• No results found

To what extent can HR practices increase the well-being at work of employees and which influence has personality on this relation?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "To what extent can HR practices increase the well-being at work of employees and which influence has personality on this relation?"

Copied!
49
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

“To what extent can HR practices increase the well-being at work

of employees and which influence has personality on this relation?”

Master Thesis

Nikki van Zunderd

30-06-2014

MSc in Business Studies – Leadership & Management Supervised by Claire Ashton-James.

(2)

1

Contents

Introduction ... 3

Employee Well-being ... 5

Different aspects of Employee Well-being ... 6

HR practices and Employee well-being ... 9

Training & Development ... 10

Rewards... 11

Empowerment ... 12

Personality... 13

The mediating role of Neuroticism ... 14

Methodology ... 16 Design ... 16 Procedure ... 17 Sample... 17 Measures ... 17 Results ... 19 Analyses ... 22 Correlations ... 22 Linear regression ... 23 Discussion ... 29

Limitations and Future research ... 33

Theoretical and Managerial implications ... 35

Conclusion ... 36

References ... 38

Appendix ... 38

(3)

2

Abstract

The well-being of employees at work is a great concern for organizations, since it is assumed that the more comfortable employees feel at work, the better they will perform. In the

literature about HRM, it is often assumed that employee well-being has a mediating role in the relation between HR practices and performance, though has not often been tested. In order to contribute to the literature, this study focuses on the relation between HR practices and the well-being of employees. Positive direct relations between different HR practices (i.e. Training & Development, Rewards and Empowerment) and several factors of Employee Well-being (i.e. Job satisfaction, Meaning and Affect) are expected. Three hypotheses are developed and tested with statistical analyses. Furthermore, it is proposed that the personality of an employee can have a moderating effect on this assumed positive relation. It is expected that for people scoring low on the personality trait of Neuroticism, a positive relationship exists between HR practices and Employee Well-being. However, for people scoring high on Neuroticism, no relation between HR practices and Employee Well-being is expected. This relation it tested in this study as well. In total, 168 respondents answered questions in a questionnaire relating to the HR practices present in the organization they are working for, the well-being they experience at work, and their personality. By testing the proposed model, no support is found for the hypotheses. The results did not indicate a direct relation between HR practices and Employee well-being, nor a moderating role of the personality trait of Neuroticism.

(4)

3

Introduction

A happy worker perceives a high level of well-being at work. This makes them perform at a higher level than employees experiencing a low level of well-being (Diener, 2000; Wright, Cropanzano & Bonett, 2007). An organization’s relationship with their employees is very important because humans are a great resource to achieve organizational goals (Barney & Wright, 1997). It is often investigated in current literature, and therefore assumed, that attracting and maintaining a workforce with a high level of well-being at work is of great importance to organizations.

Well-being in the workplace addresses an employee’s level of work-related

satisfaction or how an employee feels at work in general. This feeling can be influenced by several factors, such as the tasks performed, payment, or relationships with co-workers (Danna & Griffin, 1999; de Jonge, Bosma, Peter & Siegrist, 2000). Overall well-being can be conceptualized in three components: Satisfaction, Affect (moods) and Meaningfulness

(Diener & Biwas-Diener, 2003).

Another aspect that can have a major influence on the employee’s well-being is the regulations within the organization concerning their employees. Many of these regulations are developed by the Human Resource (HR) department in order to maximize flexibility, employee commitment, productivity, motivation and work quality (Guest, 1987; Nishii, Lepak & Schneider, 2008). In general, HR practices are described in the literature as “including all of the programs, policies and practices that firms use to manage their human resources” (Barney & Wright, 1997, p.4). HR practices are known for their positive effect on organizational performance. This relation is considered to be mediated by employee well-being. However, not much research has been done to explore this specific relation between HR and employee well-being (Holman, 2002). The human aspect of attitudes, feelings and behaviors of employees as a mediating role between HR practices and organizational

(5)

4 outcomes, such as performance, is often ignored (Gardner, Moynihan, Park & Wright, 2001). Most literature is focused on organizational outcomes and is not worker-centered but

organization-centered instead (Gardner et al., 2001; Guest, 2002). As Guest (2002) argues, “this research is in its infancy and only a very small number of directly relevant studies have been reported” (p. 343). This paper contributes in the area of worker-centered research by examining the direct relationship between HR practices and employee well-being.

Many different HR practices exist in organizations. Most can be placed into three main categories as described by Gardner et al. (2001), who did similar research. In their research, the influence of HR practices on turnover and commitment was tested with the focus on the employee. This paper continues to address the concepts of HR used in the research of Gardner et al. (2001), which can be summarized into ‘training and development’, ‘rewards’, and ‘empowerment’ (Gardner et al., 2001). These HR practices are considered to have the strength to influence people’s well-being at work.

Past research indicates that well-being is influenced by external factors such as health, earnings, schooling, and marital status, even though effect sizes are were very small. Recent literature demonstrates that well-being is more strongly affected by people’s personalities (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999). The most important personality traits of the Big Five theory that are related to well-being are extraversion and neuroticism; these are most strongly associated with well-being at work. Extraversion is associated with higher job satisfaction and well-being, while neuroticism is associated with lower job satisfaction and well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1980). Neuroticism is associated with being anxious, easily upset, and moody or depressed (Steel, Schmidt & Shultz, 2008). Neurotics tend to be in a negative mood more often than others and this makes them less reactive to positive situations (Forgas & Bower, 1987). Thus, it is expected that neurotics will not be reactive to HR procedures and their well-being will not increase. People with other personality traits will experience the

(6)

5 procedures as they are intended and will have a higher level of well-being at work when a proper HR system is present.

Based on this personality theory, it is proposed that personality can have a moderating effect on the relation between HR practices and well-being. In recent literature, this

relationship is not often tested which makes this paper an important contribution.

Employee Well-being

In the area of well-being, research is executed about the feelings and perceptions of people towards their lives on short and long term. Thus, the research evaluates what people perceive and experience as happiness or satisfaction in general (Diener, 2000). This concept seems vague and a clear definition is still hard to find in the literature. Since different approaches exist for studying well-being, much research has been done and several definitions of well-being are developed. Researchers tend to distinguish between

psychological, mental, and emotional perspectives. Some researchers focus on the outcomes of well-being, such as job satisfaction and turnover; others on people’s physical and

psychological health (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá & Bakker, 2002). The main purpose of this research is to explain the mediating role of well-being. Therefore it is important to investigate which factors motivate employees to perform at a higher level. This is achieved by using the perspective of the psychological and emotional status of employees at work, which is the main perspective of the research.

Furthermore, in the literature distinctions are made for different levels of well-being, such as organizational well-being, which relates to the overall organizational health. Since this study addresses the role of employee’s feeling and experiences, the main focus is on employee-well-being or well-being at work (Wells, 2000). An employee with a high level of well-being at work experiences many positive feelings and perceptions in the workplace and

(7)

6 within relationships; the person is satisfied with the environment. These positive experiences in the workplace result in a higher level of performance and quality of life (Brim 1992; Harter, Schmidt & Keyes, 2003). This benefit is two-sided: the employee feels happy in the job and the performance of the organization improves. This is one of the best outcomes that can exist in organizational research. Still, in the existing literature the focus is often on organizational outcomes, such as performance and productivity. The role of the feelings and experiences of employees itself is neglected in many articles (Gardner et al., 2001; Guest, 2002).

Different aspects of Employee Well-being

Employee well-being is described as the feelings and perceptions of a person towards the job and work environment. Employees experience well-being when they are satisfied with their work, find it meaningful with a high level of Positive Affect and a low level of Negative Affect.

Satisfaction, in the context of this research, is determined as job satisfaction. In the literature, this is defined in two ways. First, satisfaction is often seen as an emotional response to a situation. Emotions contain a “mental experience with high intensity and hedonicity” (Cabanac, 2002. p.81). ‘Hedonicity’ refers to the content of pleasure/displeasure. Several authors argue this concept is slightly outdated (Locke, 1969; Weiss, 2002). The second theory, which is mostly used nowadays, suggests that job satisfaction is based on an attitude a person holds towards the job. Attitude can be defined as a person’s “evaluation of the entity in question” (Ajzen & Fishbei, 1977, p. 889). Attitudes are time dependent but less changing than emotions (Conrey & Smith, 2007), which is a good basis for this research because the goal is to find the overall feelings people have towards a job, not just at the moment of a survey. In the organizational context, attitude is determined as “a positive (or

(8)

7 negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one's job or job situation” (Weisse, 2002, p. 175). With a positive judgment, employees have positive feelings towards their job which might lead to beneficial outcomes, such as higher performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Judgments are very dependent on the expectations a person has because the evaluation is a comparison to these expectations (Locke, 1969). Influences on expectations, and so on job satisfaction, include factors such as income, job advancement opportunities, independent work environment, and relationships with colleagues and management (Souza-Poza & Souza-(Souza-Poza, 2000).

Meaning of job is an important aspect in organizational research, but a clear definition is not often given. In many cases, this is left to the interpretation of the reader and several perspectives exist (Wrzesniewski, 2003). Baumeister and Vohs (2002) describe meaning as a tool to give stability in life, which is often characterized by much change. In the workplace, this relates to finding a deeper purpose in the performed tasks. A large overall motivation for work is the money earned, which helps to provide for the individual and for family; this can be seen as an extrinsic motivator (Wrzesniewski, 2003). Extrinsically motivated people are only moved to act because of a separable consequence such as money or punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In order to create real meaning of work, intrinsic motivation is very important as well. Intrinsic motivation exists when people are motivated by the enjoyment of the

activity itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation in the workplace can be created with opportunities for growth and achievement, but most important the work should be interesting and fulfilling (Kanungo & Hartwick, 1987). Both theories of motivation show the importance of work in life overall (Wrzesniewski, 2003). Furthermore, meaning can be determined as the value a person gives to a goal, related to their own ideals and individual standards. Achieving a desired goal results in a large feeling of meaningfulness (Frankl, 1992). Taking together

(9)

8 these different insights, the meaningfulness of a job can be defined as the value people give to the characteristics of their jobs with regard to the rest of their lives.

Affect refers to a person’s temperament with regard to their moods and affective responses to events (i.e., whether it is generally positive or generally negative) (Costa & McCrea, 1980; Diener, 2000). These responses are influenced by the sentiments, preferences, affective traits, emotions, and moods a person possesses and experiences (Rosenberg, 1998).

Positive Affect (PA) relates to a good feeling people can perceive. These people feel enthusiastic and optimistic, as well as in a state of full energy, high concentration, and pleasurable engagement (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). In general, PA leads to a higher level of well-being at work. Several benefits arise from having a positive mood. PA has a positive influence on people’s mindsets; it broadens the scope of attention, intuition, and creativity (Bolte, Goschkey, & Kuhl, 2003; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005, Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987). Furthermore, it leads to a better psychological and physical health. For example, the level of viruses in the body can be diminished and the immune system improved. On the psychological level, people might respond better to stress and have

psychological growth (Davidson et al., 2003; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). Negative Affect (NA) can be defined as “general dimension of subjective distress and unpleasurable engagement that subsumes a variety of aversive mood states, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness” (Pelled & Xin, 1999, p. 877). This is mainly caused by overestimating the likelihood of negative events (Macleod & Byrne, 1996).

Although NA and PA seem exactly opposite, this is not the case. Both have developed as own features (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988).

(10)

9

HR practices and Employee well-being

For organizations, humans are a great resource in order to achieve the goals and gain a competitive advantage. When the employees are willing to work at the highest level, the largest benefits are obtained and the organizational performance is high. In order to attain high performance, human resources should be managed effectively (Nishii et al., 2008). Human Resource Management (HRM) includes many practices which are developed to motivate employees towards working in a productive way and be committed to the

organization (Guest, 1987; Nishii et al., 2008). More generally, “HRM includes anything and everything associated with the management of employment relations in the firm” (Boxall & Purcell, 2000, p.184).

The relation between HR practices and organizational performance is described very often in the existing literature. This literature proved the positive relation of HR practices on performance. In many of these studies, it is assumed that employee well-being is an important mediating factor in the relation between HR practices and performance; however, this has not been tested properly. The human factor is often an ignored aspect. More specifically, it neglects the effects that HR practices can have on the quality of people’s working life (Gardner et al, 2001; Guest, 2002; Holman, 2002; Peccei, 2004).

Many different HR practices exist, and much variation is possible. Gardner et al. (2001) researched which HR practices can influence employee outcomes, they focused on turnover and absenteeism. The HR practices are defined in three concepts. In the first concept, the organization ensures that the employees have the proper skills and abilities to perform their tasks. This can be achieved by having an effective selection procedure, providing constant training and development opportunities and equal opportunities (Guest, 2002; Wright, Gardner & Moynihan, 2003). In the second concept, practices are designed to energize and motivate people to engage in desired behaviors. Organizations can attain this

(11)

10 with employees by higher benefits, family-friendly systems, and anti-harassment practices (Guest, 2002; Wright, Gardner, Moynihan & Allen, 2005). The third concept focuses on mechanisms empowering the workforce to encourage their individual and collective efforts toward organizational outcomes (Gardner et al., 2001). In order to create a feeling of

empowerment, organizations can allow employees to participate in teams and quality circles (Wright et al., 2005).

Another theory developed by Allen (2003) states that practices concerned with care for employees are most important since employees hold general beliefs about the extent to which their employer values their contributions and cares about their well-being

(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986). Allen (2003) defines three concepts which encourage perceptions of caring about the employee. The concepts are quite similar to the ideas of Gardner et al. (2001) and are defined as Growth Opportunity, Fairness of

Rewards, and Participation in Decision Making. Considering these two theories, three concepts are measured in this research: Training & Development, Rewards, and Empowerment. These concepts are described in more detail below.

Training & Development

People in their nature tend to be curious, vital, and self-motivated. They are inspired, striving to learn, extend themselves, master new skills, and apply their talents responsibly. This shows the importance of employees developing themselves (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Organizations react to this with training and development practices. These practices are concerned with the development of attitude-knowledge-skill behavior patterns needed by employees to complete their tasks properly (UK Department of Employment, 1971). This development of human expertise is fostered by organizational training to improve

(12)

11 higher productivity, and knowledge transfer (Oosterbeek, 1998). Overall, training and

development have a positive effect on organizational outcomes, often described in the literature. Training and development starts at the selection procedure of new employees. The level of knowledge is evaluated and judged if it fits with the training and development procedures of the organization. (Gatewood, Field & Barrick, 2010). Several researchers indicate that training and development improve employee well-being over all, but not much research has been done to test this effect properly (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). For example, the investment of an organization in training and development can improve employee commitment and satisfaction to the organization, and employees perceive a higher level of job satisfaction (Burke, 1995; Bushardt & Fretwell, 1994). This indicates that employee well-being might be influenced by training and development. Given this theory the following hypothesis is developed:

H1a: The presence of a strong HR practice concerning Training & Development improves the level of employee well-being.

Rewards

Rewards can be defined as a positive reinforcement that has the power to shape behavior (Maslach, 2003). Much literature exists regarding the topic of rewards, but different theories conflict about the possible effects of reward on the motivation of employees. Many authors disagree about the effects on intrinsic motivation; effects could be positive or

negative. Intrinsic motivation is based on psychological needs for autonomy and competence and motivates employees by the enjoyment of the task itself (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999). The fulfillment of these needs for autonomy and competence, contributes to a higher level of employee well-being, especially in high demanding jobs (De Jonge, et al., 2000; Ryan &

(13)

12 Deci, 2001). This implies that rewards are also of greater importance in high demanding jobs. When rewards are unfairly distributed, this causes a state of distress in which well-being might decrease. In recently executed research, the effect of wage ranking on well-being was tested by Brown, Gardner, Oswald and Qian (2008). They found that payment itself has an effect, b hiut more importantly, people experience a higher level of well-being when payment is fairly distributed compared to other employees. This effect can be explained with the Equity Theory in which employees compare the job and effort done by themselves to the work of others, and want to make sure that rewards are allocated fairly (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987). Given these findings, it can be argued that the overall level of payment is not of great importance, but the fairness of payment is the greatest concern for organizations. Therefore, HR practices that enable fair rewards for all employees can have a positive effect on employee well-being. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H1b: The presence of a strong HR practice concerning Rewards improves the level of employee well-being.

Empowerment

Empowerment means ‘to give power’ in the broadest sense (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). The definition of empowerment in research focused on organizations evolved over years. In general, it can be defined as a practice designed to decentralize authority and power in an organization. This enables employees at all levels to participate in decisions (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Block, 1987). In recent literature, meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact are defined as motivational constructs and broaden the definition (Spreitzer, 1995). Meaning refers to the alignment between one’s own beliefs, values, and standards related to the work role (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Self-determination considers the regulation of someone’s own actions (Deci, Connel & Ryan, 1989). Competence is the

(14)

13 feeling of being capable of performing required tasks (Bandura, 1989). Impact refers to the belief of having influence on activities and outcomes of a unit (Ashforth, 1989).

In general employees tend to like to be involved in activities, because it gives them the feeling of contributing to the organization and being important. Essentially these are the effects empowerment can have on employees. Empowerment can therefore result in a higher level of intrinsic motivation, because tasks are more exiting and fulfilling for the employee. Performing exiting tasks, increases the level of employee’s motivation and therefore can have a positive effect on the level of job satisfaction as well (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Moreover, empowerment can act as an intervening mechanism between job circumstances and organizational outcomes. It can moderate the negative influences that work condition might have, for example, the effects of empowerment have the strength to diminish the negative influences of job strain on job satisfaction. This theory implies that a positive relation exists between empowerment and job satisfaction (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2001).

In both theories about empowerment, the positive relation with job satisfaction is implied. Job satisfaction is an important factor in employee well-being, therefore it is expected that empowerment has a positive effect on employee well-being in general. This results in the following hypothesis:

H1c: The presence of a strong HR practice concerning Empowerment improves the level of employee well-being.

Personality

Personality is defined as “the total sum of all behaviors and mental characteristics by means of which an individual is recognized as being unique” (Chittar & Serra, 2004, p. 320). In the research area of personality, one theory is most applicable: the Five Factor

(15)

14 Model. This model describes people’s personalities based on five different traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Chittar & Serra, 2004; Goldberg, 1990). The first, openness to experience, describes the personality of a person who tends to be intellectual, imaginative, sensitive, and open-minded (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001). People scoring high in the second personality trait, conscientiousness, tend to be responsible, organized, and hardworking (Costa, McCrea & Dye, 1991). Furthermore, they have a need for achievement and are highly ambitious (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz & Knafo, 2002). Agreeable people are modest, gentle and accommodating. Additionally, they are likeable and cooperative with others (Roccas et al., 2002). “Extraverts tend to be socially oriented and active” (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999, p. 634). They perceive more positive feelings and experience more pleasurable activities (Judge et al., 1999; Roccas et al., 2002). The last trait of the Five Factor model is Neuroticism, the main focus in this research, and it is described in more detail below.

The mediating role of Neuroticism

Neuroticism is associated with people’s perception of frequently having problems regarding bad moods, possibly resulting in physical symptoms (Suls, Green & Hills, 1998). In general, they perceive events more often as negative and suffer from feelings such as anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, vulnerability, and impulsiveness (Costa & McCrea, 1988). Furthermore, as Judge et al. (1999) state: “neuroticism refers generally to a lack of positive psychological adjustment and emotional stability” (p. 624), and neurotics “have an overall bias toward processing negative information. That is, they may tend to see the world, themselves included, as relatively negative and thereby providing justification for their already neurotic disposition” (Wallace & Newman, 1998, p. 4).

(16)

15 Personality traits influences a person’s feelings, moods, and therefore affect. It

determines the level of positive or negative affect, in other words pleasant or unpleasant feelings people experience. Research confirms that affect is largely influenced by personality and less by situational factors. Events may redirect people for a limited period of time from their baseline mood, but eventually they will return to their basis. This makes affect a rather stable entity over time (Headey & Wearing, 1992). Still, situational factors do play an

important role in the level of well-being people experience. People tend to feel happier when a situation fits their personality. In such a situation, people tend to find resources that will help them to achieve their goals, which increases employee’s level of well-being at work. (Emmons, Diener & Larsen, 1986).

Taking the theories regarding affect and situational fit together, it appears that the present situation tends to be important, but someone’s affect is more important. To a large extent, affect is determined by the personality which causes that people react differently to stimuli. Happy people tend to experience a higher level of positive affect and react different to the same stimuli than unhappy people who experience a higher level of negative affect (Headey & Wearing, 1992). Given this theory, it is assumed that a relationship exists between personality and the level of employee well-being.

Specific for the personality trait of neuroticism, people scoring high on this trait tend to be more often in a negative mood. This gives them a high level of reactivity to events, especially to negative events (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). When someone is in a negative mood, positive stimuli might not be experienced (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Johson &

Tversky, 1983). Consequently, it is concluded that people scoring high on neuroticism are not reactive to positive stimuli.

Overall it can be stated that by having a neurotic personality, people are more reactive to negative stimuli, which makes them less reactive to positive events (Beck, 1976; Eysenck

(17)

16 & Eysenck, 1975). Relating to HR practices, it is argued that people scoring high on

neuroticism will have less positive reactivity to HR practices since they will not experience the positive effects HR are expected to have. Neurotics will not react to the impact of HR practices and their well-being will not increase. People with other personality traits are expected to react to the positive impact HR practices tend to have. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: A positive relationship will exist between HR practices and Employee well-being for people scoring low on Neuroticism. However, this positive relation is not expected for people scoring high on Neuroticism.

Methodology

Design

This paper reports a research that examines the relation between HR practices and employee well-being, moderated by the personality trait of Neuroticism. Four hypotheses were developed and tested with quantitative research. The independent variables in the research model are Training & Development, Rewards and Empowerment. The items of employee well-being: Job satisfaction, Meaning and Affect, are considered as the dependent variables. The personality trait of Neuroticism is considered as the independent moderating variable. The hypotheses are developed according the existing literature present in the area of HR, employee well-being and personality. Therefore, the research uses a deductive approach. Furthermore, the relations found in the literature are tested and explanations are sought for the different findings, which makes it an explanatory study (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2007).

(18)

17 Procedure

For this research people were approached within the own network and in stores in Amsterdam, which makes it a convenience sample. Employees working in different stores were asked to complete the survey on a hardcopy version, this added up to 65 respondents. Furthermore, acquaintances were asked to complete the survey online and many of them asked colleagues and friends as well. The only criteria for completing the questionnaire was having paid employment.

Sample

In total, the sample used in this study consists of 168 respondents. Of these

respondents 42% was female and the average age overall was 33 years. Furthermore 10% of the respondents finished high school, 33% MBO, 37% HBO and 17% University. The respondents have an average tenure at the organization of 8.6 years and work on average 30 hours a week. Compared to the Dutch population this sample contains younger people; the average age in the Netherlands is 39. Furthermore, compared to the Dutch population, the sample’s education level is higher, mainly caused by the larger number of people studying at HBO and university. On average about 23% of the Dutch population is studying or graduated at HBO level and 13% at university level, compared to 37% and 17% respectively in the sample. The hours working per week with a number of 30 is similar to the hours working on average in the Netherlands by the population (CBS, 2013). Thus, the used sample is not perfectly representable for the Dutch population, though acceptable.

Measures

Presence of HR practices is measured with a 14-item scale developed by Gardner et al (2001) for similar research. These questions address the three concepts of caring HR

(19)

18 statements are given of practices that might be present in the organization. Training and development is measured with five items, statements are given as “The results of the

performance evaluation process are used to determine the training needs for employees in this job”. Rewards is measured with six items, statements address the manner rewards are

distributed, for example: “Pay raises for employees in this job are based on job performance”. Empowerment is measured with 3 items, an example statement is: “Employees in this job have a reasonable and fair complaint process”. The questions can be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ with one exception for how many hours per year training is provided. The questions related to the HR practices had to be adjusted to a more understandable level. The original questions were very complicated for people not familiar with specific HR language. Terms as “performance evaluation process” were hard to understand for younger, lower educated people and were explained more clearly in the questions with more basic term as

“performance review”. The remaining items for measuring HR practices are shown in the Appendix where the entire questionnaire is presented.

Well-being is measured in three concepts: Job satisfaction, Meaning and Affect. Job satisfaction is measured with a 6-item scale, which is derived from the work of Brayfield & Rothe (1951) and developed by Ogho, Price & Mueller (1992). Statements are given

addressing the extent of satisfaction employees experience with the job itself, for example: “I find real enjoyment in my job”. Affect is measured with a 20-item scale developed by

Engelen, de Peuter, Victoir, van Diest & van den Bergh (2006), which is derived from the PANAS scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and translated by Peeters, Ponds & Vermeeren (1996). In this scale the concepts of PA and NA are measured separately. As explained in the theory, PA and NA are considered as different features and separate questions are developed for both items in the measure. Respondents are asked to give an indication how often they experience specific feelings at work. For PA these feelings are for

(20)

19 example ‘Interested’ and ‘Excited’, for NA ‘Distressed’ and ‘Upset’. Meaning is measured with a 6-item scale developed by May, Gilson & Harter (2004) and derived from the work of May (2003). The questions contain statements about the extent to which the job is important for the respondent, for example: “The work I do in this job is very important to me”. All questions are answered on a 5-point Likert scale with 1= Never, to 5= Always. An overview of all statements is given in the Appendix.

Personality is measured with the MINI-IPIP measurement (Donellan, Oswald, Baird & Lucas, 2006), a 20-item scale measuring the big five personality traits. Questions relate to specific characteristics of the respondents with statements as “I do not talk a lot” and “I get easily upset”. Respondents answer to what extent they recognize themselves in these characteristics on a 5-point Likert scale with 1= Not at all, 5= Very much. 11 items of the measure are reverse coded. For all the measures, which were only available in English, a Dutch translation was developed and afterwards it was translated back into English to ensure the validity of the questions. All questions are shown in the Appendix.

Control variables are considered in the study as well. Questions were asked about gender, age, tenure at the organization, hours working per week, educational level, the specific sector of the organization and number of employees in the entire organization. The entire questionnaire is provided in the Appendix.

Results

Analytic approach

The data were collected in two ways: through an online survey and using a hard-copy version. The results were entered into SPSS for further analysis. In the complete dataset 15 values were missing. These values were not substituted by a different value in the analysis. To determine the reliability of the outcomes, Cronbach’s alpha was used, a coefficient for the

(21)

20 underlying variability of a construct indicating the reliability of a measure. If the Cronbach alpha is higher than 0.7 the internal consistency is acceptable. Furthermore, the higher the value the more reliable the measure (Santos, 1999).

The measures of Rewards and Empowerment were found acceptable with values of 0.793 and 0.673 respectively. For the Well-being items, high Cronbach alpha values were found: 0.820 for Job satisfaction 0.902 for Meaning, 0.866 for PA and 0.793 for NA. For Training and Development, an alpha was found of 0.592. This is a questionable outcome since the alpha value is lower than 0.7, but is not considered unreliable and might still give useful insights (Schmitt, 1996). The reliability of the different traits measured with the MINI-IPIP personality measurement can be considered low for several items by analyzing the Cronbach’s values (extraversion .444, agreeableness .400, openness .401 and consciousness .848). The alpha of Neuroticism was found to be .490 and therefore unacceptable. After analyzing the data it appeared that the 14th item of the MINI-IPIP Personality measurement: “Get upset easily” did not fit with the other Neuroticism items: it did not measure the same construct in the used sample. A possible reason might be that the measure was developed in the USA, and Dutch people might perceive the questions differently. Therefore it was decided to delete this 14th item of the MINI-IPIP Personality measurement, resulting in a value of Cronbach alpha for Neuroticism of 0.621. Since this value is lower than 0.7, it is still considered questionable but is not unreliable, though analyses could still give useful insights (Schmitt, 1996).

(22)

21 Developing variables.

For each of the HR items (Training & Development, Rewards and Empowerment) a variable is computed which is the sum of the specific practices present in the organization. This makes it possible to analyze the effect of having a higher number of practices in an organization. Well-being is measured with four items: Job satisfaction, Meaning, Positive affect (PA) and Negative effect (NA). These items are tested separately in the analyses, because the principle component analysis shows the measurement of a different component for NA compared to the other three items. For each item of Well-being a variable is

computed with the scale mean in order to measure the effects of other constructs on the average outcome of Well-being. The descriptive statistics and reliability are shown in Figure 2. Mean N SD α Training & Development 3.03 167 1.61 0.592 Rewards 3.46 167 2.31 0.793 Empowerment 1.64 167 0.75 0.673 Job Satisfaction 3.62 167 0.73 0.820 Meaning 3.39 167 0.89 0.902 Positive Affect 3.87 167 0.57 0.866 Negative Affect 1.78 167 0.56 0.793 Neuroticism 3.04 167 0.42 0.621

(23)

22

Analyses

In the model tested, the independent variables are considered to be the three HR practices. Meaning, Job satisfaction, PA and NA, are the dependent variables, the moderating variable is Neuroticism. The first hypotheses are tested using the outcomes of correlations between the variables, the second hypothesis is tested with a hierarchical linear regression. Correlations

To start the analysis, the Pearson bivariate correlations of the different variables are tested. In order to find support for the first three hypotheses, the correlations between Training & Development, Rewards, Empowerment and Job satisfaction, Meaning, PA and NA are most important. The outcomes are presented in Table 2, showing the significant negative correlations between Rewards and Meaning with a Pearson correlation value of -0.166 which is significant with a p<0.05. The other variables do not have significant values.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. T&D 1.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2. Rewards .669** 1.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ 3.Empower .439** .511* 1.00 _ _ _ _ _ 4. Job Sat .047 -.141 .005 1.00 _ _ _ _ 5. Meaning .033 -.166* .031 .771** 1.00 _ _ _ 6. PA .070 -.031 .105 .613** .578** 1.00 _ _ 7. NA .027 .106 -.002. -.262** -.109 -.271** 1.00 _ 8. Neurotic -.054 .004 .029 -.069 .022 -.123 -.022 1.00 * Significant at level 0.01 ** Significant at level 0.05

Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients of proposed variables.

With these results, conclusions about the first three hypotheses can be drawn. Hypothesis 1a: A high level of HR practices concerning Training & Development, improves the level of employee well-being is not supported by the findings presented here. No significant

(24)

23 correlations are found between Training & Development and the different factors of Well-being. Hypothesis 1b: A high level of HR practices concerning Rewards improves the level of employee well-being is not supported either, because no significant correlations are present between the variables. Even a negative correlation is found between Rewards and Meaning. Hypothesis 1c: A high level of HR practices concerning Empowerment improves the level of employee well-being is as well not supported by the findings as no significant correlations exist between Empowerment and the four factors of Well-being.

Linear regression

To test the moderating model proposed in the second hypothesis, several hierarchical linear regression analyses were performed. Different tests were executed for each of the HR practices separately. The first step of the hierarchical regression includes control variables: Age, Gender, Tenure, Education and Hours p/w. In the second step the predictor items are added, namely the mean-centralized variables of the three HR items and Neuroticism. In addition, an interaction variable was computed for each HR item with Neuroticism. In this way twelve regression analyses were executed in order to test the second hypothesis. The results are split up in three sections in order to give a clear overview of the relations separately, these are: Training & Development, Rewards and Empowerment.

Training & Development

The outcomes of the hierarchical regression of Training & Development (T&D) on the four factors of Well-being are presented in Table 3. It shows the significant moderating role of Neuroticism on the relation between T&D and PA. The direction of the moderating role of Neuroticism is tested with a simple slope analysis, presented in Figure 1. This

(25)

24 indicates the negative relation between T&D and PA when Neuroticism is above average. For the other Well-being items, no significant outcomes are found.

Job satisfaction Meaning β R² B F β R² B F

HR T&D -.010 -.004 -.015 -.008

Neuroticism -.0.087 -.071 -.030 -.030

T&D ~Neur -.0.166 0.129 -.107 2.547 -.147 .201 -.118 4.320

Positive Affect Negative Affect β R² B F β R² B F

HR T&D .021 -.007 -.010 -.003

Neuroticism -.123 -.079 -.069 -.043

T&D ~ Neur * -.177 0.184 -.091 3.857 -.092 0.056 -.045 1.182

* Significant at level <0.05

Regulated for control variables (Age, Gender, Tenure, Hours p/w)

Table 3: Testing the relation between Training & Development and Well-being, moderated by Neuroticism.

Figure 1: Slope of moderating effect of Neuroticism on the relation of T&D and PA.

-1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 1 2 3 4 5 Po si tiev e A ffec t

Training & Development

(26)

25 Rewards

The outcomes of the hierarchical regression of Rewards on the four factors of Well-being are presented in Table 4. It shows the significant moderating role of Neuroticism on the relation between Rewards and NA. Again a simple slope analysis was executed to show the direction of the moderating role of Neuroticism, which is presented in Figure 2. It shows a negative relation between Rewards and NA when Neuroticism is above average. This relationship is not as expected in the literature and not as the developed hypothesis. This aspect is explained in more detail later in the discussion section. For the other Well-being items, no significant model outcomes were found.

Job satisfaction Meaning β R² B F β R² B F

HR Rewards -.097 -.031 -.108 -.042

Neuroticism -.095 -.077 -.036 -.036

Rew ~ Neur -.099 .121 -.044 2.359 -.071 .197 -.039 4.194

Positive Affect Negative Affect β R² B F β R² B F

HR Rewards -.002 -.001 0.084 .020

Neuroticism -.115 -.074 -.092 -.057

Rew ~ Neur -.018 0.157 -.006 3.196 * -.224 0.114 -.075 2.195

* Significant at level <0.05

Regulated for control variables (Age, Gender, Tenure, Hours p/w)

(27)

26 Figure 2: Slope of moderating effect of Neuroticism on the relation of Rewards and NA. Empowerment

The outcomes of the hierarchical regression of Empowerment on the four factors of Well-being are presented in Table 5. No significant outcomes were found which indicates a moderating effect of Neuroticism on the relation between Empowerment and the four items of Well-being.

Job satisfaction Meaning β R² B F β R² B F

HR Emp 0.037 .037 .042 .051

Neuroticism -.078 -.064 -.020 -.020

Emp ~ Neur -.051 0.109 -.061 2.097 .014 .184 .020 3.872

Positive Affect Negative Affect β R² B F β R² B F

HR Emp .146 .114 -.010 -.007

Neuroticism -.107 -.069 -.066 -.041

Emp ~ Neur -.010 0.177 -.009 3.693 -.040 0.059 -.036 1.071

* Significant at level <0.05

Regulated for control variables (Age, Gender, Tenure, Hours p/w)

Table 5: Testing the relation between Rewards and Well-being, moderated by Neuroticism.

-1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 1 2 3 N eg at iv e A ffec t Rewards

(28)

27 Summary of regression results

Taking the three analyses together, one of outcomes of the hierarchical regression supported the second hypothesis: A positive relationship will exist between HR practices and Employee well-being for people scoring low on Neuroticism. However, this positive relation is not expected for people scoring high on Neuroticism. The relation between Training & Development and Positive Affect tends to be moderated by a high score on the Personality trait Neuroticism. The direction of this moderating role confirms the hypothesis: when Neuroticism is above average, the relation between Training & Development and Positive Affect is negative. Thus when HR practices concerning T&D are present in the organization, Employee well-being increases to some extent. All other outcomes of the hierarchical

regression did not find significant results for the proposed moderating model. Although no more evidence for the hypothesis was found, another significant relation appeared. The relation between Rewards and Negative Affect is found to be significant, but in the opposite direction as proposed: The relation between Rewards and NA tends to be negative when Neuroticism is above average. This means that Employee well-being diminishes when the HR practices concerning Rewards are present in the organization. Overall, findings for the expected relation are limited and therefore the second hypothesis is not supported.

Control variables

In the hierarchical linear regression, first the control variables were added as predictor items. By adding demographic and employee specific factors, the regression analysis is controlled for possible moderating effects of these control variables. The control variables used in each hierarchical regression were: Age, Gender, Tenure, Education and Hours working per week. The regression analyses indicates significant relations of Age and Hours working per week with several items of Employee Well-being. In order to analyze these relations, a Pearson correlation test is performed. This test shows significant values for Age,

(29)

28 correlating with Job satisfaction, Meaning and PA with coefficients of .244, .359 and .237 respectively. Furthermore, Hours working per week results in significant coefficients with Job Satisfaction, Meaning and Positive Affect with values of .203, .283 and .307 respectively. Age and hours per week are in turn strongly correlated as well with a Pearson correlation coefficient of .317. This value indicates that older people tend to work more hours per week and score higher on Job Satisfaction, Meaning and Positive Affect. Table 6 gives an overview of the outcomes of the Pearson correlation.

Pearson 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Job Sat 1.00 _ _ _ _ _ 2. Meaning .771** 1.00 _ _ _ _ 3. PA .613** .578** 1.00 _ _ _ 4. NA -.262** -.109 -.271 1.00 _ _ 5. Age .244** -.359** .237** -.117 1.00 _ 6. Hours p/w .203* .283** .307** .082 .317** 1.00 * Significant at level 0.01 ** Significant at level 0.05

(30)

29

Discussion

The direct relation between HR practices and Employee Well-being

This study analyzed the relation between HR practices and employee well-being. The aim was to examine the effect of three different HR practices: Training & Development, Rewards and Empowerment. Well-being is defined in three concepts: Job satisfaction, Meaning and Affect. It was expected that direct relations exist between these different factors, resulting in a hypothesis which exist of three proposed relations. First, a positive relation was expected between practices regarding training & development and employee well-being. Secondly, a positive relation was expected between practices for giving fair rewards and employee well-being. Lastly, a positive relation was expected between practices for empowering employees and employee well-being. In order to test these relations a

Pearson correlation analysis was performed. No significant positive relations between the items were found. Consequently, the first hypotheses are not supported by the findings of this study.

Several factors may underlie these unexpected outcomes. First, the direct relation between the HR practices and different items of Well-being might only be significant for people scoring below average on Neuroticism, as is tested with the second hypothesis. In general this would result in no significant relation in this study since Neuroticism at an average level is present in many people. Because no sample existed just with people having a high level of Neuroticism, such outcomes could not be tested clearly. The outcomes of the moderating role of Neuroticism are discussed in more detail below.

Secondly, the extent to which the used sample is representative for the population can be questioned. The data collection is based on a convenience sample, which includes many students: 25% of the sample is below 23 years old. As indicated in the results section, age and hours working per week have a significant relation with Employee well-being. Younger

(31)

30 people tend to work less hours per week on average and score lower on Well-being at work than average. These people are expected to have a student job: generally simple jobs for which the main motivation is to earn money. Students do not tend to care much for career opportunities, training or other motivating factors (Cleveland & Berman, 1987; Lucassen, 2003). Thus, having a high number of students in the sample might have caused different outcomes for the level of employee well-being, because a large number of respondents is assumed not to experience well-being at work.

In the study control factors were considered, which could influence the outcomes of employee well-being. These control factors were demographic and employee specific factors. Other factors that might influence well-being, were not controlled for in the linear regression analysis but these might have a relation with employee well-being as well. Much research is done in the area of employee well-being and two commonly mentioned influencing factors are job insecurity and job demand. When employees are afraid of losing their job, especially in times of economic downturn, this can be a great stressor. The stress of job insecurity leads to a decrease in job satisfaction and an increase of physical problems (Heaney, Israel & House, 1994). Job demands can also have a negative effect on Well-being, as employees might suffer from great pressure for performing at a high level, resulting in a decrease of their Well-being at work (de Jonge et al, 2000). If these factors are present in an organization, employees might experience a low level of well-being at work in any situation. In such cases HR practices might not be able to change this and the effect of the HR practices on employee well-being might be minimal.

In the Pearson correlation analysis, one coefficient is found to be significant: the negative relation between Rewards and Meaning. Although this outcome is the opposite of what was expected in the first hypothesis, (a positive relation between rewards and employee well-being) it is in line with the literature about motivation which argue for a negative

(32)

31 relation with rewards. As explained in the literature review, employees can be intrinsically motivated by a job when the tasks itself are interesting and fulfilling (Kanungo & Hartwick, 1987). Being well paid for an enjoyable task may people discount the value of their actions and be less motivated for their job. Furthermore, it can give employees the feeling of being controlled by others (Covington, 2002). As the results show, these aspects can have a negative relation with the extent to which employee experience their job as meaningful.

The moderating effect of Neuroticism on the relation between HR practices

and Employee Well-being

The second hypothesis proposed that a high level of Neuroticism moderates the relation between HR practices (i.e. Training & Development, Rewards and Empowerment) and the items of Employee Well-being (i.e. Job satisfaction, Meaning and Affect). In two of the twelve regression analyses support for this hypothesis was found. The two significant moderating relations by Neuroticism exists in the relation between Training & Development and Positive Affect, and between Rewards and Negative Affect.

In the first case, the relation is as expected when Neuroticism is above average: with many practices for Training & Development, Positive Affect is low, compared to people scoring below average on Neuroticism. The direction of this relation explains the moderating role of Neuroticism on the relation of Training & Development and Positive Affect. As expected, people scoring above average on Neuroticism, tend not to be reactive to positive stimuli of HR practices concerning Training & Development. Compared to people scoring below average on Neuroticism, who tend to experience a higher level of Positive Affect when HR practices for Training & Development are present in the organization. The outcome of this single hierarchical regression supports the second hypothesis.

(33)

32 In the second significant result of a hierarchical regression, the relation is

contradicting with what was expected. When people are scoring above average on the personality trait of Neuroticism, the relation between Rewards and Negative Affect is lower than for people scoring below average on Neuroticism. The direction of this relation relates to a positive influence of Neuroticism on Employee Well-being. This is the opposite relation than expected in the second hypothesis. This finding is in line with the results of the Pearson correlation analysis: Rewards can diminish the effect of intrinsic motivation and therefore some factors of the level of Employee Well-being (Covington, 2002). In the negative relation that was found in the linear regression analysis, Neuroticism does have a moderating role. People scoring low on Neuroticism tend to react negative to rewards, but people scoring high on Neuroticism tend to be less reactive to negative effect of Rewards and therefore have a higher level of Employee well-being when many HR practices considering rewards are present.

Overall, no support is found for the second hypotheses. Although the two outcomes indicate that a moderating role of Neuroticism might exist, supportive findings are too

limited. The second hypothesis is not supported by the results of this study. Two explanations can be given for not finding support for the second hypothesis.

First, it can be argued that the reliability of the MINI-IPIP Personality measure is questionable. The Cronbach alpha’s of Openness, Extraversion and Agreeableness were found to be low (< .450) and therefore unreliable. The measure for the personality trait of neuroticism was questionable as well, but could be adjusted to an acceptable level by deleting the 14th item of the MINI-IPIP Personality measurement scale. This made it possible to perform the hierarchical regression analyses. Although the regression analysis is performed, the measurement is not found useful. The measure appeared reliable at start because it was tested many times before in multiple settings, but in all cases the tests were executed with

(34)

33 undergraduate psychology students in the USA. Based on the outcomes of this study, it is suggested that the Dutch respondents in this sample tend to give different answers to the personality questions than American psychology students. Overall it can be concluded that the MINI-IPIP Personality measure was not useful for this research.

Secondly, the questionnaire might not have been perfectly anonymous. In the questionnaire, personal questions were asked for the concepts of affect and personality. People might have perceived this questions as very personal which made them reticent in their answers. Due to the convenience sample, most people were acquaintances. Respondents might therefore have had doubts about the anonymity of the answers, and thus not completed the form fully truthful. This is expected especially for the questions regarding people’s affect and personality, because they might have been afraid to be judged. When respondents did adjust their answers because the questions were too personal, it is assumed that the answers were less extreme. This might have resulted in less supportive findings for the mediating role of Neuroticism (Bradburn, Sudman, Blair & Stocking, 1978; Wildman, 1977).

Limitations and future research

In this study some limitations arose during the research process. The sample used appeared not to be perfectly representative for the population due to a large number of students in the sample. The respondents in the used sample were younger and higher educated than the Dutch population in general. This might have caused an altered relation between the HR practices and the items of employee well-being (Cleveland & Berman, 1987). A more representative sample might have given more reliable outcomes, which should be considered for research in the future. In the sample to be used, the average age of the respondents should be comparable to the Dutch population, which is 39. Moreover similar

(35)

34 percentages of educational level should exist (i.e. 33% for MBO, 23% for HBO and 13% for University) (CBS, 2013).

Furthermore, the control variables were limited to demographic and employee specific variables; for other influences on Employee Well-being was not controlled. It might give better insights when effects of factors such as job security and job demand would be analyzed as well. In existing literature, such aspects are found to have strong negative relations with employee well-being (Heaney et al, 1994; de Jonge et al, 2000). This could interfere with the relations of HR practices and employee well-being and therefore should be controlled for in future research.

Moreover, it is found that the measure used for personality was not reliable. The MINI-IPIP Personality measurement scale developed by Donellan, Oswald, Baird & Lucas in 2006, is not applicable for the sample used in this study. In future research a larger, more sophisticated measure should be used to test the relations. For example the short HEXACO-60 scale could be used, consisting of more items than the MINI-IPIP measurement and more often tested on reliability (Ashton & Lee, 2009). By asking more, well tested questions, the outcomes will probably be more reliable and result in higher values for the Cronbach alpha (Cronbach, 1947; Donnellan et al, 2006).

Finally, due to the conflicting findings with the literature, it is suggested that a bias might exist in the data. Due to the use of a convenience sample, a lack of trust in anonymity might have occurred. It is assumed that this affected the answers given by the respondents, which have led to outcomes which do not support the expected relations, especially the one regarding neuroticism. This is a very important aspect when testing personality or other personal aspects in future research. When the questionnaire includes sensitive questions, anonymity should be guaranteed. Moreover, a sample without acquaintances can diminish the

(36)

35 extent to which respondents are afraid for giving honest answers about themselves (Bradburn, Sudman, Blair, Stocking, 1978; Wildman, 1977).

Theoretical and managerial implications

From a theoretical perspective this study contributes to the small amount of literature present about the relation of HR practices and Employee Well-being. In the literature the mediating role of Well-being is often assumed in the relation between HR and performance but not often tested. This study contributed by testing the direct relation between HR and employee well-being and also tested the moderating role of the personality trait of neuroticism. The findings of this research do not support the assumption made in the literature about employee well-being but no conclusions can be drawn because of the

limitations of this research. Given the findings, more research is necessary to develop a clear theory about the specific role of employee well-being in the relation between HR and

performance.

The aim of this research was to investigate whether differences exist in the effects of different HR practices on Employee Well-being, which could give insights for managers to know which practices are most effective. Such evidence is not found due to limitations in the research. Although it is contradicting to the literature, based on the findings, investing in HR would not give better outcomes on the well-being of employees. The findings show no positive relation between HR practices and employee well-being. In contrast to what was expected, outcomes did indicate that rewards can have a negative effect on employee well-being when has a negative relation with intrinsic motivation. This finding is in line with the literature which argues for a negative relation between rewards and intrinsic motivation. Given this result, it is suggested that managers should pay attention to this aspect in regulating rewards but definitely further research is necessary to test this theory.

(37)

36

Conclusion

In previous research the important role of employee well-being in the relation

between HR practices and performance is often assumed, but not properly tested (Gardner et al, 2001). Employee well-being is an important aspect to consider in organizations since employees with a high level of well-being will perform at a higher level than employees with a low level of well-being. HR practices are expected to have a direct positive relation with the well-being of employees, with one exception for the personality trait of neuroticism. People scoring high on Neuroticism are expected not to react on HR practices because of their low reactivity to positive stimuli.

This study analyzed the relation between three HR practices: Training &

Development, Rewards and Empowerment and three aspects of Employee Well-being: Job satisfaction, Meaning and Affect. The aim of the research was to investigate whether a direct relation exists between these HR practices and the aspects of employee well-being, and whether neuroticism has a moderating role in this relation.

Based on a questionnaire completed by 168 respondents, analytical tests were

executed to analyze the proposed relations. With a Pearson correlation test the direct relations between HR practices and the factors of employee well-being were analyzed, but no results were found which support the proposed hypotheses. With multiple hierarchical regression analyses, the moderating role of neuroticism was tested. These results did not give support for this proposed moderating role. Although no supporting results were found, one HR practice had significant relations in both analyses: Rewards tend to be negatively related to

meaningfulness of the job and positively related to negative affect. These outcomes indicate that rewards might be negatively related to employee well-being. This can be explained by the theory of intrinsic motivation. People being intrinsically motivated by their job will might

(38)

37 feel controlled by others and therefore appreciate their job less when being well paid

(Covington, 2002).

The outcomes might be conflicting with the literature due to limitations in the research. A more representable sample, more control factors and a perfectly anonymous questionnaire could improve the reliability and generalization of the findings. Furthermore, using a reliable measure for the concept of personality could improve these aspects as well. These improvements are recommended to consider in further research. Additional research in this area is recommended, since more insights are necessary to test the role of employee well-being in the research area of human resource management.

(39)

38

References

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888.

Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207-242.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Pscychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1997). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies,

Beck, A. T. (Ed.). (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (Eds.). (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Collins Business.

Block, P. (Ed.). (1987). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 355-385. Bolte, A., Goschkey, T., & Kuhl, J. (2003). Emotion and intuition: Effects of positive and negative

mood on implicit judgments of semantic coherence. Psychological Science, 14, 416-421. Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2000). Strategic human resource management: Where have we come from

and where should we be going? International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(2), 182-202. Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., Blair, E., & Stocking, C. (1978). Question threat and response bias.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(2), 221-234.

Brim, O. G. (Ed.). (1992). Ambition: How we manage succes and failure througout our lives. New York: Basic books.

Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does wage rank affect employees’ Well‐being? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 47(3), 355-389. Burke, R. (1995). Benefits of formal training courses within a professional setting. The Journal of

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Akkerbouw Bloembollen Fruitteelt Glastuinbouw Groenten Pluimvee- houderij Rundvee- houderij Schapen- en geitenhouderij Varkens- houderij AL kosten (administratieve

Table 3: Suggested Items for the 2005 Report  Overarching  structural goals  § 

On the basis of the main results, the following three conclusions can be drawn: First, employee well-being typically remains at the same (high) level over time; second,

As expected, the associations between the maintenance HR practices of performance management, rewards, information sharing, teamwork, and flexible work schedules and

Het is niet zozeer het verminderen van stress (stressoren verdwijnen namelijk echt niet!) waar de medewerkers en uiteindelijk de organisatie beter van wordt, maar een

principles of happiness and well-being are perceived differently across cultures (Wierzbicka, 2004). For this paper, it could imply that the identified factors are only applicable

This paper explores the role of employee well-being (EWB), containing employees’ health and safety and employee commitment, in the relationship between social supplier development

leadership is positively related to inclusion and negatively related to discrim- ination (in support of Hypotheses 1–3); (b) inclusion is positively related to self-efficacy and