• No results found

Employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation: the moderating role of self-efficacy

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation: the moderating role of self-efficacy"

Copied!
28
0
0

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

Hele tekst

(1)

Employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation: the moderating role

of self-efficacy

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

September 18, 2012

Rowan Jacques Crick Studentnumber: 1559222 Rademarkt 4a 9711 CV Groningen Tel.: (+31) 06 25 170 110 E-mail: R.J.Crick@student.rug.nl Supervisor/University Hanneke Grutterink Supervisor/Internship Marjan van den Akker

Fources B.V.

(2)

Abstract

(3)

1. Introduction

Due to globalisation and fast changing economic environments, organizations are increasingly focused on finding ways to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage (Boxall & Purcell, 2008; Van Dam, 2004). Intrinsic motivation of employees is crucial for organizational performance. It has been consistently shown to be positively related to beneficial outcomes such as organizational flexibility (e.g. Boxall & Purcell, 2008; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1994; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), employee creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and employee commitment (Eby, Freeman, Rush & Lance, 1999). Furthermore, it has been found to reduce absenteeism (Eby et al., 1999) and is negatively related to turnover (Cho & Huang, 2010). Considering the importance of intrinsic motivation for organizations, the present study will focus on intrinsic motivation and it’s antecedents.

Previous research suggests that employability orientation is an important factor in determining intrinsic job motivation. Employability orientation refers to being open towards challenges and taking initiative in developing one’s knowledge, skills, abilities and in adapting to changing work requirements (Nauta, Van Vianen, Van der Heijden, Van Dam & Willemsen, 2009; Fugate, Kinicki & Ashforth, 2004). Studies have revealed that being focused on development of knowledge, skills and abilities and acquiring new competencies positively impacts intrinsic job motivation (e.g. Butler, 1987; Elliot, Gable & McGregor, 1999; Van de Walle & Cummings, 1997). So, it is often assumed that employability orientation is positively related to intrinsic job motivation (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).

(4)

opportunity to develop beyond where he or she currently is, is perceived not to be provided by the job. One would expect that intrinsic motivation may decrease as a result.

Self-efficacy refers to the individual perception of whether one perceives him/herself as possessing the necessary competencies to accomplish a task or job successfully (e.g. Bandura, 1989; Gist, 1987). Extensive research has recognized that a strong positive relationship between self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation exists (e.g. Bandura & Schunk 1983; Gist, 1987; Lightsey, Burke, Ervin, Henderson & Yee, 2006). To remain on the same level of specificity as intrinsic job motivation, this study will focus on an individual’s self-efficacy regarding his or her job (Spreitzer, 1995).

This study argues that this job specific self-efficacy may be crucial in determining whether relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation is positive or not. Individuals with a high level of self-efficacy might feel bored because the job is less of a challenge as they already consider themselves good at their job (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). For example, individuals with a high self-efficacy, who are looking to further develop their competencies and advance their career by satisfying their needs for growth and personal development, may lose intrinsic motivation in their job if they do not expect that it will progress their competence (Lai & Kapstad, 2009). On the other hand, a low level of job specific self-efficacy implies that the employee has a long way to go before the knowledge, skills and abilities are fully acquired (Spreitzer, 1995). That is, there is ‘room’ for growth. According literature, intrinsic job motivation is positively influenced as long as the individual has the psychological need for growth and personal development in knowledge, skills and abilities (Elliot, Faler, McGregor, Campbell, Sedikides & Hareckiewicz, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). So, an individual with an employability orientation is expected to be intrinsically motivated by a job, when he or she perceives him/herself as not possessing the jobs competencies. It is therefore expected that the influence of employability orientation on intrinsic job motivation is dependent on the job specific self-efficacy of the employee.

(5)

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Intrinsic Job Motivation

A general definition of motivation is provided by Locke and Latham (2004), who refer to motivation as ‘internal factors that initiate action and external factors that can act as inducements to action’. Two types of motivation are often mentioned in motivation literature: extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation (e.g. Centers & Bugental, 1966; Ryan & Deci, 2000). There are main differences between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, based on what energizes or activates individuals to take action (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Extrinsic motivation entails that an activity is perceived as an instrument towards acquiring desired consequences, such as payment or other rewards. Satisfaction is not derived from the activity itself but from the external consequences that follow from performing the activity. In contrast, intrinsic motivation means that people initiate an activity because it is perceived as interesting and they derive satisfaction from carrying out the activity itself (Gagné & Deci, 2005). In the current study, we will focus on intrinsic job motivation. A person’s ‘job’ is the tasks that he or she undertakes in a specific post or occupation (Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979). Intrinsic job motivation implies the degree to which a person wants to work well in his or her job because the job is perceived as interesting and satisfying to carry out. This study will focus on intrinsic job motivation because it improves employee creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000), lowers absenteeism and increases commitment (Eby et al., 1999) and, is a better predictor of job satisfaction (e.g. Centers & Bugental, 1966) than extrinsic motivation.

Motivation literature places the concept of competence at the center of the intrinsic motivation construct, to identify what particular outcomes facilitate or reduce intrinsic motivation (Elliot et al., 2000). To understand why these outcomes are desired, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1987) uses individuals’ psychological needs, which enables identification and integration of contextual factors that may influence intrinsic motivation. One important psychological need that people have, is the need for competence. Intrinsic motivation is facilitated or reduced by the extent to which individuals are able to satisfy this psychological need for competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

(6)

orientation and intrinsic job motivation. An explanation of the role of job specific self-efficacy within this relationship will be provided as well.

2.2 Intrinsic job motivation and employability orientation

In this study, we will approach employability orientation from an individual perspective (McQuiad & Lindsay, 2005). Within this perspective employability orientation is generally referred to as an employee’s openness to adapt to changing work environments and initiative towards developing oneself and challenging opportunities (Nauta et al., 2009). It is characterized by seeking challenges and opportunities for self-direction, learning and personal development, with the intention to become competent in a job (Fugate et al., 2004; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Employability is referred to as continuously fulfilling, acquiring, and creating work through the optimal use of one’s competencies (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006). Because it is required to be open minded and proactive in constantly making changes towards oneself and the work situation, individuals differ in the extent to which they have the will to increase employability (Fugate et al., 2004). This is called an individual’s employability orientation, and is determined by the extent to which one is focused on increasing his or her employability (Van Dam, 2004).

Previous research on employability orientation has frequently revealed positive individual outcomes such as employee career development, personal development, adaptability and mobility (Fugate et al., 2004). It is also often presumed that employability orientation is always beneficial for employee intrinsic motivation (Nauta et al., 2009). Organizations even act on the presumed beneficial outcomes by encouraging employees to be more oriented towards employability (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Van Dam, 2004). However, research on employability orientation has not always been linked to positive outcomes (Nauta et al., 2009). Employability orientation has also been shown to sometimes lead to negative outcomes such as turnover (Cho & Huang, 2010) and overqualification (Erdogan & Bauer, 2008). The negative outcomes have not been studied as extensively as those that are positive. The mixed outcomes are discussed next.

(7)

acquirement (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Individuals that score high on openness, strongly believe in the importance of improving oneself (Salgado, 1997; Tokar, Fischer & Subich., 1998). They are focused on jobs and tasks that provide the opportunity to improve their knowledge and competencies (Fugate et al., 2004).

Secondly, employability orientation positively impacts intrinsic motivation through the tendency for taking initiative in personal development. Initiative refers to an autonomous attitude and a tendency towards behaviour that is self-starting and proactive instead of being reactive and following (Fugate et al., 2004). An attitude towards autonomy has been shown to be positively associated with intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When a person has an attitude towards autonomy, intrinsic motivation is enhanced because individuals feel they can pursue personal goals and increase their competence (Lee, Sheldon & Turban, 2003). Moreover, the employee is characterized as having a tendency towards behaviour that is proactive in seeking development opportunities (Grant & Ashford, 2008). He or she seeks challenges to acquire knowledge, skills and abilities in a proactive manner and looks for ways to improve his or her work situation. This aspect facilitates intrinsic job motivation as well (Elliot & Church, 1997). Previous research (e.g. Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999; Van Dam, 2004) has frequently linked initiative directly to other aspects that are related to employability as well, such as career planning, innovation, career initiative, entrepreneurial activities and career success. These specific aspects will not be discussed further in this study.

Furthermore, employability orientation has a positive impact on intrinsic job motivation because these employees are focused on fulfilling jobs and tasks with success (Fugate et al. 2004). This implies that employees are looking to become competent at the job in order to improve their knowledge, skills and abilities (Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993). A task or job is intrinsically motivating because he or she enjoys engaging in mastering the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for the job (Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999; Forrier, Sels & Stynen, 2009). In other words, employability orientation enhances intrinsic job motivation when the tasks and jobs are seen as opportunities and challenges to become competent. This makes them interesting and satisfying to carry out (Butler, 1987).

(8)

test their newly acquired competencies. When no opportunities and challenges to improve competencies are seen within the current job, having an employability orientation reduces intrinsic motivation in the job.

Furthermore, literature on turnover reports that having an employability orientation increases the chance of turnover because employees are no longer intrinsically motivated by their jobs (e.g. Cho & Huang, 2010). The focus on constantly improving knowledge, skills and abilities makes other jobs and career opportunities attractive (Nauta, 2007). It is known that employability oriented individuals continuously look to develop knowledge, skills and abilities, which opens up alternative possibilities and jobs elsewhere (Nauta et al., 2009).

So, it is important to know when employability orientation positively impacts intrinsic job motivation and when it does not. What then may lie at the cause of these mixed outcomes of employability orientation on intrinsic job motivation? According to self-determination theory, a critical issue in determining the level of intrinsic motivation is how individuals define competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It is stated that individuals who define competence in terms of task mastery and continuous development, satisfy their psychological needs for competence when they have the opportunity to become competent (Elliot et al., 2000). Since employability orientation is defined in terms of personal growth, development of knowledge, skills and abilities and in becoming competent (Fugate et al., 2004; Nauta et al., 2009), we expect that it’s influence on intrinsic job motivation will be affected by self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a judgement of one’s competence, based on past achievements and on the current level of knowledge, skills and abilities (Rigotti, Schyns & Mohr, 2008). The difference between the current level of competence and the level required to successfully perform the job, determines how much room for growth and development is perceived in a job (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Therefore, it is expected that self-efficacy will determine how employability orientation will influence intrinsic job motivation a job.

2.3 Intrinsic job motivation and self-efficacy

Before the particular moderator role of self-efficacy is discussed, the current paragraph will first discuss the presumed direct relationship between self-efficacy and intrinsic job motivation. This paragraph will describe the process through which self-efficacy impacts intrinsic motivation (Bandura, 1997).

(9)

to cope with difficult problems and in fulfilling a task successfully (Rigotti, Schyns & Mohr, 2008). It is a belief or confidence about one’s competence which is based on cognitive, social, linguistic or physical skills that are gradually acquired through experience. A person’s self-efficacy consists of three dimensions, namely magnitude, strength and generality: a): Magnitude stands for the level of task difficulty a person believes he or she can attain, b): Strength applies to whether the conviction regarding magnitude is strong or weak, c): Generality refers to the degree to which the conviction is generalized across situations (Gist, 1987). When assessing the effects of self-efficacy, it is important to ensure that the predictor and criterion are on the same level of generality (Bandura, 1989). In this study, we will specifically focus on an individual’s self-efficacy regarding his or her job.

Self-efficacy regarding a person’s job is a feeling of competence based on past achievements and on possessed knowledge, skills and abilities within the domain of one’s job (Gist, 1987; Spreitzer, 1995). It is has been found to be a more applicable perspective in an organizational setting than a more generalized self-efficacy (Rigotti, Schyns & Mohr, 2008). An organizational setting is also the setting within which the current study will be conducted. Therefore, in this study we will focus on job specific self-efficacy.

Job specific self-efficacy (from this point forward referred to as self-efficacy) is an important determinant of intrinsic job motivation (Spreitzer, 1995). Previous research has shown that self-efficacy and intrinsic job motivation are positively related for two main reasons.

(10)

A second reason for the positive impact of self-efficacy on intrinsic job motivation is that individuals with a high level of self-efficacy in the job, feel in control over the specific job situation (Judge et al., 1998). Research has demonstrated that the more in control someone feels over a specific situation, the more positive the intended behaviour is perceived (Gist, 1987). Having self-efficacy in a job can induce the feeling of being in control because individuals have the belief or confidence of being competent to perform well in the job (Sutton, 1998). When individuals have a high level of self-efficacy in their jobs, they perceive themselves as able to deal with and overcome failures or setbacks that may occur (Bandura & Locke, 2003). This increases intrinsic motivation in the job.

Based on the above mentioned, it is expected that a person with a high self-efficacy, is confident about his or her capabilities to cope with and accomplish the job and the specific tasks involved, and, therefore, will be more intrinsically motivated to perform the job than a person low in self-efficacy. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. Self-efficacy is positively related to intrinsic job motivation.

2.4 The moderating role of self-efficacy

(11)

On the basis of the above, expectations regarding the moderator effect of self-efficacy will be discussed. It is expected that the relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation will only be positive when self-efficacy is low. When self-efficacy is high, the relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation will be non-existent. We provide several reasons why self-efficacy will moderate this relationship.

Firstly, employability orientation will positively influence intrinsic job motivation when self-efficacy is low, because intrinsic job motivation is facilitated and sustained by the psychological need to become competent in the job (Elliot et al. 2000). If self-efficacy is low, the individual has the belief that he or she does not (yet) possess the competencies to optimally perform the job (Gist, 1987), implying that the job requires the individual to obtain new skills, abilities and knowledge. High employability oriented individuals are characterized by a will to learn and develop and the need to become competent (De Jong, Van der Velde & Jansen, 2001; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). They seek opportunities to develop their competencies beyond where they currently are (Shalley, Gilson & Blum, 2009). As long as this is maintained in a job, intrinsic job motivation will be facilitated (Butler, 1987). Therefore, a strong employability orientation will lead to an increase in intrinsic job motivation because the need to become competent is satisfied by the opportunities within the job. In essence, achieving personal development (Van Dam, 2004), obtaining new skills and mastering new competencies and levels of performance, builds intrinsic motivation in the job (Bandura & Schunk, 1981).

(12)

In contrast, if self-efficacy is high, we expect no relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation. Firstly, when an individual’s self-efficacy is high, the job may not be perceived as an opportunity for learning and development. According to Hackman and Oldham (1980), individuals with strong psychological needs for growth want to learn and develop themselves beyond where they currently are. Individuals with a high level of self-efficacy feel that they have reached the ‘ceiling’ of the job because they judge themselves as already possessing the knowledge, skills and abilities. As a consequence, they may, for example, set development goals beyond the job domain (De Jong et al., 2001). In other words, when the individual perceives him/herself as already possessing the knowledge, skills and abilities to successfully perform the job (Bandura, 1989), there is little opportunity to develop and improve competency beyond where the individual was before. As a result intrinsic motivation is not sufficiently maintained by the characteristics of the job (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). So, we expect that when job specific self-efficacy is high, employability orientation will not positively influence intrinsic job motivation because the psychological need for acquiring new knowledge, skills and abilities can no longer be fulfilled by the job.

Secondly, when job specific self-efficacy is high, employability orientation no longer enhances intrinsic job motivation because the job will no longer be perceived as challenging. Being able to test newly acquired knowledge, skills and abilities challenges employability oriented individuals. When an individual has a high self-efficacy and perceives him/herself competent at the job, the employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities are no longer tested by the job. The tasks may even become repetitive (Eichar & Thompson, 1986) or ‘routinized’ (Agho, Price & Mueller, 1992). So, the job is no longer valued by employability oriented individuals because it is not expected to improve knowledge skills and abilities (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). As a consequence, intrinsic motivation will not be facilitated when the individual is oriented towards employability.

(13)

Hypothesis 2. The expected positive relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation will be moderated by job specific self-efficacy. In that, there will only be a positive relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation when job specific self-efficacy is low. There will be no positive relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation when job specific self-efficacy is high.

3. Method

3.1 Participants and Procedure

A questionnaire was used to collect data to test the hypotheses. 200 questionnaires were randomly distributed within 5 organizations operating in the financial services sector in the Netherlands. Each organization employed more than 1000 employees. With permission from the HR-departments, employees were sent an email requesting participation. The participants were also given a brief description accompanying the questionnaire about the goal and procedure of the study and to guarantee confidentiality during the processing of the data and to reassure participants of their anonymity considering the personal information that was asked.

In total, 70 of the 200 respondents returned the questionnaire (a response-rate of 35 %). 61.4 percent of the participants were men (N= 43). The mean age of the participants was 40.41 (SD = 12.50). All participants had the Dutch nationality. The most common length of employment of an employee within one organization was between 2 and 5 years (24.3 percent of the respondents).

3.2 Measures

All items within the questionnaire were rated using a five-point Likert-scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. The items used were carefully translated to Dutch since the pool of potential respondents was Dutch speaking. The following items were used to measure, Intrinsic job motivation, Employability orientation and Self-efficacy.

(14)

Employability orientation was measured using six items developed by van Dam (2004). Items such as “I am actively trying to develop my knowledge and work experiences” were used. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .77.

Self-efficacy was measured using a three item-scale was used to measure self-efficacy. The items were adapted from Spreitzer’s (1995) self-efficacy scale. An example of an item used is: “I am confident about my ability to do my job”. Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .91.

3.3 Control Variables

We controlled for gender and age. Gender was considered important to control for because women tend to assign more importance to be intrinsically motivated in their jobs than man, who assign more importance to extrinsic rewards (Mottaz, 1986). We also controlled for age, because of its relationship with other important job related variables such as, job satisfaction. For example, previous research (Lee & Wilbur, 1985) revealed that younger employees are less satisfied with their jobs than older employees.

3.4 Data Analysis

(15)

4. Results

4.1 Exploration of the data

The following table (Table 1) provides information concerning means and standard deviations of the variables self-efficacy, employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation. In addition, Pearson’s correlations were calculated to measure the direction and strength between the variables. As expected, a positive correlation was found between self-efficacy and intrinsic job motivation (r = .52, p < .01). This suggests that the higher a person’s self-efficacy, the more intrinsic job motivation he or she will have. In addition, a positive correlation was found between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation (r = .26, p < .05). Which tells us that the higher the employability orientation, the higher the intrinsic job motivation. There was also a negative correlation between selfefficacy and gender (r = -.27, p < .05). This means that, on average, men reported a higher level of self-efficacy than women.

TABLE 1:

Explorative data (means, SD and Pearson correlations)

Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1 Gender .38 .49

2 Age 40.41 12.50 -.05

3 Employability orientation 3.36 .77 .03 -.18

4 Self-efficacy 4.19 .65 .27* .03 .23

5 Intrinsic job motivation 4.09 .57 -.08 .04 .26* .52** n= 70, *p<.05, **p<.01

4.2 Test of the hypotheses

The outcomes of the hierarchical linear regression analysis are presented in Table 2. The results showed that the control variables gender and age in step 1 did not contribute significantly to predicting intrinsic job motivation (∆R² = .01; ∆F = .13, p = n.s.).

(16)

TABLE 2

Hierarchical regression analysis with employability orientation and job specific self-efficacy as predictors and intrinsic job motivation as criterion

Intrinsic job motivation

Independent variables 1 2 3

Step 1 Gender -.04 .04 .05

Age .01 .02 .05

Step 2 Employability orientation .09 .05

Self-efficacy .29** .18**

Step 3 Employability orientation * Self-efficacy -.14**

R² .01 .31 .43

∆R² .01 .31** .13**

n = 70, *p < .05, **p < .01

In step 3 the results showed that the interaction effect had a significant contribution in predicting intrinsic job motivation (∆R² = .13, ∆F = 13.73, p< .01). Hypothesis 2 stated that the expected positive relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation will be moderated by job specific self-efficacy. In order to examine the simple slopes of the interaction effect, I followed the procedure outlined by Aiken & West (1999), and recast the regression equation in simple regressions of self-efficacy on intrinsic job motivation under varying conditions of employability orientation (M +1 SD; M – 1 SD).

(17)

FIGURE 1

Job specific self-efficacy as a moderator on the relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation

3,0 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4,0 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5,0 low high Employability Orientation In tr in si c J o b M o ti v a ti o n

Job Specific Self-efficacy high

Job Specific Self-efficacy low

5. Discussion

The main objective of the current study was to address the mixed outcomes of employability orientation on intrinsic motivation of the job (e.g. Cho & Huang, 2010; Van Dam, 2004; Erdogan & Bauer, 1999). We specifically focused on the extent to which self-efficacy moderated the relationship employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation. By addressing self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), whereby we specifically focused on how individuals define competence, we explained the influence of self-efficacy within this relationship and formulated hypotheses on the expected direct- and moderator effect. The following section discusses the results and implications of the current study.

(18)

expected to determine whether or not an employee perceives the job as an opportunity to learn new competencies and achieve personal development, and thus whether employability orientation is positively related to intrinsic motivation.

A significant main effect between job specific self-efficacy and intrinsic job motivation was found. Furthermore, the results also showed a significant interaction-effect. There was a positive relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation when the employee’s efficacy was low, whereas in the instance of a high self-efficacy, no significant relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation was found (see figure 1). This provides support for our expectation, that employability orientation positively influences intrinsic job motivation when the job is perceived as an opportunity for developing ones competencies. Such is the case when self-efficacy is low. In contrast, once the employee has a high self-self-efficacy, by having achieved the competencies necessary for the job, no opportunity is seen in the job to develop competencies beyond the current level.

5.1 Theoretical contributions

Based on the significant results that were found in this study, several theoretical implications can be formulated. Firstly, the results of the current study bring new insights to literature on employability. That is, the findings in the study clarify earlier mixed outcomes regarding the relationship between employability orientation on intrinsic motivation. Introducing self-efficacy provides an explanation as to why employability orientation is sometimes beneficial for intrinsic motivation and why it at other times is not. It was demonstrated that the nature of the relationship (i.e. positive or non-existent) between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation can be explained by whether the self-efficacy of an employee is high or low.

(19)

In contrast, when self-efficacy was high, implying that the employee had acquired the competencies that were necessary for the job and the challenge had been risen to, the results showed no significant relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic motivation of the job. This explains the difficulty employers have with maintaining job motivation among high performing employees that are continuously focused on improving their employability (Cho & Huang, 2010; Nauta et al., 2009). It could be that the job might not be challenging for these individuals and they might not see the job as an opportunity to learn and develop competencies. This can be supported by task involvement literature (Butler, 1987), which states that a challenging task is perceived as intrinsically motivating if an individuals main concern lies with development and mastery in tasks. Task involvement will not be maintained when the task has already been mastered or no longer perceived as an opportunity for development. Intrinsic motivation and performance waiver as a result. Employees may even become bored in their job (Agho, Price & Mueller, 1992).

Finally, the results may provide information useful to turnover literature. A source of turnover is reduced intrinsic motivation (Blustein, 1988). By investigating the role of self-efficacy in the relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation, the results of this study might be insightful. Lai and Kapstad (2009) have already mentioned that it is unclear in what way self-efficacy influences antecedents of turnover. The results of the current study suggest that self-efficacy might influence turnover indirectly through the relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation. Increased intrinsic motivation has been shown to influence employees’ willingness to stay with the organization (e.g. Allen & Meyer, 1996; Ng & Butts, 2009). The results demonstrated that employability orientation is positively associated with intrinsic motivation when self-efficacy is low. This indicates that turnover might be indirectly reduced when self-efficacy is low.

(20)

5.2 Practical implications

Several practical implications can be put forward based on the results found. A first practical implication of the current study is that it provides information about employability orientation that might be useful for organizations. Previous research has shown that some organizations face a dilemma of whether to encourage employability orientation or to discourage it, due to the varying outcomes of employability orientation for organizations (e.g. Van Dam, 2004; Erdogan & Bauer, 2009). It is not clear whether it is wise to stimulate employability orientation in order to, for example, increase organizational flexibility and intrinsic motivation (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009), or whether to discourage it to prevent potential negative outcomes such as turnover or perceived overqualification (Erdogan & Bauer, 2009; Nauta et al., 2009). The current study gives information that may help organizations understand when to enhance employability orientation while retaining valuable employees through maintaining intrinsic job motivation. As an employability oriented employee becomes better at a job, it might prove to be important to simultaneously increase mobility or expand the employee’s responsibilities (Maynard et al., 2006).

Specifically, once self-efficacy is high, an individual with an employability orientation perceives him/herself as having achieved the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for the job, and may seek new opportunities to learn and develop the knowledge, skills and abilities further. It may therefore be important to continuously provide new opportunities for growth, in order to constantly “keep employees in their toes”. Thus, if organizations want to reap the benefits of employability orientation with regard to intrinsic motivation and prevent the costs, such as decreased employee performance, then it might be wise to simultaneously promote employability orientation and provide challenging jobs to draw on and continuously develop competencies. However, this does not count for individuals who have a low employability orientation.

(21)

it is a valuable source of information. Employees are able to improve performance, reduce uncertainty and excel in the job (Van de Walle & Cummings, 1997). Ultimately, improving an employee’s belief to have the competence to perform the job successfully.

Furthermore, this study may be helpful in providing information in the prevention of perceived overqualification and turnover. Even though self-efficacy has a positive impact on intrinsic job motivation (Bandura & Schunk, 1981), this study shows that it is not wise to assume that employees with a high level of employability orientation and a high self-efficacy will automatically be intrinsically motivated in the job. If an organization aims to enhance or maintain intrinsic job motivation of the employees while encouraging employability orientation as well, it can prove to be important to assess an employees self-efficacy on the forehand.

If self-efficacy is high, a high employability orientation will not facilitate intrinsic job motivation. Besides preventing the monetary cost that comes with endeavours of stimulating employability orientation of the workforce (Nauta et al., 2009), organizations may also prevent losing valuable employees due to a lack of intrinsic motivation in the job. If the level of self-efficacy is low, then providing job specific skill training, for example, can be useful to enhance intrinsic job motivation. By improving an employee’s self-efficacy, the intrinsic job motivation will increase as well (Bandura, 1989). If the level of employability orientation is high, once the self-efficacy increases it might be wise to provide additional opportunities for developing competencies and to continuously challenge employees. This way intrinsic job motivation may be enhanced as well as maintained on the long run. Employability orientation can be encouraged while at the same time retaining high performing employees, contributing to the increase in organizational flexibility.

5.3 Limitations and future research

(22)

IT-sector, because these employees are attracted to the opportunities for personal growth (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Additionally, as mentioned in the method section, this study was conducted in five organizations that employ more than 1000 employees. Organizations of such a size are able to provide jobs that stimulate employability orientation. This ability attracts potential employees that deliberately seek jobs in order to continuously develop their competencies. These specific organizational characteristics could mean that the results were based on data acquired from participants who were not representative of the population. Therefore, to be able to generalize the outcomes across sectors and to smaller sized firms, future studies may include participants that work at middle sized to small sized organizations in varying sectors.

A second limitation concerns sources of common methods bias as data was collected using a questionnaire, potentially causing errors in measurement. A specific source of common methods bias that may have influenced the outcomes in the current study is item context effects, whereby a subject might interpret an item solely because of its relation to other items making up the questionnaire (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Although other research has noted that its impact on research results might be overrated (e.g. Spector, 2006), future research may control for it by using different methods of collecting data, such as a longitudinal study.

The third limitation of the current study is that it was a cross-sectional design, which limited the ability to determine causality. The results were correlational which suggests a relationship between constructs, but it cannot prove that one variable causes a change in another variable (Moore & McCabe, 2003). The direction of causality in the relationship was based on thorough examination of theory. Again, future research may address this issue by using different methods of data collection. In particular, a longitudinal research design addresses this issue and enables drawing conclusions about causality.

(23)

relationship between employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation, other frameworks may be plausible as conditional factors as well. To fully understand how employability orientation and intrinsic job motivation are related, it might prove to be enriching to investigate additional factors that potentially influence the relationship.

Conclusion

(24)

References

Agho, A. O., Price, J. L. & Mueller, C.W. 1992. Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196.

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

Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252-276.

Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company.

Bandura, A. & Locke, E. A. 2003. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.

Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. 1981. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic Interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 41(3), 586-598.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Blustein, D. L. 1988. The relationship between motivational processes and career exploration.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 345-357.

Bontis, N. & Serenko, A. 2009. A causal model of human capital antecedents and consequents in the financial services industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 53-69.

Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. 2008. Strategy and human resource management. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Butler, R. 1987. Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance.

(25)

Centers, R. & Bugental, D. E. 1966. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different segments of the working population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(3), 193-197. Cho, V. & Huang, X. 2010. Professional commitment, organizational commitment, and the

intention to leave for professional advancement. Information Technology and People, 25(1), 31-54.

De Jong, R. D., Van der Velde, M. E. G. & Jansen, P. G. W. 2001. Openness to experience and growth need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(4), 350-356.

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(4), 227-268.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. C., & Ryan. R. M. 1991. Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26 (4), 325-346.

Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C. & Lance, C. E. 1999. Motivational bases of affective organizational commitment: A partial test of an integrative theoretical model. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 463-483.

Eichar, D. M. & Thompson, J. L. P. 1986. Alienation, occupational, self-direction, and worker consciousness: An exploration. Work and Occupations, 13, 47-65.

Elliot, A. J. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational

Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.

Elliot, A. J. & Church, M. A. 1997. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., Faler, J., McGregor, H. A., Campbell, W.K., Sedikides, C. & Hareckiewicz, J.M. 2000. Competence valuation as a strategic intrinsic motivation process. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 780-794.

Elliot, A. J. & McGregor, H. A. 2001. A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A. & Gable, S. 1999. Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 549-563.

(26)

Forrier, A., Sels, L., Steynen, D. 2009. Career mobility at the intersection between agent and structure: A conceptual model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 82, 739-759.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J. & Ashforth, B. E. 2004. Employability: A psycho-social construct, it’s dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14-38.

Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.

Gist, M. E. 1987. Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Journal, 12(3), 472-485.

Grant, A. M. & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.

Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Harackiewicz, J. M. & Elliot, A. J. 1993. Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 904-915.

Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E. Jr. & Schlesinger, L. A. 1994. Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164-174. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C. & Kluger, A. N. 1998. Dispositional effects on

job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83(1), 17-34.

Khan, L. J., & Morrow, P. C. 1991. Objective and subjective underemployment relationships to job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 22, 211–218.

Lai, L. & Kapstad, J. C. 2009. Perceived competence mobilization: An explorative study of predictors and impact on turnover intentions. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 20(9), 1985-1998.

Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M. & Turban, D. B. 2003. Personality and the goal-striving process: The influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 256-265.

Lee, R. & Wilbur, E. R. 1985. Age, education, job tenure, salary, job characteristics and job satisfaction: A multivariate analysis. Human relations, 38, 781-791.

(27)

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. 1990. Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), 240-246.

Locke, E. A & Latham, G. P. 2004. What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 388-403.

McQuaid, R. W. & Lindsay, C. 2005. The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42(2), 197-219.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E. & VandenBerghe, C. 2004. Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis of integrative model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.

Moore, S. M. & McCabe, G. P. 2003. Introduction to the practice of statistics, New York: W.H. Freeman Company.

Mottaz, C. 1986. Gender differences in work satisfaction, work-related rewards and values, and the determinants of work satisfaction. Human Relations, 39(4), 359-378.

Nauta, M. M. 2007. Career interests, self-efficacy, and personality as antecedents of career exploration. Journal of Career Assessment,15(2), 162-180.

Nauta, A., Van Vianen, A., Van der Heijden, B., Van Dam, K. & Willemsen, M. 2009. Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 233-251.

Ng, T. W. H. & Butts, M. M. 2009. Effectiveness of organizational efforts to lower turnover intentions, the moderating role of employee locus of control. Human Resource

Management, 48(2), 289-310.

Piccolo, R. F. & Colquitt, J. A. 2006. Transformational leadership and job behaviours: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-340.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee J-Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method bias in behavioural research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Rigotti, T., Schyns, B. & Mohr, G. 2008. A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career

Assessment, 16, 238-255.

(28)

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proactive Personality and Career Success.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416-427.

Salgado, J. F. 1997. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30-43.

Shalley, C. A., Gilson, L. I. & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 52(3), 489-505.

Spector, P. E. 2006. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?

Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. Sutton, S. 1998. Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing?

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1317-1338.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 1991. Meeting trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfilment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759-769.

Tokar, D. M., Fischer, A. R. & Subich, L. M. 1998. Personality and vocational behavior: A selective review of the literature, 1993-1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 115-153.

Van Dam, K. 2004. Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 29-51.

Van de Walle, D. & Cummings, L. L. 1997. A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 390-400.

Van der Heijde, C. M. & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. 2006. A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human

Resource Management, 45(3), 449-476.

Warr, P., Cook, J. & Wall, T. 1979. Scales for measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129-148.

Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. 2000. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

This shift in attitude, from one where national policies of social and economic management are seen as reflective of the nation states “advancement as a container for social

We exploit the properties of ObSP in order to decompose the output of the obtained regression model as a sum of the partial nonlinear contributions and interaction effects of the

ingredient for creativity which is defined as the drive to do an activity for its own good in order to experience the satisfaction inherent in the activity (Deci, Connell, &amp;

kleine, nachtelijke diertjes, en zoogdieren konden pas groot worden, toen de dinosauriërs waren

This study is examining a mediated moderation model in which intrinsic motivation mediates and growth need strength moderates the indirect negative relationship between job

Hypothesis 6b was a combination of hypothesis 5 and 6a, and predicted that self-employed workers experience less negative effects from job insecurity on job

Last, previous research of Walker, Churchill and Ford (1977) found that intrinsic motivation is positively related to effort and effort is positively related to job performance,

Therefore, a high level of job significance might lower the influence that self-efficacy has on procrastination, which will lead to a linear and flatter