Bureaucracy in Healthcare, a Burden for Everyone?
The Relationship Between Coercive Bureaucracy, Autonomy, and Job Satisfaction in Healthcare Organizations and the Moderating Role of Personal Need for Structure
15-06-2016 University of Groningen
Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands
WORD COUNT: 4299 words (excluding abstract, references, and figures).
Author Note
The present paper is my master’s thesis and is written under the supervision of L. Maxim Laurijssen. Correspondence concerning this thesis should be addressed to Clara Drenth,
clara.g.drenth@gmail.com
Abstract
A decent quality of healthcare is important to society. As job satisfaction of healthcare professionals contributes to quality of care, it is particularly meaningful to look at what determines their job satisfaction. In the present research, the link between coercive bureaucracy and job satisfaction was examined. The results indicated that coercive
bureaucracy is negatively associated with job satisfaction. Furthermore, and in line with self- determination theory, it was shown that autonomy mediates this relationship. Finally, the personality trait personal need for structure was found to moderate this mediation, such that that healthcare professionals with higher levels of personal need for structure did not react as negatively to increases in coercive bureaucracy via lower levels of autonomy compared to those with lower levels of personal need for structure. Implications for healthcare
organizations and future research are discussed.
Keywords: Coercive Bureaucracy, Job Satisfaction, Autonomy, Personal Need for
Structure, Healthcare Professionals
Bureaucracy in Healthcare, a Burden for Everyone? The relationship Between Coercive Bureaucracy, Autonomy, and Job Satisfaction in Healthcare Organizations and the
Moderating Role of Personal Need for Structure
Quality of care declines when the job satisfaction of healthcare professionals suffers (Lu, Ruan, Xing, & Hu, 2015; Shirom, Nirel, & Vinokur, 2006). In addition, Dalton (2010) argues that giving physicians more money is not enough to ensure high quality care, but that job satisfaction is as important, if not more. In turn, job satisfaction is found to be related to increased performance (Bowling, Khazon, Meyer, & Burrus, 2015), less burnout and
absenteeism (Jang, Park & Zippay, 2011; Lu et al., 2015) and lower turnover-rates (Murtin &
Gustin, 2004; Tsai & Wu, 2010; Vidal & Valle, 2007). Considering that replacing a physician costs a healthcare organization somewhere between 240.000 and 265.000 American dollars (Stoddard, Hargraves, Reed, & Vratil, 2001), makes it also financially relevant to make sure healthcare professionals are satisfied with their job.
Recent research reveals that red tape – a form of coercive bureaucracy characterized by burdensome rules (Feeney, 2012) – is one important factor that negatively impacts
healthcare professionals’ job satisfaction (Schaufeli & Wesly, 2014; Stoddard et al., 2001). In the present research, it is argued that this occurs via healthcare professionals’ experience of reduced autonomy. Indeed, previous findings indicate that for nurses, reduced autonomy is negatively associated with job satisfaction (Iliopoulou & While, 2010).
Paradoxically, however, bureaucracy is also mentioned as a factor that can contribute to job satisfaction (Adler & Borys, 1996; Rai, 2013). This apparent contradiction may be dissolved by examining the moderating role of individual differences. Specifically, the job satisfaction of employees with a higher personal need for structure – characterized by a need for structure and clarity and an aversion towards ambiguity (Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, &
Moskowitz, 2001) – may be less negatively affected by reduced autonomy compared to those
with a lower personal need for structure. This, because these individuals may prefer higher levels of bureaucracy and lower levels of autonomy, as it imparts them the desired clarity and direction that they seek. Research supports the notion that individuals with a higher personal need for structure are less likely to cope effectively with uncertainty and ambiguity
(Rietzschel, Slijkhuis, & Van Yperen, 2014). Ironically, employees with a higher personal need for structure may not experience the burden that coercive bureaucracy instills via lower levels of autonomy as they savor the guidance that the rules provide compared to employees with a lower personal need for structure.
All in all, the present research aims to provide a theoretical contribution to our understanding of the effects of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction via autonomy in healthcare organizations. More importantly, the present research taps into the moderating effect of personal need for structure to disentangle the paradoxical nature of coercive bureaucracy. From a more practical perspective, the present research may help healthcare organizations to consider how policies and guidelines may be adapted to improve job satisfaction by taking into account individual differences, such as employees’ personal need for structure.
Coercive Bureaucracy and Job Satisfaction
Bureaucracy can be conceptualized in two different ways (Adler & Borys, 1996).
First, supportive bureaucracy refers to rules and protocols perceived to be helpful and are
argued to make a job more structured and effective. This view conceptualizes bureaucracy in
a positive way and argues that a certain amount of rules can help improve employees’ work
and may lead to improved job satisfaction. For instance, enabling bureaucracy can be seen as
a form of supportive bureaucracy as both refer to rules perceived supportive and work-
enhancing (Adler & Borys, 1996). Second, coercive bureaucracy refers to rules that are
viewed as unnecessary and burdensome (Adler & Borys, 1996). This view frames
bureaucracy in negative terms and posits that it demotivates employees and makes them less satisfied with their job. Similarly, red tape is defined as a form of coercive bureaucracy characterized by burdensome rules (Feeney, 2012) because both refer to rules that are perceived unnecessary and burdensome.
Coercive bureaucracy in particular may be negatively related to job satisfaction, which can be defined as a positive emotional state which originates from the experienced value of someone’s work or work-experience (Heller, Ferris, Brown, & Watson, 2009).
Relating to healthcare professionals, Stoddard and colleagues (2001) argue that rules and regulations can account for lower job satisfaction in physicians. Likewise, because coercive bureaucracy refers to such rules and regulations (cf. Adler & Borys, 1996), it is expected that:
Hypothesis 1: Coercive bureaucracy is negatively associated with job satisfaction.
The Mediating Role of Autonomy
Furthermore, coercive bureaucracy may be negatively related to job satisfaction via autonomy, which can be defined as the right to exercise discretional decisions in the context of interdependent-based healthcare work in accordance with the socially and legally granted freedom in healthcare professions (Wade, 1999). It is argued that the deprivation of people’s need for autonomy is negatively related to their well-being (Ryan, 2005). Indeed, previous research demonstrated a positive relation between autonomy and job satisfaction. For instance, McGilton and Pringle (1999) found that nurses who experienced higher levels of control (i.e. autonomy; cf. Spector, 1986) over their work were more satisfied with their job.
Further, practices that are promoting self-determination or autonomy have a positive effect on job satisfaction, and practices that undermine autonomy have a negative effect on job
satisfaction (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2015). Also, higher levels of autonomy account for
more job involvement and job commitment (Spector, 1986).
The relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction can be described by self- determination theory. Self-determination theory places autonomy as a need at the cornerstone of a person’s well being (Radel, Pelletier, Sarrazin, & Milyavskaya, 2011) and makes a distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Autonomous motivation refers to an individual’s actions being completely in line with that individual’s highest level of reflection and values (Dworkin, 1988, p. 17). Controlled motivation, in contrast, refers to acting under some kind of pressure, for example by deadlines, surveillance, orders, and directives (Radel et al., 2011).
Arguably, coercive bureaucracy can be seen as a form of controlled motivation (cf.
Adler & Borys, 1996), as both involve having to deal with orders and directives, which distracts an individual from the focal tasks and actions an individual intended and wanted to perform (i.e., autonomous motivation). Kirkpatrick, Ackroyd, and Walker (2005) argue that the upsurge of rules and regulations in healthcare organizations can be detrimental to the autonomy of healthcare professionals. Indeed, previous research indicates that regulations and administrative tasks can undermine healthcare professionals’ perceived autonomy.
Literature seems to suggest that this, in turn, may be negatively related to their job satisfaction (Stoddard et al., 2001) and, subsequently, the quality of care (Lin, 2014). As such, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 2: The negative relation between coercive bureaucracy and job satisfaction is mediated via lower levels of autonomy.
The Moderation Role of Personal Need for Structure
A person’s need for structure refers to a strong preference for clarity and an aversion
towards ambiguity (Thompson et al., 2001). Although employees experience bureaucracy in
the same organizational context, every employee can have a unique interpretation of the same
rules and regulations (cf. Adler & Borys, 1996). Because people with a high personal need
for structure prefer and value clarity and direction, the rules and regulations may actually be perceived as helping them instead of harming them. This implies that people may perceive bureaucracy as either enhancing or diminishing their job satisfaction, depending on their personal need for structure. For instance, in recent research, Slijkhuis, Rietschel, and Van Yperen (2013) found that employees with a high personal need for structure are less likely to respond negatively to external control or lower autonomy. Moreover, they argue that personal need for structure moderates the negative effects of close monitoring on job satisfaction. As such, healthcare professionals with a higher personal need for structure may not experience coercive bureaucracy as a burden, because they do not respond as negatively to the lower levels of autonomy resulting from coercive bureaucracy. Therefore, it is argued that personal need for structure moderates the negative relationship between autonomy and job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Personal need for structure moderates the negative and indirect effect of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction via lower levels of autonomy, such that autonomy will mediate the indirect effect of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction when personal need for structure is low but not when it is high.
Method Respondents and Procedure
A total of 200 healthcare professionals (87% female), ranging in age from 20 to 65
(M
age= 40,16; SD
age= 14,02) completed the questionnaire. They all had Dutch as their
mother tongue, and they worked in a healthcare environment directly with patients. The
healthcare professionals’ work experience ranged from 0 to 48 years (M = 17.14, SD =
12.70). Their education level varied from primary school (1%), preparatory secondary
vocational education (2%), senior general secondary education (2.5%), pre-university
education (0.5%), senior secondary vocational education (23%), higher professional
education (35.5%), to university education (34.5%). Forty-three participants were excluded from further analyses as they either did not complete the questionnaire or were not healthcare professionals.
Participants were recruited by e-mail, web-based announcements, or face to face, mostly through the researcher’s personal network. Respondents were asked to fill in the questionnaire by either paper and pencil or through an online survey. The layouts of these questionnaires were identical. Full anonymity was guaranteed and all participants signed an informed consent before participating. The questionnaire included measures for coercive bureaucracy, autonomy, job satisfaction, and personal need for structure. The questionnaire concluded with demographic questions and participants were thanked for their participation.
Measures
Coercive bureaucracy. In order to establish a more reliable measure of coercive
bureaucracy, a 7-item scale was developed (for all items, see Appendix A), which was based on the original single item red tape measure by Feeney (2012) and based on the work by Pandey, Coursey, Moynihan (2007) and Spector (1985). Participants indicated their agreement on a 7-point Likert-type rating scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). The items were averaged into a single coercive bureaucracy score (M = 3.80; SD = 1.32; α = .92). Sample items include: ‘In my organization, there are too many rules and procedures’ and ‘many of the rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult’.
Autonomy. The autonomy perceived by the healthcare professionals was measured
using a scale adapted from (for all items, see Appendix B) the autonomy scales from Van
Prooijen (2009) and Radel and colleagues (2011). A sample item of this scale is ‘In my
current work, I can decide for myself what task or project I want to do’. This scale consists
out of three items, which participants answered on a Likert-type rating scale (1 = completely
disagree to 7 = completely agree) and were averaged into a single autonomy score (M = 4.21;
SD = 1.26; α = 0.84).
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with 4 items from the overall job
satisfaction scale by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski and Erez (2003). An example item is:
‘Thinking specifically about your current job, do you agree with the following? Most days I am enthusiastic about my job’. Participants responded on a Likert-type rating scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree) and their scores were averaged into a single job satisfaction score (M = 5.43; SD = 1.05; α = 0.91).
Personal need for structure. Personal need for structure was assessed using 6 items
from the personal need for structure scale by Neuberg & Newsom (1993). Example items include: ‘I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life’ and ‘I become uncomfortable when the rules in a situation are not clear’. Participants answered on a Likert-type rating scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Together, these items
comprised a reliable measure of personal need for structure (M = 3.93; SD = 0.74; α = .75).
Results Preliminary Analyses
Descriptives and correlations are presented in Table 1. Inspection of correlations between potential covariates such as age, sex, and tenure with the variables of interest showed no outstanding correlations. As such, all analyses were conducted without covariates or control variables. For hypotheses 2 and 3, the variables autonomy and personal need for structure were mean-centered prior to the analyses.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1 stated that coercive bureaucracy is negatively associated with job
satisfaction. A simple regression analysis was performed with coercive bureaucracy as
independent variable and job satisfaction as dependent variable. In line with Hypothesis 1,
the analysis revealed that healthcare professionals’ self-reported coercive bureaucracy was negatively related to job satisfaction, F(1, 198) = 13.37, p < .001, R
2= .06.
Hypothesis 2 stated that the negative relation between coercive bureaucracy and job satisfaction is mediated via lower levels of autonomy. A mediation analysis was performed using Hayes’ PROCESS-macro (2007; model 4). Coercive bureaucracy was entered as the independent variable, autonomy as the mediator, and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. First, results revealed that coercive bureaucracy was negatively associated with autonomy, b = -0.28, SE
b= .06, t(198) = -4.30, p < .001. Indeed, individuals perceived
unnecessary and burdensome rules as a loss of autonomy. Second and in line with Hypothesis 2, bootstrapping revealed that the negative relation between coercive bureaucracy and job satisfaction was mediated by autonomy (estimate: -0.09; BCa CI: [-0.16, -0.04]). In addition, an unhypothesized negative direct effect of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction was also found, b = -0.11, SE
b= 0.05, t(197) = -2.07, p = .04. That is, a partial mediation of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction via autonomy was found.
Hypothesis 3 stated that personal need for structure moderates the negative and
indirect effect of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction via lower levels of autonomy, such
that autonomy will mediate the indirect effect of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction
when personal need for structure is low but not when it is high. In order to test Hypothesis 3,
Hayes’ PROCESS-macro (2013; model 14) was used to perform a moderated-mediation
analysis, with personal need for structure as the moderator. The results of this moderated
mediation are presented in Table 2. This moderated-mediation analysis showed that coercive
bureaucracy was negatively associated with job satisfaction, b = -0.11, SE
b= 0.05, t(198) = --
2.09, p < .05. Further, coercive bureaucracy was negatively associated with autonomy, b = -
0.28, SE
b= 0.06, t(198) = -4.30, p = < .001. Autonomy interacted with personal need for
structure to explain participants’ job satisfaction, b = -0.17, t(195) = -2.30, p = .02, revealing
the hypothesized moderated mediation. Bootstrapping demonstrated a conditional indirect effect of bureaucracy on job satisfaction via autonomy for different values of personal need for structure (estimate: .05; BCa CI: [0.01, 0.10]). When personal need for structure was low, bureaucracy was more negatively associated with job satisfaction via autonomy, b = -0.14, SE
b= 0.04, BCa CI [-0.26, -0.07], than when personal need for structure was high, b = -0.07, SE
b= 0.03, BCa CI [-0.13, -0.02]. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is partially supported. In line with the hypothesis, autonomy mediates the indirect effect of coercive bureaucracy on job
satisfaction for healthcare professionals with lower levels of personal need for structure.
However, this relation is also found for healthcare professionals with higher levels of personal need for structure. Though, the direction of this relation is as expected; healthcare professionals with higher levels of personal need for structure experienced the reduction in experiences of autonomy as a result of coercive bureaucracy less negatively compared to individuals with lower levels of personal need for structure.
Discussion
In the present research, it was hypothesized that coercive bureaucracy is negatively related with job satisfaction. It was predicted that autonomy would mediate this relationship.
Furthermore, personal need for structure was predicted to moderate the relationship between
coercive bureaucracy, autonomy, and job satisfaction. The results of the present study
indicated that coercive bureaucracy indeed is negatively associated with job satisfaction. In
addition, this relationship is mediated via lower levels of autonomy, which is in line with the
second hypothesis. The last hypothesis was partly confirmed. Personal need for structure
indeed moderated the relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction, but such that
healthcare professionals with a higher level of personal need for structure suffer less from
coercive bureaucracy via autonomy than healthcare professionals with lower levels of
personal need for structure. Originally, it was predicted that autonomy would mediate the
indirect effect of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction when levels of personal need for structure were lower rather than higher.
Theoretical Implications
In the light of the results, the present research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this study adds to the literature on coercive bureaucracy and autonomy by uncovering that the effects of coercive bureaucracy on job satisfaction via autonomy may be conditional on people’s individual differences. That is, not all people experience coercive bureaucracy as such an impediment to their autonomy and, consequently, as a hindrance to their job satisfaction. Specifically, although healthcare professionals with higher levels of personal need for structure still disliked unnecessary and burdensome rules, they disliked it less compared to healthcare professionals with lower levels of personal need for structure. By taking into account individual differences, the present research provides a first step in solving the paradox of positive and negative effects of bureaucracy. People with a higher personal need for structure derive the direction and purpose from bureaucracy they generally seek in work (i.e., positive relationship), whereas people with a lower personal need for structure do not seek such direction and dislike bureaucracy (i.e., negative relationship). Rietschel, Slijkhuis, and Van Yperen (2014) argued that individuals with a higher personal need for structure are less likely to cope effectively with uncertainty and ambiguity, and Thompson and colleagues (2001) stated those people have a strong preference for clarity and an aversion towards ambiguity. This suggests that their negative reaction to ambiguity potentially can be taken away by some forms of rules and regulations. The present research adds to this
framework by demonstrating empirically that people with higher levels of personal need for
structure indeed are less negatively affected by coercive bureaucracy as people with lower
levels personal need for structure.
It is important to note that although healthcare professionals with a higher level of personal need for structure are found to experience less burden from coercive bureaucracy compared to those with a lower level of personal need for structure, the relation is still negative. This means that although those individuals with higher levels of personal need for structure may derive their wanted and needed direction and structure from the abundance of rules associated present in a coercive bureaucracy, they do not all of a sudden enjoy a coercive bureaucracy (cf. Adler & Borys, 1996; Rai, 2013). Though, the present study focused only on the negative side of bureaucracy (i.e. coercive bureaucracy). It might be that for people with higher levels of personal need for structure, a general increase in bureaucracy is valued positively as it provides them with the desired clarity and direction.
Second, this research adds empirical findings to the autonomy research as an
important construct in the workplace of healthcare professionals. The present research shows that part of the reason that coercive bureaucracy has a negative impact on job satisfaction is via the lower levels of autonomy experienced by the healthcare professionals (cf. McGilton
& Pringle, 1999; Ryan, 2005). This research further adds to the line of thought of Stoddard and colleagues (2001), who found that regulations and administrative tasks may undermined the perceived autonomy of healthcare professionals. Also, and in line with previous research, the present findings recognize the importance of autonomy as a vital and basic need in the workplace (Deci & Ryan, 2005; Radel et al., 2011). Indeed, the notion of controlled versus autonomous motivation also applies to healthcare professionals.
Practical Implications
There are some interesting implications for practice following from the present
research. First, this research shows that coercive bureaucracy has negative implications for
healthcare professionals’ job satisfaction (cf. Schaufeli & Wesly, 2014; Stoddard et al.,
2001). Since lower levels of job satisfaction is a precedent for other negative consequences
like burnout and absenteeism (Jang, Park, & Zippay, 2011; Lu, Ruan, Xing, & Hu 2015), and more importantly declining quality of care (Lu, 2015; Shirom, Nirel, & Vinokur, 2006), it is important for healthcare organizations to consider the consequences of coercive bureaucracy.
Specifically, organizations could take steps to shield their healthcare professionals from unnecessary and burdensome rules and procedures. For instance, organizations could
consider lowering the amount of rules and regulations to decrease their negative impact. This might not be easy, especially since a lot of bureaucracy is meted out by external authorities such as the government or insurance companies. Therefore, it is advised to all stakeholders involved in meting out (coercive) rules and regulations to healthcare professionals consider these results and create more effective ways of dealing with bureaucracy.
Second, another line of thinking could be how the negative effects of coercive bureaucracy can be lowered. One way is through selecting healthcare professionals with higher levels of personal need for structure for those positions that carry a relatively large number of rules and regulations. This way, even though there is a lot of coercive bureaucracy in the considered organization, this will have less negative effects on job satisfaction and quality of care as it will for people with lower levels of personal need for structure.
Strength and Limitations
Like all studies, the present research is not without its limitations. Due to the design of this study, there is a lack of internal validity as we measure and not manipulate our variables. That is, we cannot draw causal inferences from the present study. However, what the present study lacks in internal validity is made up for in terms of external validity. The present study comprised a large sample of healthcare professionals working on actual
healthcare organizations. In addition, common method bias may have occurred due to the fact
that the data for this study was gathered through a questionnaire solely relying on self-report
measures, which may have inflated the findings (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003).
Directions for Future Research
In light of the results of the present study, it seems important to think about ways to decrease bureaucracy in healthcare organizations. Though this is not always easy and some sources of rules and regulations may be inevitable. One main question for future research is the extent to which inevitable rules and regulations are perceived to be unnecessary and burdensome (i.e., coercive bureaucracy). For instance, healthcare professionals often have to work with protocols. Some of those protocols may be perceived as burdensome and taking away the freedom and discretion of healthcare professionals to do their job their way (e.g., Groopman, 2008).
Although it is not possible to draw causal inferences from the present study, the results indicate that autonomy mediates the relationship between bureaucracy and job satisfaction. Therefore, it may be that perceived losses in autonomy by increased rules and regulations may be compensated for by giving healthcare professionals more autonomy in other ways. This way, job satisfaction might still stay (relatively) high. It might be possible that when increasing bureaucracy cannot be avoided and is truly necessary in an organization, this offset could be compensated for by providing affected healthcare professionals with more autonomy. An avenue for future research would be to determine whether autonomy can be kept high with other factors. It is important to realize that this might be more helpful for healthcare professionals with lower levels of personal need for structure, since the present study showed that people with higher levels of personal need for structure are less affected by lower levels of autonomy (see also Slijkhuis, Rietzschel, & Van Yperen, 2013).
In the light of the results of this research, it is important to include personal need for
structure in future healthcare research as well. As Slijkhuis, Rietzschel, and Van Yperen
(2013) argued, it might be possible that people high in personal need for structure perceive autonomy negatively, because for those people more autonomy may cause unclear
expectations and less structure. In that sense, perceptions of high autonomy may coincide with perceptions of high rule ambiguity (cf. Feldman, 1991). Future research could consider the interaction between ambiguity and autonomy. For instance, it may be possible that compensation of autonomy will be more suitable for healthcare professionals with lower personal need for structure if healthcare professionals with higher levels of personal need for structure perceive more autonomy to be more ambiguous as well. Further research is needed to find out whether this is actually the case. In addition, previous research showed that quality of care is one of the most important outcomes in healthcare organizations, and that job
satisfaction often precedes high quality of care (Lu et al., 2015; Shirom, Nirel, & Vinokur, 2006). Future research could dive deeper into this matter by extending the present research model by taking quality of care measures into account as well.
Conclusion
In sum, the present research shows that coercive bureaucracy is negatively associated with job satisfaction, and that lower levels of autonomy mediate this relationship. However, the results also show that there is hope for healthcare organizations, since healthcare
professionals with higher (instead of lower) personal need for structure are less effected by
coercive bureaucracy. Three potential solutions emerged to account for the negative link
between coercive bureaucracy and job satisfaction via lower levels of autonomy: simply
reduce the amount of rules and regulations, provide healthcare professionals with more
autonomy, and hire or put healthcare professionals with higher levels of personal need for
structure in those positions with more rules and regulations as they are more tolerant and
react less aversive to coercive bureaucracy.
References
Adler, P., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61-89. doi: 10.2307/2393986
Bowling, N.A., Khazon, S., Meyer, R.D., & Burrus, C.J. (2015). Situational strength as a moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: A meta analytic examination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 89-104. doi:
10.1007/s10869-013-9340-7
Dalton, S. (2010). Motivating medicine: Why money is not enough. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 46, 142-143. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2009.01651.x
Feeney, M.K. (2012). Organizational red tape: A measurement experiment. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 427-444. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus002 Feldman, M.S. (1991). The meanings of ambiguity: Learning from stories and metaphors.
Reframing organizational culture. Beverly Hills, CA: sage.
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2015). Employee empowerment and job satisfaction in the U.S. federal bureaucracy: A self-determination theory perspective. The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 375-401. doi: 10.1177/0275074013507478 Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 26, 331-362. doi: 10.1002/job.322
Groopman, J.E. (2008). How doctors think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Halama, P., & Gurnáková, J. (2014). Need for structure and big five personality traits as predictors of decision making styles in health professionals. Studia Psychologica, 56, 171-179.
Heller, D., Ferris, D., Brown, D., & Watson, D. (2009). The influence of work personality on
job satisfaction: Incremental validity and mediation effects. Journal of Personality,
77, 1051-1084. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00574.x
Iliopoulou, K.K., & While, A.E. (2010). Professional autonomy and job satisfaction: Survey of critical care nurses in mainland Greece. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 2520- 2531. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05424.x
Jang, S., Park, R., & Zippay, A. (2011). The interaction effects of scheduling control and work-life balance programs on job satisfaction and mental health. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20, 135-143. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2010.00739.x Kirkpatrick, L., Ackroyd, S., & Walker, R. (2005). The New Public Management and
Professions: Developments in Health, Social Care and Management, Palgrave:
London.
Lin, K.Y. (2014). Physicians’ perceptions of autonomy across practice types: Is autonomy in solo practice a myth? Social Science & Medicine, 100, 21-29. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.033
Lu, M., Ruan, H., Xing, W., & Hu, Y. (2015). Nurse burnout in China: A questionnaire survey on staffing, job satisfaction and quality of care. Journal of nursing management, 23, 440-447. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12150
McGilton, K.S., & Pringle, D.M. (1999) The effects of perceived and preferred control on nurses’ job satisfaction in long term care environments. Research in Nursing &
Health, 22, 251-261.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J., & Erez, M. (2003). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121. doi:10.2307/3069391
Murtin, P.A., & Gustin, T.J. (2004). Organizational dimensions of hospital nursing practice.
Journal of Nursing Administration, 34, 554-561. doi:10.1097/00005110-200412000- 00005
Neuberg, S.L., & Newsom, J.T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in
the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113
Pandey, S.K., Coursey, D.H., & Moynihan, D.P. (2007). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multimethod study. Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 398-425. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576300305
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, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Prooijen, J. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1166-1180. doi: 10.1037/a0014153
Radel, R., Pelletier, L.G., Sarrazin, P., & Milyavskaya, M. (2011). Restoration process of the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 919-934. doi: 10.1037/a0025196
Rai, G.S. (2013). Job Satisfaction among long-term care staff: Bureaucracy isn’t always bad.
Administration in Social Work, 37, 90-99. doi:10.1080/03643107.2012.657750 Rietzschel, E.F., Slijkhuis, M., & Van Yperen, N.W. (2014). Close monitoring as a
contextual stimulator: How need for structure affects the relation between close monitoring and work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 394-404. doi:10.1080/1359432x.2012.752897
Ryan, R.M. (2005) The developmental line of autonomy in the etiology, dynamics and treatment of borderline personality disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 987-1006. doi:10.1017/s0954579405050467
Schaufeli, W., & Wesly, M (2014, 3 januari). Werkplezier en energie zorgprofessionals.
Retrieved from: https://www.vvaa.nl/levensloop/bezieling/het-onderzoek
Shirom, A., Nirel, N., & Vinokur, A.D. (2006). Overload, autonomy and burnout as
predictors of physicians quality of care. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 328-342. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.328
Slijkhuis, J.M., Rietzschel, E.F., & Van Yperen, N.W. (2013). How evaluation and need for structure affect motivation and creativity. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22, 15-25. doi:10.1080/1359432x.2011.626244
Spector, P.E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713.
doi:10.1007/BF00929796
Spector, P.E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 11, 1005-1016.
doi:10.1177/001872678603901104
Stoddard, J.J., Hargraves, J.L., Reed, M., & Vratil, A. (2001). Managed care, professional autonomy, and income: Effects on physician career satisfaction. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 675-684. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2001.01206.x
Thompson, M.M., Naccarato, M.E., Parker, K.C.H., & Moskowitz, G.B. (2001). The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical perspectives, current applications, and future directions. In G.B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 19-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsai, Y., & Wu, S. (2010). The relationships between organisational citizenship behaviour, job satisfaction and turnover intention. Journal of clinical nursing, 19, 3564-3574.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03375.x
Vidal, M.E.S., & Valle, R.S. (2007). Antecedents of repatriates' job satisfaction and its
influence on turnover intentions: Evidence from Spanish repatriated managers.
Journal of Business Research, 60, 1272–1281. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.004 Wade, H.G. (1999). Professional nurse autonomy: Concept analysis and application to
nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 310-318. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
2648.1999.01083.x
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlations
M SD (1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) Coercive bureaucracy 3.80 1.32 (.92)
(2) Autonomy 4.21 1.26 -.29** (.84)
(3) Job satisfaction 5.43 1.05 -.25** .43** (.91)
(4) Personal need for structure 3.93 0.74 -.10 -.00 .20** (.75)
Note. N = 200. Cronbach’s alphas are displayed on the diagonal. * p < .005; ** p < .001.
Table 2
Assessing Moderated Mediation where the Negative Indirect Effect of Coercive bureaucracy on Job Satisfaction via Autonomy is conditional on low versus high Personal Need for Structure (PNS).
Autonomy
Variable b SE t(198)
Constant 1.06 .26 4.07**
Coercive bureaucracy -.28 .06 -4.30**
Job Satisfaction
Variable b SE t(195)
Autonomy .36 .21 6.51**
Coercive bureaucracy -.11 .06 -2.09*
PNS .27 .09 3.06**
Autonomy x PNS -.17 .08 -2.30*
Conditional indirect effect
Condition Boot effect Boot SE LLCI ULCI
Low PNS -.14 .04 -.24 -.06
High PNS -.07 .03 -.13 -.02
Note. N = 200. * p < .05; ** p < .01
