European subjective well being;
The role of job characteristics and culture
with a self-determination perspective
Master Human Resource Management
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen
Master thesis February 2014
M.G.Moesker Nieuwe Ebbinge straat 5a
9712 NC Groningen
S1462156
2
Abstract
We all want to know what makes us happy. This paper aims to answer the question what makes workers happy by looking at several job characteristics and their effect on subjective well-being. Another part of the study focuses on the difference in subjective well-being between countries. This paper also aims to answer the question if Hofstede’s cultural dimensions influence the relationship of job characteristics and subjective well-being. The self-determination theory is used as a perspective. This research is performed by focusing on job autonomy, job security and development opportunities. A data source from the European Social Survey, Round 5, is used to perform the tests. Results showed that job autonomy is the most important job characteristic and that health is an important indicator of subjective well-being. Furthermore, there are signs that cultural dimensions affect subjective well-being, but not in the way examined here.
3 Introduction
Happiness is a highly valued aim in most societies (Fisher, 2010). The last decades research about happiness has increased and lately it is booming. Even though research about it is booming, not much is known about the happiness of workers. It is known that employed people are happier than unemployed people (Winkelmann & Winkelmann, 1998; Fisher, 2010; van der Meer & Wielers, 2013). However, there are differences in happiness between workers as well. One employee could be completely happy with his or her job, while another employee is unhappy about it. They could even be talking about the same job(!), which relates to the person-job fit. Also, research showed that differences exist between countries in subjective well-being (van der Meer & Wielers, 2013). This leads to the need to investigate how job satisfaction is attained and what causes national differences in subjective well-being. Nonetheless, we could assume that something about jobs, in general, relates to all workers. Here, we will look more specific towards job design and their effect on subjective well-being.
This study wants to contribute to the existing literature about happiness by focusing on happiness in relation to work. Little research by
economists (Morse, 2012) has looked at work and it’s characteristics as having intrinsic value for employee satisfaction and happiness, therefore this needs to be explored further. Likewise, an explanation should be sought for international differences in subjective well-being. Happiness, subjective well-being, life satisfaction and quality of life are used interchangeably in the literature. Diener (1999: 277) reported that “subjective well-being is a broad category of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction.” We can state that for workers, work is a big part of the day and thus it is a big part of life. Therefore it will affect life
satisfaction, which is why being satisfied about one’s job is important. The concept work is complex since many aspects are involved, like pay and other rewards, tasks, characteristics of the job, hours of work, the work environment and more. Fisher (2010) states that there are three levels where environmental contributors play a role in workers happiness: the organization level, the job level and the event level.
4 relation of job characteristics and personal and work outcomes is The Job Characteristics Theory by psychologists Hackman and Oldham (1976). They focused on core job dimensions, psychological states and outcomes. Internal work motivation was the basis for their model, which will also be the assumption in this study.
In order to research the assumption of job characteristics having intrinsic value for employee happiness, self-determination theory is used, since this is in line with the assumption. Recently, SDT has become more frequently used for research in social psychology, especially on intrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory received substantial empirical validation (Gagne & Deci, 2005), therefore this study will focus on job characteristics from the perspective of this theory and tries to explain differences in subjective well being across Europe. This study will not test self-determination theory itself, but test hypothesis that are developed from SDT.
The second part of this study will focus on national differences in relation to subjective well being. As van der Meer and Wielers (2013) already pointed out that there are differences between the levels of subjective well being across European countries and that these differences regarding subjective well being need to be further explored.More specific, this study tries to analyze these differences by focusing on job characteristics and the influence of cultural dimensions on these job characteristics regarding subjective well-being.The focus will be on cultural dimensions from Hofstede that are in line with SDT.
Therefore, building on van der Meer and Wielers (2013), this research aims to look at European countries and their level of subjective well being. To be more precise, the goal is to examine the effect of job characteristics on subjective well being from the perspective of the self-determination theory. In addition, trying to explain the different levels of subjective well being between the European countries by focusing on cultural
dimensions. This leads to the following research questions:
5 2.Are there any differences between countries regarding the effect of job characteristics on employee happiness? In other words, do job
characteristics have the same effect on subjective well being across countries taking cultural dimensions into account?
Theoretical framework
HappinessThe pursuit of happiness affects all human beings and some state it is the optimumaim in life (Frey & Stutzer, 2002). Therefore it is important to ask what is happiness? There is not a clear cut definition available and several researchers focus on different angles from different fields of interest which can overlap. In general, psychologists search for what people feel, neuroscientists look at responses of the brain to rewards and economists examine what people value (Morse, 2012). According to Fisher (2010), the most important dimension when formulizing happiness is pleasantness-unpleasantness. For some happiness is influenced by personality or having social support (Heller, Watson & Ilies, 2006), while for other researchers happiness is measured by welfare (Ng, 1999) or GDP (Dipietro & Anoruo, 2006).
Happiness at work
6 motivation. When looking at motivation we can distinct between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The difference lies in the fact that intrinsic motivation means doing something since it is interesting or pleasant by nature while extrinsic motivation is doing something since it will lead to something else (Ryan and Deci 2000a).There is strong evidence that internal motivation is an indication of work performance (Kuvaas, 2009). Research also showed that people are happier when big activities during the day are characterized by certain basic needs, like competence, autonomy and relatedness for example (Fisher, 2010). Work is an important part of most of our lives and research showed that job satisfaction is the number one factor for well being and life satisfaction.1 From this we can assume that certain job characteristics will make people happier if they are related to the basic needs as mentioned above.
Self-determination theory
The focus of self-determination theory is on the basic psychological needs and motivations of people (Buičūniené & Miniotaité, 2013). As Gagne and Deci (2005) state: “it suggests that everyone needs to satisfy the needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness and will show positive consequences when they do”(p.343). As a result this suggests that these needs are universal. Ryan & Deci (2000b) state that by internalizing cultural values, people promote need satisfaction. However, cultural values are different, which leads to a likely different expression of these needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Nonetheless, it does imply that is applicable for employees in the workplace.
According to Deci & Ryan (2000b), if a basic psychological need is fulfilled, it contributes to well-being, while not fulfilled it adds to ill-being. It follows from this that it is important to fulfill these basic psychological needs; subjective well-being will not only be higher compared to not fulfilling these needs, but it also takes away the negative effect it has by not fulfilling these needs. Then, how are these needs described so to know how to satisfy them? Deci & Ryan (as cited in Dysvik, Kuvaas & Gagné, 2013, p.1051) describe autonomy as: “to feel like the origin or source of one’s own behavior.” They describe competence as: “feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social environment and
7 experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities” And relatedness as: “feeling connected to others and refers to caring for and being cared for by others as well as having a sense of belongingness to groups, communities or organizations”.
These innate psychological needs are the basis for self-motivation, since intrinsic motivation is aided by backingthese psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy showed to be a strong predictor for intrinsic motivation (Humphrey, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007), as well as competence (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Although in relation to competence, intrinsic motivation is more likely to occur in the context of secure relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Some of the positive consequences of fulfilling these needs are a more effective performance, well-being (Gagne & Deci, 2005) and it generates commitment and effort trough intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000b). Therefore, in view of the idea that job characteristics have intrinsic value for the happiness of employees, this theory is in alignment with the focus of this study.
Elements of happiness
This study examines the happiness of workers, therefore elements related to employment and job characteristics will be discussed next. The choice of elements to be examined are mainly based on interest, data supply and in line with self-determination theory. The basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence will be linked to the elements job autonomy, job security and development opportunities.
Job autonomy
It is a given that employees would like to work the way that fits them the best. Employees have certain needs, capabilities and expectations, while jobs need certain capabilities and motivation. We can assume the better the fit, the higher the job satisfaction. Looking at work characteristics, autonomy, especially, is mentioned in several studies as being an important need for job satisfaction (van der Elst, 2012). Moreover, role autonomy has a direct, positive effect on job satisfaction (Noble, 2008).
8 shows that it is somewhat subjective and personal. Hackman (1983) states that autonomy can create high motivation, which in turn can create higher levels of performance. In essence, the meaning of autonomy as a basic need is the same as autonomy in the context of the workplace. They both are about making your own decisions as follows from both definitions. In addition, job autonomy has been linked to intrinsic motivation for several years already (Loher, et.al., 1985) and to a higher job satisfaction (Spector, 1986). Also, intrinsic motivation has been proven to be positively related to job satisfaction (Eby et.al., 1999). Therefore, we can assume job autonomy can create intrinsic value and is thus in line with SDT.
Job autonomy leads to happier workers (van der Meer and Wielers, 2013). However, not only job satisfaction will increase due to a higher job autonomy (Spector, 1986), also organizational commitment (Spector, 1986; Eby et.al., 1999) and creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996) will rise. This can be important for more complex tasks or service jobs where the competitive advantage of a company is to uphold the quality of service with clients for many years.
To conclude, autonomy is considered a basic psychological need, according to SDT, that will lead to a happier person if a big activity during the day, i.e. the job, is characterized by autonomy. Therefore, job autonomy is an important internal job characteristic to include in this study, assuming that autonomy makes people happier and work is considered a big activity during the day. Moreover, job satisfaction is an important part of subjective well-being, thus we suggest that job autonomy will also have a positive effect on subjective well-being. This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: Job autonomy is positively related to the subjective well being of workers Job security
9 satisfy relatedness.Deci et. al. (2001) mentioned “relatedness requires a sense of mutual respect, caring and reliance with others”(p. 931).The
meaning of relatedness involves feeling connected, mutual caring and a sense of belongingness. Psychological contracts are between workers and their employees which stand for individual beliefs in mutual commitments between each other;
it means they are promissory and mutual (Rousseau, 1990). From the worker’s perspective, relational commitments are expressed by job security transferred for loyalty; a long-term relationship (Rousseau, 1990). However, this psychological contract is in decline ( Glavin, 2013), since employers progressively prefer flexible labour (Kalleberg, 2009).Nonetheless, a breach of the psychological contract, where job security is a part of, makes employees feel that the organization has little respect for them (Epitropaki, 2013). Since mutual respect is a requirement for
10 the company looking for a replacement. Even co-workers suffer when they watch someone loose his or her job; it lowers productivity, morale and commitment (Darity & Goldsmith, 1996). What is more, permanent employment has a positive effect on well being (Konrad et.al., 2013), which could lead to temporary work as having a negative impact on life satisfaction. Following this, we can imply that job security has a positive effect on the well-being of employees. This leads to the second hypothesis:
H2: Job security is positively related to the subjective well being of workers. Development opportunities
Development opportunities is another internal job characteristic in this study, since intrinsic goals increase happiness (Fisher, 2010). The training and development of employees is seen as one of the most widely used of all human resources practices (Boselie, et.al., 2005). Also, based on
Fisher (2010) and the SDT theory, competence is a basic need and can be linked to the job characteristic development opportunities. Development opportunities are defined as “the degree to which employees feel that they can learn continuously and perform tasks that contribute
toward developing their potential” (Rego & e Cunha, 2009, p.2). It stems from this that learning new skills and/or knowledge should be available to employees so they can reach their full potential. It is suggested that development opportunities fulfill the need of learning and personal growth and development. This in turn will stimulate a
sense of competence amongst workers (Kets de Vries, 2001; Rego & e Cunha, 2009). Moreover, the need for competence could be fulfilled when skills are kept up to date or even better when they are receiving support to challenge themselves (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2008).Competence is
characterized by opportunities to show and express your own capacities. By expressing your capacities you can show your full potential.
11 Thus we can assume that training leads to the fulfillment of competence, which in turn will/can create intrinsic value.Also, Rosenberg states that skill and social competence will boost your self-esteem (as cited in Darity & Goldsmith, 1996, p.3). Self-esteem, in turn, has a connection with
possible level of productivity (Darity & Goldsmith, 1996) and is an important element of psychological well-being (Rosenberg, 1995). According toMorrison et.al. (2005) skill utilization is the option to use skills on the job and learn new skills. The application of skills is one of
the most essential issues that influences job satisfaction (Humphreys & O’Brien, 1986), therefore high levels of skill-utilization mostly lead to a
higher job satisfaction (O’Brien & Dowling, 1980). However, it does not only affect job satisfaction, it can also improve subjective well being. Employees who are offered opportunities to learn and develop personally could have lower feelings of job insecurity and could increase the
probability of holding their job or finding a new one sooner (Rego & e Cunha, 2009, p.2). Thus by increasing the knowledge and skill levels of employees, job stress could be reduced since it is more probable that these employees can handle changing and multiple demands (Wall & Jackson, 1995). Moreover, higher levels of skill utilization assigns strongly to mental health (Morrision, et.al., 2005). Therefore, in combination with the evidence of earlier research that competence will increase happiness when it is linked to a big activity during the day, i.e. work, leads to the third hypothesis:
H3: Development opportunities are positively related to the subjective well being of workers. Subjective well being and national differences
In line with the former hypotheses, self-determination theory is the basis, however, now in a comparative national setting by introducing a cultural dimension that will affect subjective well-being.
12 themselves to only European countries or part of them (Rothstein, 2010). Here the focus is on the countries that participated on the European Social Survey and from which all cultural dimensions needed are known.
Subjective well being is affected by the country you live in (Morrision, Tay & Diener, 2011). Research about this subject has looked at human rights (Diener et.al, 1995) for example, but it has mainly focused on national wealth ( Veenhoven, 1991; Rothstein, 2010) as an explanation for the difference in subjective well being. However, the study of Rothstein does state that not all welfare states can produce happiness. It is more complex than that. Moreover, the study of Fischer & Boer (2011) suggests that autonomy has a larger effect on subjective well being than money has. What follows are three hypothesis trying to explain the difference in subjective well-being between countries by focusing on culture. Below the cultural elements that could moderate the relationship between job characteristics and subjective well-being will be discussed.
Individualism
The cultural dimension individualism is defined as “a loosely knit social framework in which people are supposed to take care of their immediate families only”(p.45) and where autonomy is desiredin society(Hofstede, 1980). It follows from this that the cultural dimension individualism focuses on the individual and autonomy, which is desired. This is in line with the basic need of autonomy. Since job autonomy is expected to have a positive effect on subjective well being by fulfilling the need of autonomy it would make sense that subjective well being is generally higher when people live in individualistic countries compared to collectivist countries (Fisher, 2010). Moreover, the effect of job autonomy on subjective well-being could be influenced by the cultural dimension individualism. Therefore, the expectation is that the higher scoring countries are individualistic countries and the lower scoring countries are relatively more collectivist countries. This leads to the fourth hypothesis:
H4: The effect of job autonomy on subjective well being is greater for individualistic countries than for collectivist countries.
13 Uncertainty avoidance is defined as “the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these situations by providing greater career stability”(Hofstede, 1980, p.4). It follows from this that job security is very important in countries that score high on uncertainty avoidance, probably relatively more important than in countries scoring lower on uncertainty avoidance. Since uncertainty creates threats, which people try to avoid, stability or security will be valued even more. Since relatedness requires reliance with others, they aim for a stable career. Especially for workers, uncertainty is negative and thus it will decrease subjective well being even more for workers living in a country with high uncertainty avoidance. While workers living in a country with low uncertainty avoidance will score higher on subjective well being. Therefore, by logic reasoning we could expect that countries scoring higher on uncertainty avoidance, instead of scoring lower on uncertainty avoidance, will find job security more important and thus it will affect subjective well being more. This leads to the fifth hypothesis:
H5: Subjective well being is greater for countries scoring lower on the cultural dimension uncertainty avoidance than for the countries scoring higher on this dimension.
Power distance
14 higher on subjective well being, since development opportunities are more likely to exist in countries scoring lower on power distance. This leads to the final hypothesis:
H6: Subjective well being is greater for countries scoring lower on power distance than for countries scoring higheron power distance. Method
Sample
This research will be conducted by using data of the European Social Survey. This survey is an academically driven, multi-country survey. Every two years a new survey appears. Even though the most recent data is from 2012, answering my main question is more likely by using the data from 2010, the fifth round. In this round the survey covered 26 countries, however only 22 countries in Europe will be used, since not all countries attained scores on the used cultural dimensions. The questionnaire includes a variety of topics like politics, subjective well being, human values, gender, social trust and region for example. The population represents workers aged 25 to 65 with a paid job from 22 European
countries; 9396 workers. The workers were employed in different industries. Their mean age of the workers was 43. Measures
Subjective well-being: the ESS contained a question about life satisfaction and one about happiness. The variable life satisfaction (B24) “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?” was measured by an 10 point likert scale ranging from extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied. The variable happiness (C1) “Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?” was measured by an 10 point likert scale ranging from extremely unhappy to extremely happy.
15 “I have no influence” to “I have complete control”. Also, (G64) on how important it is to have a job that enables you to use your own initiative by using a 5 point likert scale from “not important at all” to “extremely important”.
Job security: Job security was measured by looking at related questions like (G18) “My job is secure” on a 4 point likert scale ranging from “not at all true” to “very true”. Also (G64) on how important job security is by using a 5 point likert scale ranging from “not important at all to very important”.
Development opportunities: this was measured by looking at related questions like (G26-33) “There is a lot of variety in my work” and “My job requires that I keep learning new things” by using a 4 point likert scales ranging from “not at all true” to “very true”. Furthermore, (G34-36) “My
opportunities for advancement are good” by using a 5 point likert scale which would range from “agree strongly” to “disagree strongly”.
Cultural dimensions: The cultural dimensions individualism, uncertainty avoidance and power distance were used for the final part of this study. Countries can score on a range from 0 to a 100. The higher the score, the higher the cultural dimension is present in that country.
Analysis
Subjective well-being: As both questions refer to aspects of well-being and show a correlation coefficient of 0.73, subjective well-being was
calculated as the average of both questions.
Job autonomy: In order to see if there is internal consistency between the combined items, Crombach’s Alpha was calculated. The reliability
analysis showed a high score; 0.7.
16
Development opportunities: In order to see if there is internal consistency between the combined items, Crombach’s Alpha was calculated. The
reliability analysis showed a high score of 0.6.
Control variables: control variables that may have an effect on happiness have been included in the analysis, since they could bias the regression coefficients. These variables were: gender (F21) current legal married status (F11b), the presence of children at household (F12), age (F3 1b), highest level of education achieved (F15 A), total netincome (F41) and general health as subjective measure (C15), which had to be recoded. The final control variable was contract type (F23), whether the respondent has a limited or unlimited labor contract. Dummy variables were made for gender (1=female and 0=male), married status (1=married and 0=single), presence of children (1=yes and 0=no), contract type (1=unlimited and 0=limited).
The expectation is that job characteristics are correlated with subjective well being. A correlation test will be used to investigate the relationship between the job characteristics and subjective well being. The control variables are included as well. Furthermore, the hypotheses will be tested by using regression analysis to examine the effect of the independent variables (job characteristics) on the dependent variable (subjective well being).
By calculating the mean value of subjective well being per country, it was possible to compare the values between the countries. After that these mean values were compared with the scores on the cultural dimensions.
17 First we look at the means, standard deviations and correlations of the above mentioned variables to examine the relationships. The results of this test are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.SWB 7.33 1.72 1 (-).08** .35** .01* .01* .00 .00 .14** .30** .24** .02** .25** 2. Age 42.64 10.37 3. Health 4.03 0.77 4. Gender 0.52 0.50 5.Children 0.55 0.50 6. Contract type 0.89 0.31 7. Marital status 0.68 0.47 8. Education 4.44 1.73 9. Income 6.57 2.44 10. Job Autonomy 6.70 2.23 11. Job Security 3.97 0.76 12. Develop. Opp. 3.38 0.89
N=9398 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
18 Furthermore, job autonomy displays barely a correlation with subjective well-being, but is significant ( r = .24, p < .01). The correlation between job security and subjective well-being almost does not exist, but is significant ( r = .02, p < .01). Development opportunities has, as well as job autonomy, barely a correlation with subjective well-being, but is significant ( r = .25, p < .01). The control variables health and income stand out. Health has a low, significant and positive correlation with subjective well-being ( r = .35, p < .01), while income just has a low, significant and positive relation with subjective well-being ( r = .30, p < .01). Only age has a negative and significant correlation with subjective well-being ( r = -.08, p < .01). Both marital status ( r = .00, p = n.s.) and contract type ( r = .00, p = n.s.) did not show a significant correlation.
The first three hypotheses were tested by performing a regression analysis. The results are presented below in Table 2. Table 2 showed that, after the first step of the regression analysis, three of the control variables could significantly explain a portion of the variance in the dependent
variable subjective well-being. Specifically, these were subjective health ( b = .53, p < .001), marital status ( b = .27, p <.001) and income ( b = .11, p < .001). All the control variables together accounted for 13% of the variance (∆R² = .13, ∆F (8,9389) = 174.97, p<.001).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that job autonomy was positively related to the happiness of workers. The results of the regression analysis showed a very significant result (b = .12, t = 14.32, ∆R² = .04, ∆F (1,9388) = 437.19, p < .001) indicating that job autonomy is an element for happiness at work. Therefore, the results are in support of the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that job security was positively related to the happiness of workers. It was found that job security was somewhat less important in predicting the happiness of workers, but it was still significant ( b = .22, t = 9.94, ∆R² = .01, ∆F (1,9387) = 137.00, p < .001). Thus this in support of the hypothesis.
19
Table 2
Results Regression Analysis I
Predicting Subjective Well-being
Variable R² Change Total R² F Change (df1, df2) Step1 .13* .13 174.97* (8, 9389) Constant 2.26* (.15) Education (-).06* (.01) Income .11* (.00) Age (-).04* (.00) Health .53* (.02) Gender (-).05 (.03) Children (-).04 (.04) Contract Type .01 (.05) Marital status .27* (.04) Step 2 .04* .17 437.19* (1, 9388) Job Autonomy .12* (.00) Step 3 Job security .22* (.02) .01* .18 137.00* (1, 9387) Step 4 Develop. Opp. .25* (.02) .01* .19 154.73* (1, 9386) N=9398. Unstandardized coefficients; standard errors are in parentheses.
20 The results of the second part of this study are presented in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Country scores on the cultural dimensions
Country IDV SWB Country UAI SWB Country PDI SWB
Portugal 25 6.54 Denmark 14 8.39 Denmark 8 8.39
Slovenia 25 7.32 Sweden 20 8.00 Ireland 18 6.82
Bulgaria 28 5.69 UK 26 7.30 Norway 22 8.00
Croatia 32 6.89 Ireland 26 6.82 Sweden 22 8.00
Greece 34 5.98 Norway 40 8.00 Finland 24 8.06
Spain 53 7.60 Slovakia 41 6.75 Switzerland 25 8.08
Slovakia 54 6.75 NL 43 7.85 Germany 26 7.31
Czech Rep. 61 6.57 Switzerland 48 8.08 UK 26 7.30
Estonia 64 6.83 Finland 49 8.06 NL 29 7.85
Poland 64 7.30 Estonia 50 6.83 Estonia 31 6.83
Finland 67 8.06 Germany 55 7.31 Hungary 38 6.34
Germany 72 7.31 Czech Rep. 63 6.57 Czech Rep. 49 6.57
Switzerland 73 8.08 Croatia 69 6.89 Spain 49 7.60
Norway 74 8.00 Hungary 71 6.34 Greece 53 5.98
Ireland 75 6.82 Bulgaria 74 5.69 Portugal 56 6.54
France 76 6.67 France 75 6.67 Belgium 58 7.79
Sweden 76 8.00 Spain 75 7.60 France 61 6.67
Denmark 80 8.39 Slovenia 77 7.32 Poland 61 7.30
Belgium 81 7.79 Poland 82 7.30 Bulgaria 63 5.69
Hungary 87 6.34 Belgium 83 7.79 Slovenia 65 7.32
NL 87 7.85 Portugal 92 6.54 Croatia 67 6.89
21 A regression analysis for all hypotheses was performed with an interaction variable to see if there is interaction. The results are presented below.
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1.SWB 7.18 1.80 1 .23** .22** .29**
2.Job Autonomy 6.96 2.34 1 .15** .75**
3.Individualism 64.4 20.51 1 .73**
4.AutXIND 455.45 220.04 1
22 Table 4 presents the correlations of hypothesis 4. All correlations are positive, which was expected, and significant at the .01 level. There is barely a correlation between the dependent variable and the predictors (r= .23,p <0.01), (r= .22,p <.01) and (r=.29,p <.01). However, there is a high correlation between job autonomy and the interaction variable (r= .75,p <.01) and also between individualism and the interaction variable (r= .73,p <.01), which could be expected.
Table 5 presents the results of the regression analysis. It shows that only job autonomy has a minor effect (b= .07) on the dependent variable and explains only 5% (∆R²= .05) of the variance in the model. The other predictors show no effect (b= .00 for both), only individualism could explain 3% (∆R²= .03) of the variance in the model. However, all predictors are significant. To conclude, there is no interaction effect present and thus the hypothesis is not supported.
Table6
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations H5
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1.SWB 7.18 1.80 1 .11** (-).22** (-).14**
2.Job Security 4.00 .80 1 .03** .46**
3.Uncer.Avoid. 57.23 23.33 1 .89**
4.SecXUnAvoid 229.37 105.95 1
23
Table7
Regression analysis III (H5)
Variable b R² Change Total R² F change (df1,df2) Constant 7.04 Job Security .28 .01 .01 246.25 (1,18710) Unc.Avoid. (-).02 .05 .06 1000.48(1,18709) JobSec_UnAvoid .00 .00 .06
Table 6 presents the correlations of hypothesis 5. Again, the correlations are all significant at the .01 level. The correlations are somewhat lower than in the previous hypothesis, thus still barely a correlation with the dependent variable (r= .11,p < .01). However, two of the correlations with the dependent variable are negative, which was expected. This is the case for uncertainty avoidance (r= -.22,p < .01) and the interaction variable (r= -.14,p< .01).
24
Table8
Means, Standard deviations and Correlations H6
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1.SWB 7.18 1.80 1 .25** (-).22** (-).07**
2.Dev.Opp. 3.32 .90 1 (-)15** .36**
3.Power Distance 41.77 20.97 1 .84**
4.Dev.Opp_PD 135.02 76.50 1
**.Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table9
Regression analysis IV (H6)
Variable b
R²
Change Total R² F change (df1,df2) Constant 6.25
Dev.Opp. .48 .06 .06 1044.07 (1,15334)
Power Distance (-).01 .03 .10 556.50 (1,15333)
25 Table 8 presented the correlations of hypothesis 6. Again, barely to no correlation with the dependent variable (r= .25,p < .01) and (-.22,p <.01), especially the interaction variable (r= -.07,p < .01). All correlations are significant at the .01 level. The correlation of power distance and the interaction variable is negative.
Table 9 presents the results of the regression analysis. The variable Development Opportunities shows a positive effect (b= .48) on the dependent variable, which is significant (p <.05). It explains 6% (∆R²= .06) of the variance. While Power Distance explains half of that (∆R²= .03) and has a negative effect on the dependent variable (b=-.01), also significant (p= <.05). The effect of the interaction variable was neither present (b=.00) nor significant (p=n.s.). Again, no interaction effect is present and thus the hypothesis is not supported, but power distance does show a minor negative effect on the dependent variable.
Discussion:
Findings and conclusionBy building on van der Meer & Wielers (2013) this study tried to find an answer to the question why different levels of subjective well-being exist amongst European workers. However, not before first investigating the happiness of employees in relation to job characteristics.
26 The control variables showed that both health and income have a low, positive correlation with subjective well-being. After the regression
analysis health showed, noticeably, to be a significant predictor of subjective well-being.
Table 3 shows the mean value of subjective well-being per country in comparison with their scores on the cultural dimensions. As expected there were differences between countries when comparing the country means on subjective well-being. What is noticeable is that the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland have a high (SWB≥8.00) mean subjective well-being. Following these countries it appears that they, in general, score relatively high on individualism, relatively low on uncertainty avoidance and relatively low on power distance. This would be in support of the hypotheses. The second research question related to this. The second question focused on these country differences and asked if the differences between countries are due to national cultural dimensions moderating the effect of job characteristics on subjective well-being.
The results of the correlations and regression analysis showed that the three hypotheses were not supported. However, there are indications that the scoring on the cultural dimensions itself could influence the subjective well-being. This was noticed by looking at the positive and negative correlations between the cultural dimensions and the dependent variable, but also later in the regression analyses.
To conclude, the results of this study show that the first half is supported; certain job characteristics have a positive effect on the subjective well-being of workers. The results of the second half of the study showed that the cultural dimensions are not a moderator for the relationship between a certain job characteristic and the subjective well-being of the worker. However, this does not mean that culture does not have an effect on the subjective well-being of workers.
Theoretical and practical implications
27 cultural dimensions. In practice, this could help (international) managers and companies to deal with employees from different countries in relation to work design. Based on the results of this study, the order of relative importance of the job characteristics is job autonomy,
development opportunities and job security. However, job autonomy is the job characteristic in this model that explained the most variance (4%) and is thus most important for work design. Work design is a meaningful means to an end for motivation (Hackman,1975), happy employees and organizational performance (Kira, Eijnatten and Balkin, 2010). Since happy workers are productive workers (Wright, Bonett & Sweeney (1993), Wright & Staw (1999)), it is important for companies and their managers to know what makes workers happy. Knowing what makes employees happy leads to more productive employees and in the end a more productive company which can better compete in today’s fierce competition.
Limitations and future research
The fact that unemployment exists, is a big part of why people value job security (Hogan and Ragan, 1998). Job security is for the most part dependent of the context, which changes over time and thus feelings about job (in)security can also change over time (Klandermans & van Vuuren, 2010). In addition, there also can be a difference between actual and perceived job in(security). This is the case for most answers, since this study is about subjective well-being. Furthermore, other variables were not taken into account during the comparison with cultural
dimensions.
28
References:
Ashford, S., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803-829.
Bernhard-Oettel, C, De Cuyper, N., Schreurs, B. & de Witte, H. (2011). Linking job insecurity to well-being and organizational attitudes in Belgian workers: the role of security expectations and fairness. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 Issue 9, p1866-1886
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005), ‘Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research’, Human Resource Management Journal, 15, 3, 67–94.
Cheng, G.H.L., and Chan, D.K.S. (2008), ‘Who Suffers More from Job Insecurity? A Meta-Analytic Review,’ Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 272–303.
Darity Jr, W. & Goldsmith, A.H. (1996), Social Psychology, Unemployment and Macroeconomics The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol 10, No 1 , pp 121-140
Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J., & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A test of job insecurity’s direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 323–349.
29 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M.
De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 155–177.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. , 34-43.
Diener, E., Diener, M. & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851-864.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R.E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276.
Dipietro, W.R. & Anoruo, E. (2006) GDP per capita and its challengers as measures of happiness. International Journal of Social Economics Vol. 33 No. 10, 2006 pp. 698-709
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B. & Gagné, M. (2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1050-1064
30 Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and Happiness: Towards a Unified Theory, Economic Journal. 111(473): 465–484.
Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., and Lance, C. E. “Motivational Bases of Affective Organizational Commitment: A Partial Test of an Integrative Theoretical Model,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (72), 1999, pp. 463-483.
Epitropaki, O. (2013). A multi-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational membership: Testing a moderated–mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 65–86.
Fisher, S. (1989), “Stress, control. Worry prescriptions and the implications for health at work: a psychological model”, in Sauter, S.L., Hurrell, J.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Job Control and Worker Health, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 205-36.
Fischer, R. & Boer, D. (2011). What is more important for National Well-being: Money or Autonomy? A meta-analysis of Well-being, burnout, and Anxiety Across 63 Societies. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 101, Issue 1, 164-184.
Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 384-412.
Frey, B.S & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XL, pp 402-435
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of organizational behavior. 26 (4), 331-362
31 Green, C.P. & Leaves, G.D. (2013) Job security, financial security and worker well-being: new evidence on the effects of flexible employment. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 60 Issue 2, p121-138.
Guest, R. H. (1981). Review of Work Redesign. Harvard Business Review, 59(1), 46-52.
Guest, D. E. (1997), ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 3, 263–76.
Hackman, J.R. (1983). Designing work for individuals and for groups. In Hackman (Ed.), Perspectives on behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill: 242-256.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250- 279.
Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2006). The dynamic process of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1421–1450.
Hofstede, G. (1980b) 'Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: do American theories apply abroad?' Organizational Dynamics 9(1): 42-63
32 Humphreys, P., & O’Brien, G. E. (1986). The relationship between skill utilisation, professional orientation and job satisfaction for pharmacists. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(4), 315 – 326.
Kalleberg, A.L. (2009). Precarious work, Insecure workers: employment relations in transition. American sociological review, Vol.74, No.1, pp.1-22
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2001). Creating authentizotic organizations: Well-functioning individuals in vibrant companies. Human Relations, 54, 101–111.
Kira, Eijnatten and Balkin (2010). Crafting sustainable work: development of personal resources. Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 616-632
Klandermans, B. & van Vuuren, T. (2010). Employment status and job insecurity: On the subjective appraisal of an objective status. Economic and Industrial democracy Vol. 31 Issue 4, p557-577.
Konrad, A.M. et.al (2013) Temporary Work, Underemployment and Workplace Accommodations: Relationship to Well-being for Workers with Disabilities, Alison M. Konrad, Mark E. Moore, Eddy S. W. Ng, Alison J. Doherty and Katherine Breward, British Journal of Management, Vol. 24, 367–382 (2013)
33 Loher, B.T., Noe, R.A., Moeller, N.L., & Fitzgerald, M.P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.
Mead, N.L., Baumeister, R.F., Stillman, T.F., Rawn, C.D. and Vohs, K.D. (2011). Social Exclusion Causes People to Spend and Consume Strategically in the Service of Affiliation. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37, Issue 5, p. 902-919.
Miller, K.I. and Monge, P.R. (1986), “Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: a meta-analytic review”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 727-53.
MiniotaitĖ, A. & BuČiŪnienĖ, I. (2013). Explaining Authentic Leadership Work Outcomes from the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research (65), 63-75
Mirowsky, J. and Ross, E. (1990). The Consolation-Prize Theory of Alienation. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 95, No. 6, pp. 1505-1535
Morrison, M., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Subjective Well-Being and National Satisfaction: Findings From a Worldwide Survey.
Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), 22(2), 166-171.
Ng, Y-K. (1999). Utility, informed preference, or happiness: Following Harsanyi's argument to its logical conclusion. Social Choice & Welfare, 16(2), 197-216.
34 O’Brien, G.E. & Dowling, P. (1980). The effects of congruency between perceived and desired job attributes upon job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53 Issue 2, p121-130
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Purcell, J. (1999), ‘Best practice and best fit: chimera or cul-de-sac?’, Human Resource Management Journal, 9, 3, 26–41.
Rego, A. & e Cunha, M.P. (2009). Do the Opportunities for Learning and Personal Development Lead to Happiness? It Depends on Work Family Conciliation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 3, 334–348
Roca, J.C. & Gagné, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination perspective. Computers in Human Behavior (24), 1585-1604
Rosenberg, M., Schoenbach, C., Schooler, C. & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review. Vol. 60 Issue 1, p141-156.
Rothstein, B. (2010). Happiness and the Welfare State. Social research, Vol.77, No.2, 1-28
35 Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classical definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 54-67
Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2000b), ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1017.
Stanca, L. (2010). The geography of Economics and Happiness: Spatial Patterns in the Effects of Economic Conditions on Well-being. Social Indic Res, 99, 115-133.
Stearns, P. N. (2012). The History of Happiness. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 90(1/2), 104-109.
Turner, R.J., Wheaton, B. & Lloyd, D.A. (1995). The Epidemiology of Social Stress. American Sociological Review, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 104-125
Urry, H.L., Nitschke, J.B., Dolski, I., Jackson, D.C., Dalton, K.M., Mueller, C.J., Rosenkranz, M.A., Ryff, C.D., Singer, B.H., & Davidson, R.J. (2004). Making a life worth living: Neural correlates of well-being. Psychological Science, 15, 367–372.
van der Elst. T., et.al.(2012). The mediating role of frustration of psychological needs in the relationship between job insecurity and work-related well-being.Work & Stress. Vol. 26 Issue 3, p252-271
36 Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, l-34.
Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., & Mullarkey, S. (1995). Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(5), 431 – 455.
Warr, P. (1994): A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 8(2), 84-97.
Watts, G. (1992). Work values, attitudes and motivations of women employed in administrative support occupations. Journal of Career Development, 19(1), 49-64.
Weaver, C.N. (1978). Job satisfaction as a component of happiness among males and females. Personnel psychology. Vol. 31 Issue 4, p831-840
Winkelmann, L. & Winkelmann, R. (1998). Why Are the Unemployed So Unhappy? Evidence from Panel Data. Economica, 65, Issue 257, 1-15.
Witt, L.A., Andrews, M.C. and Kacmar, K.M. (2000), “The role of participation in decision-making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, 341-58.
37 Wright, T.A & Staw, B.M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longitudinal tests of the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 Issue(1), 1-23.
Electronic sources:
http://ess.nsd.uib.no/ess/round5/. www.geert-hofstede.com
