• No results found

DOES WHAT YOU VALUE INFLUENCE YOUR SATISFACTION? THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL VALUES ON JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND JOB SATISFACTION.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "DOES WHAT YOU VALUE INFLUENCE YOUR SATISFACTION? THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL VALUES ON JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND JOB SATISFACTION."

Copied!
50
0
0

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

Hele tekst

(1)

JOB SATISFACTION.

Master Thesis Human Resource Management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Sophie van Neer Student number: 2590328 Haddingedwarsstraat 6-1A

9711 KA Groningen

Supervisor: P. van der Meer

(2)

DOES WHAT YOU VALUE INFLUENCE YOUR SATISFACTION? THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL VALUES ON JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND

JOB SATISFACTION.

ABSTRACT

The level of job satisfaction can be influenced by different job characteristics such as pay, coworkers, promotions, labor contracts and many more. Most research has been evolved around extrinsic factors, but also personal values influence job satisfaction. It has been proven that individuals are more likely to look for a job that fits their values and in which they feel comfortable working, known as the person-job fit. This paper looks at the moderating effect of four personal values, more specifically self-direction, stimulation, power, and security and how these influence the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction. Results showed that the effect on job satisfaction only becomes stronger for those valuing power and security: for self-direction and stimulation no moderating effect was found.

Key words: job satisfaction, job characteristics, autonomy, task variance, authority, job

(3)

INTRODUCTION

Job satisfaction is a hot topic among researchers: in fact, it is the most frequently studied variable in the field of organizational behavior (Spector, 1997), with over 10,000 studies

published to date (Wright, 2006). Job satisfaction has been examined so extensively since it is seen as a major factor for the success of an organization. Satisfied employees mean less

absenteeism and turnover, higher commitment, and higher productivity. Job satisfaction can be influenced by many job characteristics, ranging from pay level or coworkers to intrinsic factors like achievement and approval. Less research has however been executed on the influence of individual values on job satisfaction, even though it has been proven to be an indicator of job satisfaction as well. This paper contributes to the literature by examining whether individual values, goals that human beings wish to achieve in their lives, are an influence factor for the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction.

One influential theory concerning job characteristics and its influence is the motivation-hygiene theory of Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). This theory argues that intrinsic factors such as recognition and achievement (motivators) are the primary determinants of job satisfaction. Extrinsic factors (hygiene factors) are, on the other hand, causing

dissatisfaction among employees when not being met. Thus, employees are more likely to be satisfied to the degree that their jobs include these motivators and more dissatisfied when the extrinsic factors do not meet their expectations. Another prominent theory in this field is the job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (1976). They argue that there are five job

dimensions leading to positive personal and work outcomes: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. The higher the scores on these dimensions, the more satisfied the employee. Despite these theories there are many other job factors influencing job satisfaction, for example benefits, nature of the work itself, the organization itself, promotion opportunities and many more (Spector, 1997).

(4)

value (Locke, 1969:329). Despite researchers showing that values also influence satisfaction, there is still more research to be found around the influence of organizational values and job characteristics. This might be because there is proof that organizational values are more of a predictor for job satisfaction than personal values (e.g. Kumar, 2012; Boxx, Odom, & Dunn, 1991), and thus more interesting to examine. However, Locke (1969) argued that values of individuals are an important aspect for job satisfaction. Diskiené & Gostautas (2011) also argued this, and Srivastava (2011) said that, although to a lesser extent than work values, personal values are considered a significant predictor for job satisfaction. One of the aims of this paper is therefore to examine this effect more deeply to find out whether personal values indeed influence job satisfaction.

Individuals take corresponding actions to achieve things they value. When it comes to work, they are more likely to look for a fit between the job and their personal values: value congruence or person-organization fit (Chatman, 1989). There are many other researchers who showed the importance of congruence in values between an individual and the organization (e.g. Judge & Bretz, 1992; Ostroff & Judge, 2007; Kumar, 2012), and that person-organization fit leads to higher job satisfaction (Silverthorne, 2004; Verquer, Beehr & Wagner, 2003). Thus, individuals emphasizing individual values are more likely to look for jobs that fit with these values, and these have a positive influence on job satisfaction and work behavior. This is also called person-job fit, and it has been proven to be positively related to job satisfaction (e.g. Bretz & Judge, 1994; Laschinger, Wong & Greco, 2006). The individual values examined in this study are derived from Schwartz’ value theory (1992). They include ten universal values:

self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition,

benevolence, and universalism. Of these, there are four which are likely to influence job choice and job satisfaction, namely self-direction, stimulation, power, and security. These four values can be related to specific job characteristics (autonomy, task variety, authority and job security, respectively). What this paper aims at is to add value to the person-job fit theory by examining whether individuals emphasizing one of these four values are indeed more likely to have a job characterizing this value.

(5)

job characteristics and job satisfaction. For example, it has been proven already that having an autonomous job leads to higher job satisfaction. But does this effect differ between individuals? Will the effect for example be higher, when that individual values self-direction rather than when an individual does not value self-direction, but still is satisfied with having an autonomous job? What this study therefore aims at is to expand the existing literature on job satisfaction by comparing whether individuals highly valuing a certain individual value, have a higher job satisfaction when their job meets the corresponding job characteristics, than an individual who lowly values it. This relationship will be tested for the four human values mentioned before by means of a moderation analysis. This leads to the overall research question of this paper:

“Do the individual values self-direction, stimulation, power and security, either

positively or negatively, strengthen the relationship between the job characteristics autonomy, task variance, authority and job security with job satisfaction?”

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Job Satisfaction and Job Characteristics.

A large amount of research can be found on the subject of job satisfaction: what factors lead to employees being satisfied in their work? What are the consequences for an organization when employees are dissatisfied? Locke (1969) devoted a whole article to the question what is job satisfaction? He describes it as “the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values” (p. 316). In a later publication he describes it as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from an appraisal of one's job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, as stated in Weiss 2002). Spector (1997) says it is simply how people feel about their job and different aspects of it. Rusbult & Farrell (1983) describe job satisfaction as “the degree to which the individual positively evaluates his or her job”. This definition looks similar to the one given by Weiss (2002), who describes job satisfaction as “a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one’s job or job situation” (p. 177).

(6)

dissatisfaction (hygiene factors). Motivation factors are seen to be related to the job itself, and the results derived from it. Hygiene factors on the other hand are not the opposite of the motivation factors, but they are a different set of factors related to the environment of the job. There are five intrinsic factors which Herzberg argues to be related to job satisfaction:

achievement, recognition, the work itself (challenging), responsibility, and advancement (promotion). The hygiene factors on the other hand turn out to be able to reduce dissatisfaction when present in the job. These factors are company policy and administrative practices,

supervision (technical quality), interpersonal relations (especially with supervisor), physical working conditions, job security, benefits, and salary (Miner, 2005: 63). Another prominent model concerning job characteristics and its influence is the job characteristics model by

Hackman and Oldham (1976). The model consists of five core job dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. These dimensions lead to three psychological states: experienced meaningfulness of work, experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the actual results of the work activities. It aims at providing more insight into how job characteristics and individual characteristics determine when an “enriched” job will lead to beneficial outcomes and when not. According to this model, internal motivation is highest when at least one of the three job dimensions leading to experienced meaningfulness is high, when the job is high on autonomy, and when there is a high amount of feedback. When scoring high on these job dimensions and psychological states, this will lead to high internal work motivation, high quality work performance, high satisfaction with the work and low absenteeism and turnover. Comparing it to the model of Herzberg, it shows that he also

mentioned that autonomy (in terms of having responsibility) and a varying job lead to higher job satisfaction.

Besides these two models there are many other characteristics influencing job

(7)

Since the aim of this paper is to analyze job characteristics that are in line with the four individual values, the characteristics examined will be autonomy, task variety, authority and job security. Following from this, the first hypothesis can be formulated:

Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction is influenced by job characteristics like autonomy, task variety, status, and job security.

Human Values and Job Satisfaction.

Schwartz (1992) developed ten universal human values in his value theory: self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition,

benevolence, and universalism. He describes values as desirable, trans-situational goals that vary in importance as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). These “guiding principles” refer to what individuals consider important in their lives: every individual holds several values but with a varying degree of importance (Schwartz, 2006). What is

important to one person, might be irrelevant or uninteresting to another. Values can be

distinguished by their underlying goals and motivations. A characteristic of human values is that they are universal: they occur in all cultures around the globe since they are grounded in one or more of three universal requirements of human existence. These three requirements are needs of individuals as biological organisms, requisites of coordinated social interaction, and survival and welfare needs of groups. Schwartz also mentions that individuals have to articulate appropriate goals, communicate them with others and gain cooperation concerning their goals: they cannot deal with these three requirements of human existence on their own. This leads to values being the “socially desirable concepts used to represent these goals mentally and the vocabulary used to express them in social interaction” (p. 5).

There are six underlying features that apply to all values (Schwartz, 2006). These features give more insight into the characteristics of values and how to recognize them: (1) Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect. When values are activated, they become infused with feeling. For example, people whom value power become threatened when they do not have the

(8)

feature distinguishes values from narrower concepts like norms and attitudes that usually refer to specific actions, objects, or situations. For example individuals valuing honesty and loyalty will live up to these values in situations involving school, work, sports, business, and so on. (4) Values serve as standards or criteria. Values guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people and events. Based on values they cherish, people decide what is good or bad, worth doing or avoiding. (5) Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. Values form an ordered system of value priorities that characterize them as individuals. (6) The relative importance of multiple values guides action. This means that any attitude or behavior typically has implications for more than one value. For example making choices that lead to independence (e.g. living by yourself, choosing the job you prefer) might express self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism on the expense of tradition and conformity.

Summarized, human values can be described as aspects individuals consider important in life, and goals they want to achieve. By taking action accordingly, people try to reach these goals resulting in a more meaningful and satisfied life. An interesting question following from this is whether people are also more likely to look for jobs that fit their values: person-job fit.

(9)

The influence of human values. From the ten values mentioned previously, four of them are most likely to influence job choice and job satisfaction based on their underlying

characteristics: self-direction, stimulation, power and security. These will be explained into more detail below, based on Schwartz’ value theory (1992):

Self-direction. Self-direction can be seen as the extent to which an individual values his own independence and freedom. A person valuing self-direction wishes to look for autonomy and independence in its job: in other words, self-direction can also be seen as having some form of empowerment. Looking back at the model of Hackman and Oldham, it was argued that autonomy is an important determinant of job satisfaction. They describe autonomy as the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used carrying it out. This was also supported in Herzberg’s theory.Lawler and Hall (1970) showed that job satisfaction is

influenced by the amount of control one has over its job, another characteristic of empowerment. This result was also supported by Spector (1986) who found that job control leads to higher job satisfaction and commitment, and to lower turnover intentions. Schreurs, Guenter, van Emmerik, Notelaers & Schumacher (2015) also found that autonomy is positively correlated with job satisfaction. From this, the following hypotheses can be derived:

Hypothesis 2a: Individuals valuing self-direction are more likely to have a job in which they have a high degree of autonomy and freedom.

Hypothesis 2b:The effect of autonomy on job satisfaction is larger for individuals highly valuing self-direction than for individuals lowly valuing self-direction.

(10)

1999:67). When relating it to job characteristics, the skills variety aspect of Hackman and Oldham’s model can be seen as an important determinant for stimulation. They describe it as the extent to which a job requires a variety of different activities in work. Since it is proven that skill variety is related to job satisfaction, it can be assumed that an individual valuing stimulation will look for a varying, challenging job. They will probably be more attracted to jobs which challenge their abilities and will be more happy with variation in their tasks and working hours. This assumption is also supported by Glisson and Durick (1988), who found that skill variety and role ambiguity were most strongly related to job satisfaction. Besides skill variety, one can also value the extent to which he can develop himself in a job. This leads to the third hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Individuals valuing stimulation are more likely to have a varying and challenging job, or one in which they can develop themselves.

Hypothesis 3b: The effect of job variance and challenge on job satisfaction is larger for individuals highly valuing stimulation than for individuals lowly valuing stimulation.

Power. Power can be seen as the extent to which an individual values its social status and authority, and whether it has influence over other individuals and/or resources. If a person highly values power, this would mean that he finds it important to have status in a group, and also has the ability to influence others. From this one can argue that power is an indicator for job satisfaction, since individuals who value power are most likely to have a job in which they are able to have authority over others, for example in a leadership function or in a job with high status.

(11)

Hypothesis 4a: Individuals valuing power are more likely to have a job with a high level of authority and status.

Hypothesis 4b: The effect of authority and status on job satisfaction is larger for individuals highly valuing power than for individuals lowly valuing power.

Security. The motivational goal of this human value is “safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self” (p. 9). An individual valuing security is most likely to look for a stable job in which he has a secure future. Job insecurity can be seen as having a perceived threat towards job features like promotion opportunities and freedom (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989). That job security leads to a higher level of job satisfaction has been proved by many authors (e.g. Ashford et al, 1989; Burke, 1991; Lim, 1996).Another indicator of job insecurity can be found in the type of labor contract an individual holds: one has more job security on a permanent contract. Wagenaar, Taris, Houtman, van den Bossche, Smulders and Kompier (2012) compared labor contracts in the EU between 2000 and 2005, and results indeed showed that employees with a permanent contract were more satisfied with their job and life than employees with a temporary one. Feather and Rauter (2010) examined the difference in satisfaction between permanent and fixed-term contracted teachers, and found that those who were on a fixed-term contract showed more job insecurity and thus less job satisfaction. From this it can thus be concluded that individuals valuing security are more likely to search for permanent jobs, and are thus also more likely to have a permanent rather than a fixed-term contract.

Hypothesis 5a: Individuals valuing security are more likely to have a permanent rather than a fixed-term contract.

Hypothesis 5b: The effect of a secure job on job satisfaction is larger for individuals highly valuing security than for individuals lowly valuing security.

(12)

FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model

METHODOLOGY Data collection and participants

Data was collected using the European Social Survey (ESS), a survey measuring attitudes, beliefs and behavior patterns of different nations across Europe. It is randomly distributed once every two years in several European countries (see Appendix A for the

participating countries). While human values were measured in all datasets, job satisfaction was only measured in the dataset of 2010 (European Social Survey, 2010). Therefore this dataset, called “round 5”, was used for the analysis. SPSS data could be downloaded from the website www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

The ESS is originally designed in British English, and then translated into different languages for the participating countries. The target group are men and women aged 15 or higher, with no upper age limit. For this research, only the working population is of importance. Therefore individuals who answered “paid work” as their main activity for the last 7 days, were taken into account. From this population, individuals with an age not lower than 20 years were selected since it might be possible that lower aged individuals were still going to school, and thus working was not their number one priority. The upper age was 60, this due to differences

between the participating countries concerning retirement regulations. From this selection, only the participants who answered all relevant questions and measures for the variables job

characteristics, job satisfaction and human values were used, as well as the control variables. This lead to a total of 16,380 participants. Of these, 48,3% were male and 51,7 % female, with a mean age of 41,04 years (SD = 10,62). 53,8% had lower than an advanced vocational sub degree,

Job

characteristics Job satisfaction

(13)

15,1% an advanced vocational degree, and 31% a tertiary degree (e.g. a bachelor or master’s degree).

Measures

Job satisfaction. The dependent variable job satisfaction was measured by means of one question: “all things considered, how satisfied are you with your present job?”, which is part of the family, work and well-being theme. The scale ran from 0 (extremely dissatisfied) to 10 (extremely satisfied).

Job characteristics. The job characteristics autonomy, level of task variance and a challenging job, authority and status, and level of security in the job were measured by means of several questions derived from the survey. The options (“not applicable”, “refusal”, “don’t know” and “no answer”) were already added as missing values in the SPSS file. Adjustments were made since some questions were measured on different scales, and others were option questions and thus had to be recoded into dummy variables.

Autonomy: The questions measuring autonomy at work were “the management at your work allows you to decide how your own daily work is organized”, “management allows me to influence policy decisions about the activities of the organization”, and “the management at your work allows you to choose or change your pace of work”. All questions were measured on a 10-point scale and computed as one variable (α =.86).

Task variance: To measure the job characteristics task variety and having a

challenging/interesting job, the following questions were used: “The main reason I put effort into my job is because my work tasks are interesting”, “There is a lot of variety in my work”, and “my job requires that I keep learning new things”. The first question was recoded into a dummy variable. The last two questions were both measured on a 4-point scale and computed into one variable (α =.74).

Authority and status: To measure whether jobs had characteristics like authority, high status and opportunity for promotions the following questions were used: “In your main job, do/did you have any responsibility for supervising the work of other employees?”, and “in your job, which one of the following tasks do you generally spend most time on?: supervising personnel”. The first two questions were recoded into dummy variables, thus taken separately.

(14)

secure”. The first question was recoded into a dummy variable and the last one was measured on a 4-point scale.

Human values. The four human values each could be rated on a scale from 1 (very much like me) to 6 (not like me at all). All questions had to be recoded. As for job satisfaction and the job characteristics, there were other options which were already added as missing values

(“refusal”, “don’t know” and “no answer”). Since individuals and cultural groups differ in how they use the response scale, the values had to be centered meaning that their mean became 0. A guide on how to make these corrections could be found on the ESS website (see Appendix B for the steps taken). The human values were measured by the following questions:

Self-direction. This value was measured using two questions: “important to think new ideas”, and “important to make own decisions and be free”.

Stimulation. This value was measured with the two questions “important to try new and different things in life”, and “important to seek adventure and have an exciting life”.

Power. This value was measured by means of the two questions “important to be rich, have money and expensive things”, and “important to get respect from others”.

Security. This value was measured by ratings on the two questions “important to live in secure and safe surrounding”, and “important that government is strong and ensures safety”.

Control variables. In this research the variables controlled for were age, gender,

education, relationship status, health and income. Education was measured in the ESS by means of the International Standard Classification of Education. Relationship status was measured by looking at whether the respondent lived with a husband/wife/partner. Health was measured by using the question on subjective general health, which could be rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very good, 5 = very bad). This question was recoded. Level of income was measured by looking at the question about the respondent’s feeling of the current level of income. This question was

measured on a 4-point scale (1 = living comfortably on present income, 4 = very difficult on present income). This question had to be recoded as well.

Analysis

To statistically test the hypotheses, the first step was a descriptive analysis of the

(15)

A-hypotheses were measured by means of a correlation analysis, first of all these were tested based on Tables 1a and 1b. The next step was to run analyses to describe the relationship between each of the four job characteristics and job satisfaction, which was done by means of a multiple regression analysis. To test the B-hypotheses, a moderation analysis was used to see whether the effect of having a specific job was larger for people highly valuing the relating human value than for those lowly valuing it. For this, the independent and moderation variables were standardized. A syntax file showing the steps conducted in the SPSS analyses can be found in Appendix C.

RESULTS

Tables 1a and 1b provide the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables tested. To provide a clearer overview and to prevent the tables from getting too extensive, Table 1a only presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for the

variables included in the conceptual model: job satisfaction, autonomy, task variance, authority, job security, self-direction, stimulation, power and security. This table shows that all of the main variables are either positively or negatively correlated with job satisfaction. Table 1b shows the correlations between the dependent variable job satisfaction and the control variables age, gender, education, relationship status, health and income. The correlations show that except for gender, all other control variables are related to job satisfaction in either a positive or negative way.

Based on the results of Table 1a, the A-hypotheses developed in this study can already be tested since they will be analyzed by means of correlation analysis. Hypothesis 1 was measured by means of a multiple regression analysis, of which the results can be found in Table 2. To provide a clearer overview, the interaction effects measured in the B-hypotheses are merged into one table. It should be noted that separate analyses were run to measure each interaction effect, and then merged into one table. The results of these interaction effects can be found in Table 3.

Hypothesis testing

(16)

meaning that individuals valuing self-direction are indeed more likely to have an autonomous job.

Hypothesis 3a: Individuals valuing stimulation are more likely to have a varying and challenging job, or one in which they can develop themselves. Task variance was measured based on two variables. The first one showed a positive, significant correlation with job

satisfaction (r = .073, p <.001). The second measurement, having interesting tasks, also showed a positive, significant relationship (r = .048, p < .001). Thus, hypothesis 3a can be fully supported, meaning that valuing stimulation leads to having a varying or challenging job.

Hypothesis 4a: Individuals valuing power are more likely to have a job with a high level of authority and status. Correlation analysis revealed that only the variable spending most time on supervising was significantly and positively related to the power value (r = .034, p <.001). Being responsible for other employees did not show any significant effect (r = -.002, p > .05) . Therefore hypothesis 4a could not be fully supported.

(17)

TABLE 1a

Means, standard deviations and correlations of job satisfaction, job characteristics, and human values variables

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Job satisfaction 7.28 1.93 - - - - 2. Autonomy 5.12 2.83 .27** - - - - 3. Task variance 2.83 .88 .328** .356** - - - - 4. Interesting tasks .12 .33 .132** .142** .174** - - - - 5. Responsible for supervising others 1.72 .45 -.133** -.369 -.238** -.09** - - - -

(18)

TABLE 1b

Means, standard deviation, and correlations between job satisfaction and control variables

Note: N = 16,380, * p < .05, ** p < .01, Source: European Social Survey (2010)

Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction is influenced by job characteristics like autonomy, task variety, status, and job security. In this hypothesis was tested whether the four job characteristics autonomy, task variance, job security and authority are related to job satisfaction by means of a multiple regression analysis. Regression analysis showed that autonomy is significantly and positively related to job satisfaction (B = .077, p <.001), indicating that individuals having an autonomous job also have a higher degree of job satisfaction.

The regression analysis for the two scale questions indicating task variety showed a significant, positive effect towards job satisfaction (B = .475, p <. 001). Having a job with interesting tasks also showed a significant, positive result (B = .286, p <.001). Concluding from these results it can be said that those having interesting and challenging tasks are more satisfied with their jobs than those having less interesting tasks.

The two questions which were related showed no significant effect towards job

satisfaction, being responsible for others and spending most time on supervising others, did not show any significance (B = .041, p > .05 and B = .011, p > .05 respectively). Following from this it can be said that there is no significant relationship between having authority or a high status job towards job satisfaction.

(19)

The last characteristic, job security, was measured by means of two separate questions. The first question concerning the type of contract, showed a significant, negative relationship towards job satisfaction (B = -.113, p < .001). The outcome of the regression analysis measuring the scale question whether the respondent currently had a secure job however showed a

significant and positive relationship (B = .262, p < .001). Therefore the assumption that having a secure job leads to higher job satisfaction cannot be fully supported.

The model controlled for age, gender, health, income, education and relationship status. Regression analysis showed that age, health and income were positively related (p < .001) as well as gender (p < .05), while education on the other hand showed a negative effect (p < .001). This suggests that these variables can be factors influencing the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction. Relationship status did no show any significant effect (p > .05) and does thus does not influence the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction.

TABLE 2

Effects of job characteristics and human values on job satisfaction (multiple regression) Job satisfaction

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Step and variables B SE B SE B SE

(20)

Autonomy .077** .006 .08** .006

Task variance .475** .017 .475** .017

Interesting tasks .286** .042 .295** .042

Responsible for supervising others .041 .036 .033 .036

Most time supervising .011 .048 .036 .048

Contract type -.113** .038 -.103** .037 Job security .262** .014 .254** .014 Self-direction -.055** .019 Stimulation -.096** .016 Power -.147** .016 Security .041* .019 R square .086** .192** .199** Δ R square .106** .007** Note: N = 16,380, * p < .05, ** p < .01, Source: European Social Survey (2010)

Hypothesis 2b: The effect of autonomy on job satisfaction is larger for individuals highly valuing self-direction than for individuals lowly valuing self-direction. The results of the

moderation analysis did not show any significant effect (B = .018, p > .05), meaning that the relationship between having an autonomous job and job satisfaction will not become stronger for individuals highly valuing self-direction than for those lowly valuing it. Thus, hypothesis 2b is rejected. There are no remarkable differences between main and interaction effect found.

Hypothesis 3b: The effect of job variance and challenge on job satisfaction is larger for individuals highly valuing stimulation than for individuals lowly valuing stimulation. For both questions used to measure job variance, there was not significant moderation effect found (B = .004, p > .05; B = .027, p > .05 respectively). Thus, hypothesis 3b cannot be confirmed. For these variables were neither any remarkable differences found between main and interaction effect.

(21)

moderation analysis show that both variables have a moderating effect. Supervising others showed a significant, negative effect (B = -.054, p < .001). This indicates that job satisfaction decreases for individuals highly valuing power, when they supervise others. Spending most time supervising however showed a significant positive effect (B = .032, p < .005), indicating that individuals highly valuing power have more job satisfaction when they spend most time supervising others. Hypothesis 4b can therefore be confirmed, however the results show both a negative and positive effect. There was no difference found between the main effect and the interaction effect.

(22)

TABLE 3

Main effect and Interaction effect of Human Values and Job Characteristics on Job Satisfaction

(23)
(24)

DISCUSSION Summary

The overall research question of this paper was whether the four individual values self-direction, stimulation, power and security strengthened the relationship between the four job characteristics autonomy, task variance, authority and job security, and job satisfaction in either a positive or negative way. To be able to answer this research question it was first of all tested whether the four job characteristics autonomy, task variance, authority and job security had a significant relationship with job satisfaction (hypothesis 1). Results showed that autonomy and task variance were indeed positively related to job satisfaction, as expected based on Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) and Herzberg’s (1959) job characteristics theories. Authority on the other hand did not show to have any significance with job satisfaction. A remarkable outcome was that having an unlimited contract was negatively related to job satisfaction. Having a secure job however showed to have a positive, significant effect on job satisfaction.

The four job characteristics autonomy, task variance, authority and job security were chosen to analyze since it was expected them to be related to the four human values examined in this study. Based on the person-job fit theory it was assumed that individuals emphasizing a specific human value also would have a job characterizing that value (A-hypotheses). Correlation results showed that individuals valuing self-direction were indeed more likely to have an autonomous job, and those valuing stimulation had a varying job. Individuals valuing power showed to be significantly correlated with spending most time on supervising, while supervising others on the other hand did not show any significant effect. Those valuing security even showed to be negatively correlated with having a secure job. Valuing security and having an unlimited contract did not show any significant effect.

(25)

a positive, significant effect when moderated by power. This thus means that an increase in spending most time on supervising leads to higher job satisfaction, and this effect is stronger for individuals highly valuing power, than for those lowly valuing it. Job security showed to have a positive, significant effect when moderated by the security value. In other words, an increase in job security leads to a higher level of job satisfaction, and this effect is stronger for individuals highly valuing security than for those lowly valuing it. This is also the case when having an unlimited contract, which showed to be negatively related to job satisfaction. However, when security is added as a moderating variable the outcomes show a positive, significant result. Thus, when people value security the relationship between having an unlimited contract becomes positive, and this effect is stronger for those individual highly valuing security than for those lowly valuing it. Some outcomes are thus not in line with the hypotheses, while others are.

As a brief conclusion it can be said that autonomy and task variance both lead to higher job satisfaction and are in line with the person-job fit: however, no moderation effect is found. Authority and job security on the other hand do show a moderating effect, but differing effects when it comes to job satisfaction and person-job fit.

Main findings

The main outlines of this paper have only been supported to a certain extent, since for both the A and B hypotheses only two of them were fully supported, while the other 2 could only be partly supported or not supported at all. It was shown that having an autonomous job, as well as a varying one leads to higher job satisfaction which is consistent with literature. Clark (2001) found that job security is often said to be the most important job aspect explaining job

satisfaction. This was also shown in this study, since having a secure job showed to have a positive relationship towards job satisfaction.

It was assumed that those individuals valuing one of the four human values would also have a job fitting this value. This is in line with the person-job fit theory, which states that individuals are more satisfied when their job fits their values. Tinsley (2000) found that

employees’ attitudes towards work are significantly influenced by person-job fit, and Peng and Mao (2014), as well as many other authors, showed a positive relationship towards job

(26)

job, and those valuing stimulation had a varying job. Valuing power showed a positive result towards spending most time on supervising.

A contradicting outcome of this study was that having an unlimited contract showed to be negatively related to job satisfaction. Based on literature it was assumed that having a secure job leads to more job satisfaction. Having an unlimited contract, which can be seen as a sign of job security, however showed to have a negative effect on job satisfaction. This is quite remarkable since it would be more logically to assume that those having a temporary or limited contract generally have more job insecurity and thus lower job satisfaction (e.g. Booth, Francesconi, & Frank, 2002; de Cuyper & de Witte, 2010). Origia and Pagani (2009) showed in their research that the type of contract is not a sole determinant of job satisfaction: the perceived job security is the main factor. They also mentioned research of other authors in their study, who argued that only specific types of temporary contracts lead to lower job satisfaction (e.g. seasonal and causal jobs or temporary agency work). However, they stated that in general there was no significant difference found in overall job satisfaction between individuals with a permanent contract or those with a temporary contract (p. 548). This thus means that simply having an unlimited contract does not always lead to higher job satisfaction. Another possible explanation for this negative effect could be the economic crisis of 2008 which was still present at the moment the questionnaire was being distributed and answered. Jobs were scarce, lay-offs were high, and people were afraid of losing their jobs, even when having an unlimited contract. Solberg,

(27)

Then there are most likely other factors that come into play to determine the level of job (dis)satisfaction.

Another contradicting outcome was found in the A-hypothesis, stating that those individuals valuing security were more likely to have a job with a higher level of security. Correlation results however revealed a negative relationship. It might again be possible that this negative outcome is due to the economic crisis. Markovits, Boer, and van Dick (2014) examined the effects of an economic crisis and mentioned that “security satisfaction is most severely hit due to economic crisis” (p. 419). This could explain why especially individuals valuing security could have feel threatened, and a negative relationship has been found. Besides that, it might also simply be due to the fact that it is not always possible to find a job in which your values are being met or that it is more difficult to get an authoritarian or secure job rather than an autonomous or varying one. It is for example harder to get more power or a higher status by getting promoted, than to get a job with some more autonomy. However, there are no clear explanations for this effect and therefore it is a suggestion for future research.

The main aim of this research was to add value to the existing literature on job satisfaction by arguing that individual values moderate the relationship between job

characteristics and job satisfaction. Moderation analyses showed that this was only fully the case for authoritarian and secure jobs. Results concerning the power value however showed

(28)

explain why individuals valuing power have a higher level of job satisfaction when they spend most time on supervising others: these individuals achieved their ideal self by having a higher status job.

On the other hand there was a negative moderating effect found between supervising others and job satisfaction, when valuing power. Jacobsen (1991) wrote about individual

differences, meaning that individuals can interpret the same situation in different ways. Based on this, persons valuing power can interpret supervising others in different ways than those not, or lowly valuing power. Supervising others can namely also occur at a lower level job, without it being the main task of the employee. Promotion focused individuals wish to experience gains to achieve their ideal self (Brockner & Higgins, 2001), but when they do not achieve this they experience the pain of non-gain. This could suggest that individuals valuing power, who are more likely to be promotion focused individuals, might feel frustrated when they have a job status in which they feel they did not achieve their goal yet. This could be an explanation for the negative effect between supervising others and job satisfaction when moderated by power, since supervising other might indicate a lower status job than what power individuals wish to have.

As stated earlier, a remarkable outcome of this study was that having an unlimited contract showed a negative relationship with job satisfaction. However, when the security value was added as a moderating variable results changed, leading to a positive, significant

relationship. There was also a significant positive moderation effect found for having a secure job and job satisfaction, with security value as the moderator. These outcomes might also be explained based on the regulatory focus theory of Higgins, but then related to prevention focused individuals. These persons are more concerned about preventing negative outcomes and

choosing safe options, to achieve their ought self. Individuals valuing security might thus be seen as prevention focused persons. When these individuals have a secure job or an unlimited

contract, they have achieved their ought level of security which could explain why they show a stronger relationship towards job satisfaction when having a secure job.

(29)

it is easier to provide the employees with more autonomy or variety in a job than with promotions or job security. It is thus easier to increase motivation by adjusting the level of autonomy and task variance, and this might increase employee motivation which in turn affects the organization’s productivity. Since it is also in the benefit of the organization it is more likely that they already provide the employees with opportunities for an autonomous or varying task. Therefore less effort has to been put in achieving this type of job, which could explain why no moderating effect is found.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study adds value to the existing literature in multiple ways. First, it expands the literature on job characteristics by showing that there is no significant effect between authority and job satisfaction. Besides that, it also shows that it is not always the case that having an unlimited contract leads to higher job satisfaction, but that it can also have a negative effect. Managers should be aware of the fact that having an unlimited contract does not solely lead to a higher level of job satisfaction, but that there are most likely other factors influencing it.

Second, it expands the person-job fit theory by examining four specific job characteristics which are related to four individual values. Of these, only valuing self-direction in combination with having an autonomous job, and valuing stimulation in combination with having a varying job showed to be significantly related. It also shows that individuals valuing power are more likely to have a job in which they spend most time on supervising, also adding value to the person-job fit. However, supervising others in general did not show any effect, from which one might conclude that person-job fit is dependent on the employee’s tasks. Valuing security even showed to be negatively correlated to job security. It can thus be added to the literature on person-job fit that it is not always that simple to find a job fitting your values. Organizations should realize that there is not always a good person-job fit to be found. They should be aware of the wishes of their employees, and see whether they are in line with their main tasks. This will most likely increase employee satisfaction.

Third, this study adds a whole new subject to the literature on job satisfaction by examining the moderating effect of specific individual values. It shows that basic job

(30)

individuals value, their job satisfaction will be higher when they have a job related to that value. However, it also showed that this is not the case for all values analyzed. For organizations this is an interesting outcome, since it shows that power and security valuing individuals will have a higher job satisfaction when they are in the right job. Results revealed that supervising others showed a negative relationship towards job satisfaction when moderated by power. For managers this is something to be cautious about when dealing with individuals who value power. It might be important to assure that power-valuing individuals are in a position fitting their desired level of authority, or at least are not too long in a position which is not in line with this desire. Otherwise it will negatively affect job satisfaction and this also has consequences for the organization itself.

Strengths, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Research

The strengths of this research are first of all that the data is derived from a large data set, with respondents of many different ages, occupations, gender, and so on. Next to that, the European Social Survey measures many other aspects like health and care, politics, subjective well-being and my more. Job related questions are only a small part of a large questionnaire aimed at getting information from a different range of topics, leading to less biased outcomes. Individuals participating in this study are selected randomly, and each country must aim for a minimum sample size. The questions used in the ESS are designed as to make them comparable for all countries involved, and questions are developed based on methodological standards (European Social Survey, 2010).

Despite the fact that the data gathering and analyses for this research was carefully carried out, there are still some limitations to this research. First of all, cultural differences among respondents were not taken into account despite the fact that it can be seen as an

(31)

on different scales. Therefore it was not always possible to combine them into one variable and thus multiple analyses had to be run, leading to multiple outcomes for one variable. This could make the outcomes more difficult to interpret and could also be a reason for showing both positive and negative relationships for power and security. Also, there were no clear-cut questions measuring the four job characteristics and therefore the author decided herself which questions to choose for measurements. For future research, it could be a suggestion to execute the research by oneself, and make use of reliable questions which can be measured on one scale.

Suggestions for future research based on the outcomes of the results section are first of all to examine what could be a possible explanation for the negative relationship between having an unlimited contract and job satisfaction. More research could be done into the effect of the

economic crisis to see if this could indeed be a possible factor explaining this outcome. Also, there was not controlled for work field. It can be that in some fields there is in general less security than in others: this could also be a factor influencing it. Next to that, the moderation analyses showed only significance for power and security. One possible explanation for this was that these characteristics are harder to achieve in a job. Individuals valuing power are for

example putting more effort into achieving a higher status job based on the regulatory focus theory, and therefore have a higher job satisfaction when they are working in an authoritarian job. The same was the case for security-valuing individuals. These were however only

speculations since there is no literature to be found showing that power-valuing individuals are also more promotion focused, and security-valuing individuals more prevention focused. Therefore a last suggestion for future research could be to examine whether these are indeed related to each other, and if this would be a possible explanation for the moderating effect.

CONCLUSION

(32)
(33)

REFERENCES

Ashford, S.J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. 1989. Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity: a theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4): 803-829.

Booth, A.L., Francesconi, M., & Frank, J. 2002. Temporary jobs: stepping stones or dead ends? The Economic Journal, 112(480): 189-213.

Borooah, V. K. 2009. Comparing Level of Job Satisfaction in the Countries of Western and Eastern Europe. International Journal of Manpower, 30(4): 304-325.

Boxx, W.R., Odom, R.Y. & Dunn, M.G. 1991 Organizational values and value congruence and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: An empirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 20(2): 195-205.

Bretz, R.D. & Judge, T.A. 1994. Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(1): 32-54.

Brockner, J. & Higgins, E.T. Regulatory focus theory: implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 35-66.

Burke, R.J. 1991. Job insecurity in stockbrokers: effects on satisfaction and health. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6(5): 10-16.

Clark, A.E. 2001. What really matters in a job? Hedonic measurement using quit data. Labour Economics, 8(2): 223-242.

Chatman, J.A. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: a model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 333-349.

(34)

Diskiené, D. & Gostautus, V. 2010. Relationship between individual organizational values and employees’ job satisfaction. Current Issues of Business and Law, 5(2): 295-319.

Edwards, J.R. & Cable, D.M. 2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3): 654-677.

ESS Round 5: European Social Survey Round 5 Data. 2010. Data file edition 3.2. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data. Feather, N.T., & Rauter, K.A. 2010. Organizational citizenship behaviors in relation to job

status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1): 81-94.

Francesconi, M. 2001. Determinants and consequences of promotions in Britain. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63(3): 279-310.

Glisson, C. & Durick, M. 1988. Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1): 61-81.

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.

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

Jacobsen, D. 1991. Toward a theoretical distinction between the stress components of the job insecurity and job loss experiences. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 9: 1-19.

Judge, T.A. & Bretz, R. D. 1992. Effect of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3): 261-271.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E., & Patton, G.K. 2001. The job satisfaction-job

(35)

Kaasa, A., Vadi, M. & Varblane, U. 2014. Regional cultural differences within European countries: evidence from multi-country surveys. Management International Review, 54(6): 825-852.

Kumar, N. 2012. Relationship of personal and organizational values with job satisfaction. Journal of Management Research, 12(2): 75-82.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C.A, & Greco, P. 2006. The impact of staff nurse empowerment on person-job fit and work engagement/burnout. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 30(4): 358-367.

Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. 1970. Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(4): 305-312.

Lee, R. & Wilbur, E.R. 1985. Age, education, job tenure, salary, job characteristics and job satisfaction: a multivariate analysis. Human Relations, 38(8): 781-791.

Lim, V.K.G. 1996. Job insecurity and its outcomes: moderating effects of work-based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations, 49(2): 171-194.

Locke, E.A. 1969. What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4: 309-336.

Markovits, Y., Boer, D., & van Dick, R. 2014. Economic crisis and the employee: the effects of economic crisis on employee satisfaction, commitment, and self-regulation. European Management Journal, 32: 413-422.

Miner, J.B. 2005. Organizational Behavior I. Essential theories of motivation and leadership, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Origia, F. & Pagani, L. 2009. Flexicurity and job satisfaction in Europe: The importance of perceived and actual job stability for well-being at work, Labour Economics, 16(5): 547-555.

(36)

Ostroff, C. & Judge, T.A. 2007. Perspectives on organizational fit. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peng, Y., & Mao, C. 2014. The impact of person-job fit on job satisfaction: the mediator role of self-efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 121(3): 805-813.

Reisel, W.D., Probst, T. M., Swee-Lim, C., Maloles, C.M., & König, C.J. The effects of job insecurity on job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, deviant behavior, and negative emotions of employees. International Studies of Management & Organization, 40(1): 74-91.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. 2002. The big five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (6): 789-801.

Rusbult, C.E., & Farrell, D. 1983. A longitudinal test of the investment model: the impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3): 429-438.

Schreurs, B., Guenter, H., van Emmerik, I.J. H., Notelaers, G., & Schumacher, D. 2015. Pay level satisfaction and employee outcomes: the moderating effect of autonomy and

support climates. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(12): 1523-1546.

Schwartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.

Schwartz, S.H. & Sagiv, L. 1995. Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1): 92-116.

Schwartz, S.H. 2006. Basic human values: theory, measurement, and applications. Appeared in Revue française de sociologie, 47(4).

(37)

Srivastava, M. 2011. Anxiety, stress and satisfaction among professionals in manufacturing and service organizations: fallout of personal values, work values, and extreme job

conditions. Vision, 15(3): 219-229.

Solberg, I.B., Tomasson, K., Aasland, O., & Tyssen, R. 2014. Cross-national comparison of job satisfaction in doctors during economic recession. Occupational Medicine, 64(8): 595-600.

Sousa-Poza, A. & Sousa-Poza, A. 2000. Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the levels and determinants of job satisfaction. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 29(6): 517-538.

Spector, P.E. 1986. Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human relations, 39(11): 1005-1016.

Spector, P.E. 1997. Job satisfaction: application, assessment, causes and consequences. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Templer, K.J. 2012. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: the importance of agreeableness in a tight and collective Asian society. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61(1): 114-129.

Tinsley, H.E. 2000. The congruence myth: An analysis of the efficacy of the person-environment fit model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2): 147-179.

Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A. & Wagner, S.H. 2003. A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3): 473-489.

Wagenaar, A.F., Taris, T.W., Houtman, I.L.D., van den Bossche, S., Smulders, P. & Kompier, M.A.J. 2012. Labour contracts in the European Union, 2000-2005: differences among demographic groups and implications for the quality of working life and work

satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(2): 169-194.

(38)
(39)

APPENDIX A

(40)

APPENDIX B

(41)

APPENDIX C Syntax File SPSS analyses

RECODE mnrsefw (1=0) (2=0) (3=0) (4=0) (5=1) (6=0) INTO mainrea_interestingtasks. EXECUTE.

RECODE wrkctra (1=1) (2=0) (3=0) INTO contracttype. EXECUTE.

** reliability analysis**

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=wkdcpce wkdcorga iorgact /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL.

Note: this is the reliability for autonomy questions (3 questions scale 1-10)

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=vrtywrk jbrqlrn /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA

/STATISTICS=SCALE CORR /SUMMARY=TOTAL.

Note: this is reliability for task variance (2 questions, scale 1-4)

COMPUTE AUT_mean=(wkdcorga + wkdcpce + iorgact)/3. EXECUTE.

COMPUTE TASKVAR_mean=(vrtywrk + jbrqlrn)/2. EXECUTE.

(42)

RECODE hincfel (1=4) (2=3) (3=2) (4=1) INTO income_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE jbtsktm (1=1) (2=0) (3=0) (4=0) (5=0) (6=0) (55=0) INTO mostime_supervising. EXECUTE.

select if (mnactic eq 1).

select if (agea >= 20 and agea <=60). select if (not missing (stfmjob)). select if (not missing (SDcenter)). select if (not missing (STcenter)). select if (not missing (POcenter)). select if (not missing (SEcenter)). select if (not missing (wkdcorga)). select if (not missing (wkdcpce)). select if (not missing (dcsfwrk)). select if (not missing (iorgact)). select if (not missing (vrtywrk)). select if (not missing (jbrqlrn)).

select if (not missing (TASKVAR_mean)). select if (not missing (jbspv)).

select if (not missing (jbtsktm)). select if (not missing (jbscr)). select if (not missing (wrkctra)). select if (not missing (mnrsefw)). select if (not missing (eisced)). select if (not missing (gndr)). select if (not missing (health_rec)). select if (not missing (icpart2)). select if (not missing (income_rec)).

(43)

select if (not missing (v5)). select if (not missing (v6)). select if (not missing (v7)). select if (not missing (v8)). select if (not missing (v9)). select if (not missing (v10)). select if (not missing (v11)). select if (not missing (v12)). select if (not missing (v13)). select if (not missing (v14)). select if (not missing (v15)). select if (not missing (v16)). select if (not missing (v17)). select if (not missing (v18)). select if (not missing (v19)). select if (not missing (v20)). select if (not missing (v21)).

(44)

RENAME VARIABLES (iprspot=v17). RENAME VARIABLES (iplylfr=v18). RENAME VARIABLES (impenv=v19). RENAME VARIABLES (imptrad=v20). RENAME VARIABLES (impfun=v21).

RECODE v1 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v1_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v2 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v2_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v3 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v3_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v4 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v4_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v5 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v5_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v6 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v6_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v7 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v7_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v8 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v8_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v9 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v9_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v10 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v10_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v11 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v11_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v12 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v12_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v13 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v13_rec. EXECUTE.

(45)

RECODE v15 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v15_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v16 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v16_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v17 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v17_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v18 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v18_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v19 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v19_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v20 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v20_rec. EXECUTE.

RECODE v21 (1=6) (2=5) (3=4) (4=3) (5=2) (6=1) INTO v21_rec. EXECUTE.

MISSING VALUES v1_rec to v21_rec (7,8,9).

COMPUTE mrat = MEAN(v1_rec to v21_rec) . EXECUTE .

COMPUTE SEcenter = MEAN(v5_rec, v14_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

COMPUTE COcenter = MEAN(v7_rec, v16_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

COMPUTE TRcenter = MEAN(v9_rec, v20_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

COMPUTE BEcenter = MEAN(v12_rec, v18_rec) - mrat. EXECUTE .

COMPUTE UNcenter = MEAN(v3_rec, v8_rec, v19_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

COMPUTE SDcenter = MEAN(v1_rec, v11_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

COMPUTE STcenter = MEAN(v6_rec, v15_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

(46)

EXECUTE .

COMPUTE ACcenter = MEAN(v4_rec, v13_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

COMPUTE POcenter = MEAN(v2_rec, v17_rec) - mrat . EXECUTE .

** Analyses for result section **

CORRELATIONS

/VARIABLES=stfmjob AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks jbspv mostime_supervising contracttype jbscr SDcenter STcenter POcenter SEcenter

/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

CORRELATIONS

/VARIABLES=stfmjob AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks jbspv mostime_supervising contracttype jbscr SDcenter STcenter POcenter SEcenter

/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING=PAIRWISE.

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT stfmjob

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec

/METHOD=ENTER AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks jbspv mostime_supervising contracttype jbscr

/METHOD=ENTER SDcenter STcenter POcenter SEcenter.

(47)

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=AUT_mean SDcenter /SAVE

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=TASKVAR_mean STcenter /SAVE

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=mainrea_interestingtasks /SAVE

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=jbspv mostime_supervising POcenter /SAVE

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

DESCRIPTIVES VARIABLES=contracttype jbscr SEcenter /SAVE

/STATISTICS=MEAN STDDEV MIN MAX.

** autonomy X self-direction **

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT stfmjob

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks jbspv mostime_supervising contracttype jbscr STcenter POcenter SEcenter

(48)

** task variance X stimulation **

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT stfmjob

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec mainrea_interestingtasks jbspv mostime_supervising contracttype jbscr POcenter SEcenter SDcenter AUT_mean

/METHOD=ENTER ZTASKVAR_mean ZSTcenter /METHOD=ENTER taskvarXst1.

** interesting tasks X stimulation **

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT stfmjob

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec jbspv

mostime_supervising contracttype jbscr POcenter SEcenter SDcenter AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean /METHOD=ENTER ZSTcenter Zmainrea_interestingtasks

/METHOD=ENTER taskvarXst2.

** supervising others X power **

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

(49)

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec mostime_supervising contracttype jbscr SEcenter SDcenter AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks STcenter

/METHOD=ENTER Zjbspv ZPOcenter /METHOD=ENTER supervisingXpo.

** most time supervising others X power **

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT stfmjob

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec contracttype jbscr SEcenter SDcenter AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks STcenter jbspv

/METHOD=ENTER ZPOcenter Zmostime_supervising /METHOD=ENTER mosttimesupervisingXpo.

** contract type X security **

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT stfmjob

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec jbscr SDcenter AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks STcenter jbspv POcenter mostime_supervising

/METHOD=ENTER ZSEcenter Zcontracttype /METHOD=ENTER contracttypeXse.

(50)

REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA CHANGE /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT stfmjob

/METHOD=ENTER agea gndr eisced icpart2 health_rec income_rec SDcenter AUT_mean TASKVAR_mean mainrea_interestingtasks STcenter jbspv POcenter mostime_supervising contracttype

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

CONTACT was not significant, and therefore shows that both trust and frequency of contact have no influence on the relationship between the use of subjectivity in

cardiorespiratory events attributable to influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among older adults residing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in the US.. Findings In

This is due to the fact that RRDA has to be deterministic for supporting real-timeness and hence always ponders the worst case (longest delay) which means every packet may reach (if

The objective of this research is thus to study the relationship between the experiences ofjob autonomy, social support and job satisfaction of employees in a large banking

Additionally, this paper hypothesizes that third party certification label reputation and credibility will have a positive influence on the effectiveness of certification

Voor nu is het besef belangrijk dat straatvoetballers een stijl delen en dat de beheersing van de kenmerken van deze stijl zijn esthetiek, bestaande uit skills en daarnaast

4H2’s social sciences teacher (who was also 4H1’s social studies teacher) never referred to pupils by ethnic category, but he was very strict about the use of

Niet alleen modieuze tesettür wordt gepromoot, ook niet-islamitische mode komt veel voor in advertenties voor gesluierde vrouwen, zoals bijvoorbeeld in Âlâ.. In dit tijdschrift