourthly, managing a new company requires different skills than the work in established or-ganizations. Self-employed individuals, therefore, require new skills to succeed in their ventures and can design their work to further enhance current or to learn new skills. Bruno, McQuarrie and Torgrimson (1992) actually found that many entrepreneurs view their ventures as a possibility for per-sonal growth. Thus, I expect self-employed individuals to perceive the possibility for growth higher than employees.

Finally, building on the two-factor theory of Herzberg et al. (1959), the perception of an indi-vidual’s own work as interesting (work itself), and responsibility, opportunity for advancement and possibility for growth as high has a positive impact on the individual’s job satisfaction. Therefore, following the line of reasoning in this section, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. (a) Work itself, (b) autonomy, (c) opportunity for advancement, and (d) possibility for growth mediate the relationship between self-employment and job sat-isfaction, while self-employment has a positive effect on the factors.

As one of the motivation factors, autonomy is generally believed to have a positive impact on job satisfaction due to higher degree of freedom, flexibility and lower dependence on the decisions of others (Agho, Price, & Mueller, 1992; Benz & Frey, 2008b; Clark, 2001; Herzberg et al., 1959). Past research indicates that autonomy – the ability to decide how the work is done (Bailyn, 1993; Clark, 2001) – has positive effects on well-being and family life (Thompson & Prottas, 2006). Moreover, scholars have found that workers with autonomy are more involved in work processes, resulting in their increased job satisfaction (Clark, 2001; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997).

Although I hypothesize a positive impact of autonomy on job satisfaction, I also argue that excessive autonomy may have negative effects on job satisfaction. Increasing autonomy means in-creasing freedom and flexibility (Benz & Frey, 2008b; Clark, 2001) as well as inin-creasing responsibil-ity (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). High responsibilresponsibil-ity, however, leads to higher intensresponsibil-ity of work and higher work pressure, resulting in greater job-related stress (Doellgast & Batt, 2005; Godard, 2001, 2004; Osterman, 2000; Smith, 1997). Therefore, above a certain level of autonomy the work becomes too stressful and too intense it might have negative impact on job satisfaction. Hence I hypothesize:

(8)

FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model

Hygiene factors. Compared to employees, self-employed individuals have higher influence on the selection of their closest coworkers. Given the importance of management of internal relations inside a company (Bachmann, 2002) the self-employed individual has a higher incentive to select coworkers with whom he or she can build strong relationship. Therefore, I expect self-employed indi-viduals to perceive the relationships with their coworkers – peers as well as subordinates – as better, in comparison to employees.

Additionally, the higher control over own work (Benz & Frey, 2008a), the autonomy (Bradley & Roberts, 2004; Hundley, 2001) and independence of self-employed individuals (Taylor, 1996) al-lows them to design their working conditions in accordance to their preferences. Such option is very unlikely for employees. Thus, self-employed individuals are expected to perceive their working con-ditions as better than employees.

Moreover, individuals often leave their job and start an entrepreneurial venture to increase their income (Blanchflower & Mayer, 1994). Self-employed individuals have higher influence on the earnings of their business and collect a larger share of the earnings compared to employees. Thus, the self-employed are expected to perceive their salary higher than employees.

Furthermore, self-employment is believed to be a way to achieve work-life balance (e.g. Heilman & Chen, 2003). Additionally, Prottas and Thompson (2006) suggest that higher autonomy of self-employed offer greater ability to manage the hours worked and, therefore, balance between work and personal life.

(9)

risk and possibility to fail, the job of a self-employed individual is less secure than the job of an em-ployee.

Ultimately, following the arguments of Herzberg et al. (1959) and the subsequent critics (e.g. Burke, 1966; Ewen, 1964; Smith & Kendall, 1963), the fulfillment hygiene factors has a positive im-pact on an individual’s job satisfaction. Thus, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4. (a) Relationships with supervisors or subordinates, (b) relationships with peers, (c) working conditions, (d) salary, and (e) personal life mediate the rela-tionship between self-employment and job satisfaction, while self-employment has a positive effect on the factors. (f) Job security mediates the relationship, while self-employment has a negative effect on the factor.

METHODOLOGY

Data Sources

I obtained data for this research from the Work Orientations III survey from 2005. The survey is conducted every eight to ten years across selected countries from Europe, North America, Asia and Africa and measures multiple attitudes and beliefs regarding work orientation and work contents of the populations (“ZA4350: International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientation III - ISSP 2005,” 2005).The Work Orientations III survey contains survey questions regarding job satisfaction and job characteristics and, therefore, it is suitable for my research. Moreover, the large amount of respondents, countries and questions makes it complex and interesting to analyze.

The data collection was carried out from February 2005 to February 2007 in Australia, Bul-garia, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzer-land, Taiwan, Province of China, United Kingdom, United States, and Flemish region. The data were collected via mail, written, or oral survey with standardized questionnaire (“ZA4350: International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientation III - ISSP 2005,” 2005). The population of the survey is people of 18 years of age and more (except Finland (15 years of age), Japan and South Africa (16)). Multi-stage stratification of random sample was used (“ZA4350: International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientation III - ISSP 2005,” 2005).

(10)

Measurements

Dependent variable. The dependent variable of the model is job satisfaction. Although Her-zberg et al. (1959) argue that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not on different sides of the same spectrum, as I argued earlier, past research has shown that it might not be true (Burke, 1966; Ewen, 1964; e.g. House & Wigdor, 1967). Therefore, I measure job satisfaction as a single 7-point scale of 1 (completely dissatisfied) to 7 (completely satisfied) based on the question ‘How satisfied are you in your (main) job?’

Independent variable. The independent variable is the self-employment. The research distin-guishes between self-employed individuals and employees. This variable is measured by the question ‘Who do (or did) you work for in your main job?’ Two of the answers offered in the questionnaire – ‘Self-employed – without employees’ and ‘Self-employed – with employees’) – are labeled as self-employed. Other answers (e.g. ‘A private company or business’; ‘Federal/State/Local government’ or ‘A family business or farm’) are labeled as employee.

Mediating variables. In the research I argue for a mediated relationship between employment status and job satisfaction. The mediating variables are work itself, autonomy, opportunity for ad-vancement, possibility for growth, relationship with supervisors or subordinates, relationship with peers, working conditions, salary, personal life and job security.

Motivation factors are measured by 5-point single item rating scales. The scales measure the degree to which respondents agree with the corresponding statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disa-gree) to 5 (strongly adisa-gree). First of the motivation factors measured is work itself. The statement measuring this factor is ‘My job is interesting’. Next factor is autonomy. Based on Hackman and Old-ham (1976) who define autonomy as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, inde-pendence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (1976: 258), I measure autonomy by perceived independence – ‘I can work independently’. Further, the opportunity for advancement is measured by the statement ‘My op-portunities for advancement are high’. Finally, possibility for growth, defined as “(…) situation [that] made it possible for the respondent to learn new skills or to acquire new professional outlook” (Herzberg et al., 1959: 46), is measured by the statement ‘My job gives me a chance to improve my skills’.

(11)

workplace between workmates/colleagues?’ on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). Working con-ditions, due to the complexity of the construct, is measured by a multi-item scale of 1 (always) to 5 (never), consisting of four questions: ‘How often do you come home from work exhausted?’, ‘How often do you have to do hard physical work?’, ‘How often do you find your work stressful?’, and ‘How often do you work in dangerous conditions?’ (Cronbach’s α = .632). Salary is measured by the perceived height of income (‘My income is high’) on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Personal life is measured on a scale of 1 (always) to 5 (never), based on two questions: ‘How often do you feel that the demands of your job interfere with your family life?’ and ‘How often do you feel that the demands of your family life interfere with your job?’ (Cronbach’s α = .662). Job security is measured by the statement ‘My job is secure’ on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Control variables. As Clark (1997) argues, job satisfaction is a function of income, hours of work, individual characteristics and job-specific characteristics. Therefore, I control for the effects of natural logarithm of hours worked weakly, measured by the question ‘How many hours do you usual-ly work each week in all jobs?’ I further control for individual characteristics, such as gender, age, marital status, country, and education (‘What is the highest level of high school education you have completed?’), and additional job-specific characteristic of an individual being in a supervisory posi-tion measured by the quesposi-tion ‘As an official part of your main job, how many staff do you (or did you) supervise?’, recoded to 1 if the respondent supervises one or more staff members, and to 0 if the respondent doesn’t supervise.

Analysis

I began the analysis by computing the descriptive statistics for the variables included in the conceptual model. I have conducted the analysis on an aggregate level as well as separately for em-ployees and self-employed. The results have shown some differences between the two groups and, therefore, the differences were statistically examined. The variables, however, are not normally dis-tributed in each group, thus, a parametric test, such as ANOVA, would not provide valid results (Lix, Keselman, & Keselman, 1996). Therefore, Kruskal-Wallis test (Kruskal & Wallis, 1952) has been conducted to examine the differences. All results are reported in Table 1.

As a second step, a correlation analysis has been conducted in order to examine the relation-ships between the variables. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 2.

(12)

control variables was estimated. The results are reported in Table 3. Secondly, models for motivation factors as dependent variables (see Table 4) and hygiene factors as dependent variables (see Table 5) were estimated in order to examine the effect of self-employment on the factors.

RESULTS

In Table 1 I present the descriptive statistics for the variables in my conceptual model and the results of Kruskal-Wallis test conducted to compare the values for the samples of employees and self-employed individuals. The test has shown that self-self-employed individuals on average score significant-ly higher on almost all variables, except for working conditions and personal life, where, conversesignificant-ly, employees score significantly higher, and job security, where the scores are not significantly different. Table 2 contains the correlations between the variables in the conceptual model.

Tables 3, 4, and 5 present the results of multilevel mixed models. Table 3 contains the results for job satisfaction as the dependent variable. The results for motivation factors as dependent varia-bles are reported in Table 4 and, finally, the results for hygiene factors as dependent variavaria-bles are re-ported in Table 5.

First, I hypothesized that self-employed individuals are more satisfied with their jobs (Hy-pothesis 1). The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test (see Table 1) offer support for this hy(Hy-pothesis. Moreover, I’ve found a positive relationship between self-employment and job satisfaction (see Table 3, model I). Although the direct relationship weakens, as motivation factors, hygiene factors, and con-trol variables are included into the model, it remains positive and significant (see Table 3, models II – V). The results support Hypothesis 1.

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics

Whole Sample Employees Self-Employed Kruskal–Wallis Test

(13)

Next, I hypothesized that the motivation factors – work itself, autonomy, opportunity for ad-vancement and possibility for growth – mediate the relationship between self-employment and job satisfaction. I further hypothesized that self-employment has a positive relationship with the factors (Hypotheses 2a-d). The results show the mediation, as all motivation factors have a positive relation-ship with job satisfaction (see Table 3, model V). Additionally, self-employment has a positive rela-tionship with all of the motivation factors (see Table 4). The effect of self-employment on job satis-faction decreases after inclusion of the mediation variables, but still remains significant (see Table 3, models I & V) and, thus, the mediation is partial (Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011). None-theless, the results support the Hypotheses 2a-d.

Hypothesis 3 points to a curvilinear relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction. Re-sults in Table 3 support this hypothesis (see Table 3, model V). This suggests that to a point autonomy has a positive effect on job satisfaction, however, after a certain point the effect starts to decrease (cf. Agho et al., 1992; Benz & Frey, 2008b; Herzberg et al., 1959).

Finally, I hypothesized that the hygiene factors mediate the relationship between self-employment and job satisfaction. (Hypotheses 4a-f). Firstly, all hygiene factors have a positive rela-tionship with job satisfaction (see Table 3, model V). Secondly, all factors, except working condi-tions, are affected by self-employment (see Table 5), supporting the mediating effect of the factors. Additionally, I hypothesized that while self-employment has a negative effect on job security, other hygiene factors are affected positively. For the relationship with supervisors or subordinates, relation-ship with peers, and salary, a positive impact of self-employment was found (see Table 5), whereas the impact on personal life, and job security was found to be negative (see Table 5). In conclusion, Hypothesis 4a, Hypothesis 4b, Hypothesis 4d, and Hypothesis 4f are supported, while there is no sup-port for Hypothesis 4c and Hypothesis 4e.

TABLE 2 Correlations

A B C D E F G H I J Job Satisfaction A Work Itself B .48 Autonomy C .27 .40

Opportunity for Advancement D .32 .35 .20

Possibility for Growth E .38 .55 .34 .38

Relationship with Supervisors or Subordinates F .44 .23 .17 .21 .22

Relationship with Peers G .34 .23 .15 .14 .19 .53

Working Conditions H .19 .13 .09 .06 .06 .17 .13

Salary I .29 .28 .20 .46 .26 .17 .10 .11

Personal Life J .12 .01 -.01 -.04 -.02 .11 .10 .30 -.02

(14)

TABLE 3

Effects of Self-Employment, Motivation Factors and Hygiene Factors on Job Satisfaction

Model Ia _{Model II}a _{Model III}a _{Model IV}a _{Model V}a

Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE

Intercept 5.221 .040 2.505 .072 1.255 .063 .266 .080

.431 .113

Employee Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

Self-Employed .426 .032 .198 .028 .261 .027 .163 .026 .125 .026

Work Itself .412 .010 .334 .009 .330 .009

Autonomy .085 .038 .108 .035 .107 .035

[Autonomy]2 -.001 .006 -.012 .005 -.012 .005

Opportunity for Advance-ment

.131 .008 .051 .008 .061 .008

Possibility for Growth .137 .009 .104 .008 .118 .008

Relationship with

Supervisors or Subordinates

.367 .010 .308 .009 .299 .009

Relationship with Peers .198 .012 .134 .011 .140 .011

Working Conditions .126 .010 .093 .009 .106 .010

Salary .196 .007 .093 .008 .099 .008

Personal Life .090 .009 .102 .009 .095 .009

Job Security .124 .007 .071 .007 .069 .007

Western Europe Reference

Eastern Europe .098 .053

North America .080 .085

Central and South America .204 .073

Asia -.031 .065 Africa .155 .118 Woman Reference Man -.022 .014 Age 20 - 24 Reference Age 25 - 29 .003 .031 Age 30 - 34 .074 .030 Age 35 - 39 .119 .031 Age 40 - 44 .149 .030 Age 45 - 49 .134 .031 Age 50 - 54 .163 .032 Age 55 - 60 .216 .033 Education -.053 .006

Ln[Hours Worked Weekly] -.061 .020

Non-supervisory Position Reference

Supervisory Position .040 .016

N 17 853 17 853 17 853 17 853 17 853

-2 Log Likelihood _55556.48 _50242.78 _49902.78 _47028.43 _46799.51

Residual Variance _1.308 _.014 _.972 _.010 _.954 _.010 _.812 _.009 _.802 _.008

Intercept Variance _.051 _.013 _.025 _.007 _.024 _.006 _.017 _.005 _.012 _.003

(15)

The findings of Hypothesis 4e suggest that despite the higher control over own work (Benz & Frey, 2008a), the autonomy (Bradley & Roberts, 2004; Hundley, 2001) and independence of self-employed individuals (Taylor, 1996) they are not able to set their working conditions to their liking. In order to examine the cause of the non-significant relationship, I’ve conducted an additional Krus-kal-Wallis test on the individual measurement items of the construct. The additional analysis revealed that employees scored significantly better on questions ‘How often do you come home from work exhausted?’ (χ2 (1) = 7.054, p < .01), ‘How often do you have to do hard physical work?’ (χ2 (1) = 143.363, p < .001), and ‘How often do you work in dangerous conditions?’ (χ2 (1) = 27.441, p < .001), while, conversely, they scored worse on the question ‘How often do you find your work stressful?’ (χ2 (1) = 4.407, p < .05). Thus, surprisingly, the self-employed seem to perceive less stress in their work than the employees (cf. Blanchflower, 2004).

TABLE 4

Effects of Self-Employment on Motivation Factors

Dependent Variable: Work Itself Autonomy

Opportunity for

Advance-ment

Possiblity for Growth

Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE

Intercept 3.088 .088 3.597 .114 1.761 .095 3.022 .089

Employee Reference Reference Reference Reference

Self-Employed .247 .026 .578 .028 .170 .029 .173 .027

Western Europe Reference Reference Reference Reference

Eastern Europe -.375 .083 -.520 .146 -.139 .085 -.271 .073

North America -.021 .137 .047 .242 .058 .139 .089 .119

Central and South America .045 .116 -.449 .203 .518 .118 .225 .101

Asia -.462 .103 -.587 .180 -.192 .104 -.215 .089

Africa -.200 .189 -.474 .332 .340 .192 -.172 .164

Woman Reference Reference Reference Reference

Man -.047 .014 .047 .016 .131 .016 -.003 .015

Age 20 - 24 Reference Reference Reference Reference

Age 25 - 29 .045 .031 .061 .034 -.033 .035 .008 .033 Age 30 - 34 .112 .031 .078 .033 -.133 .035 -.006 .033 Age 35 - 39 .134 .031 .118 .033 -.139 .035 -.022 .033 Age 40 - 44 .147 .03 1 .102 .033 -.180 .034 .007 .032 Age 45 - 49 .141 .031 .082 .033 -.313 .035 -.049 .033 Age 50 - 54 .148 .032 .095 .034 -.355 .036 -.121 .034 Age 55 - 60 .156 .033 .142 .035 -.442 .037 -.151 .035 Education .121 .006 .058 .006 .095 .006 .140 .006

Ln [Hours Worked Weekly] .075 .020 -.021 .021 .184 .022 .069 .021

Non-supervisory Position Reference Reference Reference Reference

Supervisory Position .254 .016 .204 .017 .392 .017 .294 .017

N 17853 17853 17853 17853

-2 Log Likelihood 47522.75 50202.19 51486.92 49624.56

Residual Variance .834 .009 .967 .010 1.042 .011 .939 .010

(16)

TABLE 5

Effects of Self-Employment on Hygiene Factors

Dependent variable: Relationship w/ Supervisors or Subordinates Relationship w/ Peers Working

Condi-tions Salary Personal Life Job Security

_Est. _SE _Est. _SE _Est. _SE _Est. _SE _Est. _SE _Est. _SE

Intercept 4.228 .086 4.402 .068 4.057 .070 1.458 .097 4.843 .078 3.195 .098

Employee Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

Self-Employed .339 .025 .116 .021 -.007 .021 .142 .028 -.143 .023 -.075 .031

Western Europe Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

Eastern Europe -.055 .084 -.173 .059 -.057 .064 -.068 .092 .193 .071 -.159 .073 North America -.084 .139 -.116 .097 -.172 .105 .014 .152 -.074 .117 .007 .119 Central and South Ameri-ca .220 .117 -.066 .082 -.026 .089 .246 .128 .068 .099 .118 .101 Asia .041 .104 -.086 .073 -.114 .079 -.079 .114 .329 .087 -.190 .090 Africa .103 .191 .034 .134 -.294 .145 .056 .209 -.234 .160 .053 .164

Woman Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

Man -.037 .014 -.004 .012 -.136 .012 .229 .016 .031 .013 -.054 .017

Age 20 - 24 Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

Age 25 - 29 -.027 .030 .009 .025 -.028 .025 .004 .035 -.114 .028 .020 .038 Age 30 - 34 -.078 .030 -.053 .025 .014 .025 -.020 .034 -.239 .028 .034 .037 Age 35 - 39 -.062 .030 -.062 .025 -.023 .025 .027 .034 -.260 .028 .014 .037 Age 40 - 44 -.069 .030 -.073 .024 .008 .025 .019 .034 -.259 .028 .017 .037 Age 45 - 49 -.034 .030 -.064 .025 .039 .025 -.010 .034 -.168 .028 .020 .037 Age 50 - 54 -.038 .031 -.048 .026 .064 .026 -.027 .035 -.108 .029 .047 .038 Age 55 - 60 .021 .032 -.043 .026 .142 .027 -.045 .036 -.047 .030 .077 .040 Education .014 .005 .019 .004 .124 .004 .129 .006 -.027 .005 .061 .007 Ln [Hours Wor-ked Weekly] -.118 .019 -.059 .016 -.301 .016 .185 .022 -.243 .018 .062 .024 Non-supervisory Position

Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference

(17)

Contrary to the previous beliefs, the findings of this study suggest that self-employment has a negative effect on an individual’s personal life (cf. Heilman & Chen, 2003). Moreover, I have found the negative effect of self-employment on personal life, even though I have controlled for the number of working hours (see Table 5). This suggests, that other aspects of self-employment beyond the time requirements damage the personal life of self-employed professionals.

Although not hypothesized, the results also show that interesting work – work itself – and the relationship between supervisors and subordinates are the strongest drivers of job satisfaction. On the other hand, advancement opportunities, job security, and personal life are the least influential factors. Interestingly, both factors negatively influenced by self-employment – job security and personal life – ranked among the three weakest drivers. Additionally, autonomy is only the fifth strongest driver of job satisfaction, although generally perceived as the main driver (cf. Benz & Frey, 2008a; Hundley, 2001). Moreover, two hygiene factors – relationship with supervisors or subordinates, and relationship with peers – are stronger drivers of job satisfaction than autonomy (cf. Herzberg, 1968).

TABLE 6

Summary of Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis Variable Effect of Self-Employment on the Variable Effect of the Variable on Job Satisfaction Result H1 Self-Employment + Supported

H2a Work Itself + + Supported

H2b Autonomy + + Supported

H2c Opportunity for Advancement + + Supported

H2d Possibility for Growth + + Supported

H3 Autonomy ⋂ Supported

H4a Relationship with Supervisors or Subordinates + + Supported

H4b Relationship with Peers + + Supported

H4c Working Conditions n.s. + Not supported

H4d Salary + + Supported

H4e Personal Life - + Not supported

H4f Job Security - + Supported

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

(18)

significant relationship with job satisfaction of individuals (cf. Burke, 1966; House & Wigdor, 1967; Malinovsky & Barry, 1965; Vroom, 1964).

Results of this research explain which factors cause the higher job satisfaction of self-employed professionals. In alignment with past findings (see Benz & Frey, 2008a), the strongest driv-er of job satisfaction seems to be the work itself. Self-employed pdriv-erceiving their work more intdriv-erest- interest-ing than employees suggest that the ability to design own work plays an important role in the job sat-isfaction. Following the work itself, the second strongest driver is the relationship between supervi-sors and subordinates (cf. Herzberg, 1968). Self-employment having a strong positive effect on the perception of the relationship, indicates that the absence of a direct supervisor to whom an individual has to report and on whose decisions an individual is dependent significantly increases the job satis-faction (Benz & Frey, 2008b). Moreover, as the relationships between peers is a significant driver positively influenced by self-employment as well, the ability of the self-employed to choose the clos-est coworkers has a strong impact on the job satisfaction.

Furthermore, the research shows that there are both positive and negative aspects of employment. In accordance with extant literature, job security has been found to be lower for self-employed, negatively influencing their job satisfaction (Benz & Frey, 2008a; Hundley, 2001). Addi-tionally, in contrary to previous belief that self-employment is a way to achieve work-life balance due to the ability to manage hours worked (cf. Feldman & Bolino, 2000; Heilman & Chen, 2003; Prottas & Thompson, 2006), I have found a negative impact of self-employment on personal life. Interesting-ly, this is not caused neither by the work stress, which is higher for employees (cf. Blanchflower, 2004) nor by longer working hours. The results suggest there are other aspects of self-employment damaging the personal life of the self-employed, possibly exhaustion (Blanchflower, 2004) or higher job involvement (Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001). Although self-employment has the negative effect on job security and personal life, the overall job satisfaction of self-employed is higher compared to employees, suggesting that the positive aspects of self-employment outweigh the negative ones. Nev-ertheless, the negative side of self-employment has to be considered as it may have negative impact on other aspects of life as well – e.g. family satisfaction (Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001) – and can-not be overlooked as it often is (Blanchflower et al., 2001; Grilo & Irigoyen, 2006).

Additionally, the results indicate that self-employed cannot control their work to the degree they would enjoy better working conditions than employees. Interestingly, although past research suggests that self-employed perceive higher work-related stress (Blanchflower, 2004), I have found self-employed to perceive less work-related stress. On the other hand, self-employed perceive their work as harder, more exhausting, and more dangerous. This might be caused by the little discretion self-employed have in how to do the work, owing to the small sizes of their businesses (Hundley, 2001; Roemer, 1982).

(19)

& Frey, 2008a) and that autonomy is one of the strongest drivers of job satisfaction (Benz & Frey, 2008b; Hundley, 2001). The results confirmed the hypothesized curvilinear relationship (inverted-U shape) between autonomy and job satisfaction, indicating the existence of negative effects of autono-my. The negative effects might result from increased responsibility (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), which leads to higher intensity of work and work pressure (Doellgast & Batt, 2005; Godard, 2001, 2004; Osterman, 2000; Smith, 1997). Increasing autonomy beyond a certain degree might not, there-fore, be a good idea if the goal is to increase job satisfaction.

Theoretical Implications

This research, thus, has several theoretical implications. First, I contribute to the motivation literature field by applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory on self-employed individuals and examining the effect of self-employment on the factors of the theory. My findings further demonstrate the im-portance of Herzberg’s factors in determining the job satisfaction and contribute to the discussion about the actual validity of the theory. The results show that the factors of the Herzberg’s theory ex-plain to a high degree the difference in job satisfaction between self-employed and employees. Next, I contribute to the motivation literature field by showing the negative effects of excessive autonomy, to my knowledge, not yet examined in the extant literature.

Secondly, I contribute to the entrepreneurial literature field by examining the causes of higher job satisfaction of self-employed professionals compared to employees by applying an established motivation theory. The difference can be explained by more interesting work, better relationships with coworkers, either supervisors, subordinates, or peers, higher possibilities for growth and higher au-tonomy. Furthermore, I contribute by showing the negative aspects of self-employment. The findings indicate that employment negatively affects job security and damages the personal life of self-employed professionals. These aspects of self-employment are frequently overlooked (Blanchflower et al., 2001; Grilo & Irigoyen, 2006) and have to be accounted for in entrepreneurial literature.

Practical Implications

Furthermore, there are multiple practical implications of this research as well. Firstly, by ad-dressing the most important drivers of job satisfaction and the causes of the higher job satisfaction of self-employed professionals, employers can significantly improve job satisfaction of their employees. The results suggest that by making the work more interesting, giving employees a greater freedom in choosing their closest coworkers and improving the relationships between supervisors and subordi-nates employers can achieve greatest results if they aim to improve the job satisfaction of their em-ployees.

(20)

of their employees, as there are negative effects of excessive autonomy. The level of autonomy, above which the negative consequences, such as higher perceived work intensity, higher pressure, and stress (Doellgast & Batt, 2005; Godard, 2001, 2004; Osterman, 2000), become too high, might vary from employee to employee. Therefore, employers should take this into account when deciding whether to include an employee in a self-managed work team or increase the employee’s autonomy in any other way.

Thirdly, the research points out the importance of considering the negative aspects of self-employment, such as decreased family satisfaction (Parasuraman & Simmers, 2001), when an indi-vidual is deciding to start own venture and become self-employed. Although the positive effects of self-employment generally outweigh the negative ones, overlooking the drawbacks (Blanchflower et al., 2001; Grilo & Irigoyen, 2006) may lead to many disappointments and failures.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

The research has its limitations as well. First, I am using the results of the ISSP Work Orien-tations III study, which was not specifically designed for this research. Therefore, not all factors from Herzberg’s two-factor theory are included in my research, some of which were found by the author to be among the strongest determinants of job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1968). Inclusion of the factors might give a more comprehensive view on the job satisfaction of self-employed and, therefore, future research could benefit from including all of the factors. Second, the majority of the constructs in this study are measured by single-item scales. The reliability of the measurements, therefore, suffers. In future research, previously validated or newly developed multi-item scales might be used to increase the reliability of the research. Thirdly, the ISSP Work Orientations III database contains limited num-bers of respondents from Central and South America, Africa and Asia. Although the results do not indicate regional differences in job satisfaction, past research suggests geographical differences in the strength of the drivers (e.g. Benz & Frey, 2008a). Thus, a greater emphasis on the balance of respond-ents from different countries could be beneficial to the future research. Fourthly, due to the scope of the study, this research does not distinguish between different arrangements of self-employment (e.g. self-employed doing physical or mental work; or self-employed with or without employees) and con-siders self-employed as one coherent group. Future research could examine the differences among self-employed, caused by the differences in the arrangements of self-employment. Finally, as the lat-est available ISSP Work Orientation database is from 2005, the results of the study might be slightly different in the present. Therefore, future research should verify the findings of this study on a more actual database – a new ISSP Work Orientations IV Study is being conducted in 2015 (ISSP, 2010).

(21)

REFERENCES

Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. 1992. Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(3): 185–195.

Argyle, M. 1989. The Psychology of Happiness. London: Routledge.

Bachmann, R. 2002. Trust and power as means of co-ordinating the internal relations of the organization: a conceptual framework. University of Groningen.

Bailyn, L. 1993. Breaking the mold: Women, men, and time in the new corporate world. Simon and Schuster.

Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. 2005. Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10): 929–943.

Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Kosmo, R. 1968. The Herzberg controversy: A critical reappraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 11(1): 99–108.

Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. 2008a. The value of doing what you like: Evidence from the self-employed in 23 countries. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3-4): 445–455.

Benz, M., & Frey, B. S. 2008b. Being Independent is a Great Thing: Subjective Evaluations of Self-Employment and Hierarchy. Economica, 75(298): 362–383.

Blanchflower, D. G. 2000. Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics, 7(5): 471–505. Blanchflower, D. G. 2004. Self-employment: More may not be better. Swedish Economic Policy

Review, 11(2): 15–74.

Blanchflower, D. G., & Mayer, B. 1994. A Longitudinal Analysis of Young Entrepreneurs in Australia and in the United States. Small Business Economics, 6(11).

Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. 1998. What Makes an Entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1): 26–60.

Blanchflower, D. G., Oswald, A., & Stutzer, A. 2001. Latent entrepreneurship across nations. European Economic Review, 45: 680–691.

Bradley, D. E., & Roberts, J. a. 2004. Self-Employment and Job Satisfaction: Investigating the Role of Self-Efficacy, Depression, and Seniority. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(1): 37–58.

Bruno, A. V, Mcquarrie, E. F., & Torgrimson, C. G. 1992. The Evolution of New Technology Ventures over 20 Years: Pattern of Failure, Merger, and Survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(4): 291–302.

(22)

Clark, A. E. 1997. Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4: 342–372.

Clark, S. C. 2001. Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3): 348–365.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5): 643–676.

Doellgast, V., & Batt, R. 2005. Groups, teams, and the division of labour: interdisciplinary

perspectives on the organization of work. In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson, & P. S. Tolbert (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization: 138–156. London: Oxford

University Press.

Eden, D. 1973. Self-employed workers: a comparison group for organizational psychology. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 214(91): 186–214.

Ewen, R. B. 1964. Some Determinants of Job Satisfaction: A Study of the Generality of Herzberg’s Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(3): 161–163.

Feldman, D., & Bolino, M. 2000. Career Patterns of the Self-Employed: Career Motivations and Career Outcomes. Journal of Small Business Management, (July): 53–68.

Fisher, C. D. 2010. Happiness at Work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4): 384– 412.

Gaziel, H. 1986. Correlates of job satisfaction: A study of the two factor theory in an educational setting. The Journal of Psychology, 120(6): 613–626.

Godard, J. 2001. High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 54(4): 776–805.

Godard, J. 2004. A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(2): 349–378.

Grilo, I., & Irigoyen, J.-M. 2006. Entrepreneurship in the EU: to wish and not to be. Small Business Economics, 26(4): 305–318.

Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the Design of Work : Test of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.

Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. 2003. Entrepreneurship as a solution: The allure of self-employment for women and minorities. Human Resource Management Review, 13: 347–364.

Herzberg, F. 1968. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1): 53–62.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. 1959. The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. 1967. Herzberg’s Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and

(23)

Hundley, G. 2001. Why and When Are the Self-Employed More Satisfied with Their Work? Industrial Relations, 40(2): 293–316.

ISSP. 2010. Archive and Data. http://www.issp.org/page.php?pageId=4.

Kacel, B., Miller, M., & Norris, D. 2005. Measurement of nurse practitioner job satisfaction in a Midwestern state. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 17(1): 27–32. Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. 1952. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. Journal of

the American Statistical Association, 47(260): 583–621.

Levy, P. L. 2003. Industrial/organisational psychology: Understanding the workplace. Boston: Houghton Miflin Company.

Lix, L. M., Keselman, J. C., & Keselman, H. J. 1996. Consequences of Assumption Violations Revisited: A Quantitative Review of Alternatives to the One-Way Analysis of Variance F Test. Review of Educational Research, 66(4): 579–619.

Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1297–1349. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Malinovsky, M. R., & Barry, J. R. 1965. Determinants of work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(6): 446–451.

Osterman, P. 2000. Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: Trends in diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 53(2): 179–196.

Parasuraman, S., & Simmers, C. A. 2001. Type of employment, work-family conflict and well-being: a comparative study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 551–568.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1997. “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 899–929.

Prottas, D. J., & Thompson, C. a. 2006. Stress, satisfaction, and the work-family interface: a comparison of self-employed business owners, independents, and organizational employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4): 366–378.

Roemer, J. E. 1982. A general theory of exploitation and class. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.

Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. 2011. Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6): 359–371.

Sachau, D. 2007. Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4): 377–393.

Sharp, T. P. 2008. Job satisfaction among psychiatric registered nurses in New England. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 15(5): 374–378.

(24)

Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & others. 1999. Developing effective self-managing work teams in service organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24(3): 340–366. Stello, C. M. 2011. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction: An Integrative Literature

Review. Unpublished paper presented at The 2011 Student Research Conference: Exploring Opportunities in Research, Policy, and Practice, University of Minnesota Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy and Development, Minneapolis, MN.

Taylor, M. R. 1996. EARNINGS, INDEPENDENCE OR UNEMPLOYMENT: WHY BECOME SELF-EMPLOYED? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58(2): 253–266. Thompson, C. A., & Prottas, D. J. 2006. Relationships among organizational family support, job

autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(1): 100.

Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Yousef, D. A. 2000. Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1): 6–24.

ZA4350: International Social Survey Programme: Work Orientation III - ISSP 2005. 2005. Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.

(25)

APPENDIX A: SYNTAX

RECODE COUNTRY (1,2,3,4,10,11,12,13,19,25,28,30,32,33,34,37=1) (ELSE=0) INTO WE. RECODE COUNTRY (8,14,15,17,18,26,29=1) (ELSE=0) INTO EE.

RECODE COUNTRY (6,20=1) (ELSE=0) INTO NA. RECODE COUNTRY (21,38,43=1) (ELSE=0) INTO CSA. RECODE COUNTRY (22,24,39,41=1) (ELSE=0) INTO ASIA. RECODE COUNTRY (40=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AFRICA. RECODE SEX (1=1) (2=0) INTO MALE.

RECODE AGE (20,21,22,23,24=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE20. RECODE AGE (25,26,27,28,29=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE25. RECODE AGE (30,31,32,33,34=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE30. RECODE AGE (35,36,37,38,39=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE35. RECODE AGE (40,41,42,43,44=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE40. RECODE AGE (45,46,47,48,49=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE45. RECODE AGE (50,51,52,53,54=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE50. RECODE AGE (55,56,57,58,59,60=1) (ELSE=0) INTO AGE55. RECODE WRKTYPE (4=1) (1,2,3=0) INTO SELF_EMPL. RECODE WRKSUP (1=1) (2=0) INTO SUPERVISOR. *Creating reversed scales.

RECODE V32 V33 V31 V36 V49 V50 V30 V29 (1=5) (2=4) (3=3) (4=2) (5=1) INTO V32R V33R V31R V36R V49R V50R V30R V29R.

RECODE V51 (1=7) (2=6) (3=5) (4=4) (5=3) (6=2) (7=1) INTO V51R. COMPUTE WORK_COND = MEAN (V37,V38,V39,V40).

COMPUTE PERS_LIFE = MEAN (V44,V45). *Creating autonomy squared.

COMPUTE AUT_SQ = V33R * V33R. *Creating ln(wrkhrs).

COMPUTE LNWRKHRS = LN(WRKHRS).

COMPUTE filter_$=(AGE >= 20 & AGE <= 60 & ANY(V32,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V33,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V31,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V36,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V49,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V50,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V30,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V29,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V51,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) & ANY(V44,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V45,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V37,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V38,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V39,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V40,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(SELF_EMPL,0,1) & ANY(MALE,0,1) & ANY(SUPERVISOR,0,1) & WRKHRS >= 1 &

WRKHRS <= 96 & DEGREE <= 5).

VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'AGE >= 20 & AGE <= 60 & ANY(V32,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V33,1,2,3,4,5) & '+ 'ANY(V31,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V36,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V49,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V50,1,2,3,4,5) & '+

'ANY(V30,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V29,1,2,3,4,5) & ANY(V51,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) & ANY(V44,1,2,3,4,5) & '+ 'ANY... (FILTER)'.

VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'. FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).

FILTER BY filter_$. * Custom Tables. CTABLES

/VLABELS VARIABLES=V51R V32R V33R V31R V36R V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R SELF_EMPL

DISPLAY=LABEL

(26)

STDDEV, TOTALN F40.0] + V31R [MEAN, STDDEV, TOTALN F40.0] + V36R [MEAN, STDDEV, TO-TALN F40.0] +

V49R [MEAN, STDDEV, TOTALN F40.0] + V50R [MEAN, STDDEV, TOTALN F40.0] + WORK_COND [MEAN, STDDEV,

TOTALN F40.0] + V30R [MEAN, STDDEV, TOTALN F40.0] + PERS_LIFE [MEAN, STDDEV, TO-TALN F40.0] + V29R

[MEAN, STDDEV, TOTALN F40.0] BY SELF_EMPL

/CATEGORIES VARIABLES=SELF_EMPL ORDER=A KEY=VALUE EMPTY=EXCLUDE.

EXAMINE VARIABLES=V51R V32R V33R V31R V36R V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R BY SELF_EMPL /PLOT NPPLOT /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /CINTERVAL 95 /MISSING LISTWISE /NOTOTAL. * Kruskal–Wallis test. NPAR TESTS /K-W=V32R V33R V31R V36R V49R V50R V30R V29R V51R WORK_COND PERS_LIFE BY SELF_EMPL(0 1) /MISSING ANALYSIS. CORRELATIONS

/VARIABLES=V51R V32R V33R V31R V36R V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R /PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG

/MISSING=PAIRWISE. ***REGRESSION MODELS. *ONLY DIRECT EFFECT. MIXED V51R WITH SELF_EMPL

/CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCON-VERGE(0,

ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED=SELF_EMPL | SSTYPE(3)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

/RANDOM =INTERCEPT | SUBJECT (COUNTRY) COVTYPE (ID). EXECUTE.

*DIRECT EFFECT + MOTIVATION FACTORS.

MIXED V51R WITH SELF_EMPL V32R V33R AUT_SQ V31R V36R

ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED=SELF_EMPL V32R V33R AUT_SQ V31R V36R | SSTYPE(3)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*DIRECT EFFECT + HYGIENE FACTORS.

MIXED V51R WITH SELF_EMPL V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R

ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) /FIXED=SELF_EMPL V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R | SSTYPE(3) /METHOD=ML

(27)

*DIRECT EFFECT + ALL FACTORS.

MIXED V51R WITH SELF_EMPL V32R V33R AUT_SQ V31R V36R V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R

ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)

/FIXED=SELF_EMPL V32R V33R AUT_SQ V31R V36R V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R | SSTYPE(3)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*DIRECT EFFECT + ALL FACTORS + CONTROLS.

MIXED V51R WITH SELF_EMPL V32R V33R AUT_SQ V31R V36R V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R EE NA CSA ASIA AFRICA MALE AGE25 AGE30 AGE35 AGE40 AGE45 AGE50 AGE55 DEGREE LNWRKHRS SUPERVISOR

/FIXED=SELF_EMPL V32R V33R AUT_SQ V31R V36R V49R V50R WORK_COND V30R PERS_LIFE V29R EE NA CSA ASIA AFRICA MALE AGE25 AGE30 AGE35 AGE40 AGE45 AGE50 AGE55 DEGREE LNWRKHRS SUPERVISOR | SSTYPE(3)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*MOTIVATION FACTORS

SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON WORK ITSELF.

MIXED V32R WITH SELF_EMPL EE NA CSA ASIA AFRICA MALE AGE25 AGE30 AGE35 AGE40 AGE45 AGE50 AGE55 DEGREE LNWRKHRS SUPERVISOR

/FIXED=SELF_EMPL EE NA CSA ASIA AFRICA MALE AGE25 AGE30 AGE35 AGE40 AGE45 AGE50 AGE55 DEGREE LNWRKHRS SUPERVISOR | SSTYPE(3)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON AUTONOMY.

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

(28)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON GROWTH.

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*HYGIENE FACTORS

SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON REL WITH SUPERVISORS OR SUBORDINATES.

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON REL WITH PEERS.

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON REL WITH WORK CONDITIONS.

MIXED WORK_COND WITH SELF_EMPL EE NA CSA ASIA AFRICA MALE AGE25 AGE30 AGE35 AGE40 AGE45 AGE50 AGE55 DEGREE LNWRKHRS SUPERVISOR

(29)

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON SALARY.

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON PERSONAL LIFE.

MIXED PERS_LIFE WITH SELF_EMPL EE NA CSA ASIA AFRICA MALE AGE25 AGE30 AGE35 AGE40 AGE45 AGE50 AGE55 DEGREE LNWRKHRS SUPERVISOR

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*SELF-EMPLOYMENT ON JOB SECURITY.

/METHOD=ML

/PRINT=G R SOLUTION

*Work conditions - detail. * Custom Tables.

CTABLES

/VLABELS VARIABLES=V37 V38 V39 V40 SELF_EMPL DISPLAY=LABEL

/TABLE V37 [S][MEAN COMMA40.2] + V38 [S][MEAN COMMA40.2] + V39 [S][MEAN COMMA40.2] + V40 [S][MEAN

COMMA40.2] BY SELF_EMPL [C]

/CATEGORIES VARIABLES=SELF_EMPL ORDER=A KEY=VALUE EMPTY=EXCLUDE. * Kruskal–Wallis test.

NPAR TESTS