CAN EMPLOYEES WITH HIGH CORE SELF-EVALUATION BETTER DEAL WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT BREACH?
An examination of the moderating role of core self-evaluation in the relationship between psychological contract breach and job satisfaction and performance.
Master’s thesis
MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 2015
KAREN VAN DER MEULEN Student number: 1884077
Kleine Beer 64 9742 RJ Groningen tel.: +31 (0)644093000
e-mail: k.m.van.der.meulen@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: prof. dr. O. Janssen
2 ABSTRACT
This research examines the possible mediating role of intrinsic work motivation on the relationship between psychological contract breach (PCB) and job satisfaction and job performance. Core self- evaluation is examined as a possible moderating variable on the relationship between PCB and job satisfaction and job performance. Direct effects of PCB on intrinsic work motivation, and intrinsic work motivation on job satisfaction and job performance are hypothesized. Moreover, this research investigates whether intrinsic work motivation mediates the relationship between PCB and job satisfaction and performance. Finally, the hypothesis that core self-evaluation moderates the negative indirect relationship between PCB and job satisfaction and performance through intrinsic work motivation was examined. Results were obtained through an online survey, filled out by employees and their supervisors. Results showed evidence of a negative relationship between PCB and intrinsic work motivation and a positive relationship between intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction, a mediating role of intrinsic work motivation in the relationship between PCB and job satisfaction, and no moderating role of CSE in the indirect relationships between PCB and job satisfaction and job performance. This study contributes to the theoretical and practical knowledge of PCB, intrinsic work motivation and job outcomes. Furthermore, results of this study could help managers get a better understanding of the process of PCB and its consequences for their employees within an organization.
Key words: psychological contract breach, intrinsic work motivation, affective events theory, job
satisfaction, job performance, core self-evaluation.
3
INTRODUCTION
Within an employment relationship many situations, including negative ones, can occur. When an employee perceives that his or her employer does not fulfill his obligations or promises, this is called a psychological contract breach (Rousseau, 1989). An employee’s perception of a psychological contract breach (PCB) can have many negative consequences for core job outcomes. Earlier literature has shown that perceiving a PCB is negatively related to job satisfaction (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003) and job performance (Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002).
Another consequence of perceiving a PCB may be that an employee’s intrinsic work motivation might decrease.
The central issue of this study, used as the independent variable, is the phenomenon of
psychological contract breach. A psychological contract is explained as an employee’s perception of
what they owe to their employers and what their employers owe to them (Robinson, 1996). The breach
of a psychological contract is a subjective experience, and as mentioned before, is defined as one’s
perception that the employer or organization has failed to fulfill the promised obligations of the
psychological contract (Rousseau, 1989). In recent decades, many research has been conducted on the
phenomenon of PCB. So far, interesting relationships have become evident between PCB and different
(job) outcomes. As explained, PCB has a negative influence on job satisfaction (Gakovic & Tetrick,
2003) and job performance (Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Lester et al., 2002). However, it is yet unclear
which mechanism(s) may explain these negative relationships between PCB and job satisfaction and
performance. It might be that this relationship is mediated through a construct such as intrinsic work
motivation. There is evidence that employees may lose trust in their organization when PCB occurs
(Bal, De Lange, Jansen, & Van der Velde, 2008), and it is assumed that PCB will elicit negative
affective reactions within employees, such as feelings of anger and betrayal (Robinson & Morrison,
2000). This evidence is in line with Weiss’ and Cropanzano’s affective events theory (1996), which
explains that a negative event within a work environment will cause negative emotional reactions,
leading to a decrease of intrinsic work motivation over time (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Zhao,
Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). Moreover, Beal and Ghandour (2011) studied affective
dynamics at work, looking at intrinsic work motivation as a positive affective event. They found that
4
intrinsic work motivation was positively related to daily positive affect and negatively related to daily negative affect. These findings seem to relate to the current research model, as PCB is related to negative affect, and thus might suggest that PCB negatively influences intrinsic work motivation.
Furthermore, PCB has been found to cause potentially valuable employees to reduce their contributions to their organizations (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994). Concerning the construct of intrinsic work motivation, research has shown that it is positively related to job satisfaction and performance (Grant, 2008; Agho, Mueller, & Price, 1993). Thus, the higher levels of intrinsic work motivation employees have, the more satisfied they are with their job and the higher their job performance becomes, and vice versa. These findings show that the second half of the potential mediating effect is already evident. Based on the affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), in this study PCB is seen as a negative event experienced by employees at work. As mentioned, earlier research suggests that intrinsic work motivation might be a missing link in explaining the negative relationship between PCB and job outcomes (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Zhao et al., 2007; Grant, 2008; Agho et al., 1993; Beal & Ghandour, 2011). Since little is yet known about the explanatory mechanisms of the influence of PCB on job outcomes, this study is conducted to gain more insight in the potential mediating effect of intrinsic work motivation in the negative relationship between PCB and job satisfaction and job performance. It is suggested that employees who perceive a PCB, will have lower levels of intrinsic work motivation, which in turn will negatively influence their job satisfaction and performance.
By now it is evident that PCB has a negative influence on job satisfaction and job performance. However, probably not all employees will have the same motivational reaction to PCB.
In addition to this negative relationship, there could be a potential boundary condition in the form of employees’ core self-evaluations. Core self-evaluations are defined as the “fundamental premises that individuals hold about themselves and their function in the world” (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998).
Individuals with high levels of core self-evaluation (CSE) are more likely to think positively about
their worth, competence and capabilities (Zhang, Kwan, Zhang, & Wu, 2012). The study by Zhang et
al. (2012) showed that CSE had a moderating effect on the relationship between abusive supervision
and intrinsic motivation. Since a negative event such as PCB might be similar in comparison to
5
abusive supervision, it is assumed that CSE has a potential moderating effect on the relationship between PCB and intrinsic work motivation, which in turn will influence job satisfaction and performance. It is suggested that employees who have higher levels of CSE are less affected by PCB and therefore their intrinsic work motivation might not decrease as much as it would for employees with low levels of CSE. In turn, the assumption is that employees with high levels of CSE will be less affected by PCB in terms of their job satisfaction and job performance than employees with low levels of CSE.
This study contributes to the theoretical and empirical knowledge of psychological contract
breach, intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction and job performance. As mentioned earlier, PCB
is a construct that has been investigated frequently. However, mostly single relationships were tested
between PCB and variables such as job satisfaction and performance. What has not been investigated
is the potential mediating effect of intrinsic work motivation between PCB and job satisfaction and
performance. Furthermore, no study has yet been conducted on the extent to which employees differ in
their reactions to PCB influenced by their level of core self-evaluation. It is likely that employees with
different levels of CSE will have different outcomes on job satisfaction and job performance as a
result of PCB. It is important to investigate this relationship, since this knowledge could help
managers gain a better understanding of the process of PCB and its consequences for different types of
employees within their organization. The current study examines the relationship between a perceived
psychological contract breach and job satisfaction and job performance, with intrinsic work motivation
as a mediator and core self-evaluation as a moderator. Since it is known that PCB can have a negative
effect on employees’ job satisfaction and job performance, results of this research can make
contributions to the understanding of this problem and create insights into possible solutions to this
problem.
6 Psychological
contract breach
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
In this section, the theoretical background for the current study will be discussed. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the conceptual model.
FIGURE 1. Conceptual model
Psychological contract breach in relation to job satisfaction and job performance
The psychological contract was first mentioned in academic literature in 1962 by Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, and Solley. With their research and later studies of Schein (1965) and Rousseau (1989,1995) the psychological contract theory was developed as a framework for understanding the relationship between employers and employees within organizations. In previous research, different definitions of the psychological contract are applied. This study employs the psychological contract by the definition of Robinson (1996), stating that the psychological contract is an employee’s perception of what they owe to their employers and what their employers owe to them. This psychological contract theory states that if an employee perceives that his or her employer did not fulfill his or her obligations, the employee is likely to react with feelings of anger, frustration, and betrayal (Robinson
& Morrison, 2000). The breach of a psychological contract is thus a subjective experience. It is an
“employee’s belief that a breach has occurred that affects his or her behavior and attitudes, regardless of whether that belief is valid or whether an actual breach took place” (Robinson, 1996).
Employees within an organization find it important that they like their job and that they have a good relationship with their employer (Rode, 2004). Job satisfaction is often described as a function of
Job satisfaction Intrinsic work
motivation Core self-
evaluation
Job performance
7
the perceived relationship between what an employee wants from his job and what the employee perceives it as offering (Locke, 1969), and is defined as the degree to which individuals like their job (Price & Mueller, 1986). Looking at the definition of job satisfaction by Locke (1969), it appears logical that a difference between what an employee wants from his job and what the employee receives, will lead to feelings of dissatisfaction (Zhao et al., 2007). One main study that investigated the eventual relationship between PCB and job satisfaction was the study of Gakovic and Tetrick (2003). They found that PCB, thus the failure of the organization to fulfill obligations, was associated with emotional exhaustion and job dissatisfaction for the employees. Zhao et al. (2007) developed a clear overview on this subject through their meta-analysis of a large number of studies on PCB, in which they described that PCB is negatively related to job satisfaction. The same result also became evident by the study of Suazo (2009). Thus when an employee experiences PCB, his or her job satisfaction will likely decrease.
The second dependent variable in this model is job performance. This variable has also been researched in combination with PCB (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). However, in most studies the variable job performance was a small part of a larger research with multiple measured outcomes (Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003; Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Lester et al., 2002). Research by Robinson (1996) suggested that PCB is negatively related to the extent to which employees report performing the duties prescribed as part of their job. Turnley and Feldman (1999) found evidence that PCB was related to the extent to which employees neglected their in-role duties.
Following this, it appears logical that PCB has a negative influence on employee’s job performance.
Research has shown that job performance indeed typically decreases after experiencing PCB (Turnley
& Feldman, 1999; Lester et al., 2002; Suazo, 2009). However, this statement is not always fully confirmed. In the study of Turnley et al. (2003) the data provided limited support for the hypothesis that employees reduce their work effort after perceiving a PCB. Their results suggest that psychological contract fulfillment with regard to the employment relationship is more strongly related to employee job performance than psychological contract fulfillment is with regard to pay.
Nevertheless, looking at the other studies that have been mentioned, it appears to be clear there is a
relationship between perceived psychological contract breach and job performance. In the available
8
research on this relationship, the data on job performance has mostly been collected through reports by employees within an organization as well as through reports of their supervisors (Turnley et al., 2002;
Lester et al., 2002). Therefore, this study will also collect the reports of job performance by employees’ direct supervisors.
Though the relationship between PCB and job satisfaction and job performance might seem obvious, there seems to be one overall explanation missing for the lower job satisfaction and performance when PCB is perceived. The theory that might explain this relationship is the earlier mentioned affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). According to this theory, the experience of a positive or negative work event, such as PCB, can elicit affective reactions (such as anger) that contribute to the formation of work attitudes and behaviors (Mignonac & Herrbach, 2004;
Rupp & Spencer, 2006). Work attitudes are employees’ evaluation of the employer and the work in general (Zhao et al., 2007). Thus, looking at work attitudes, the affective events theory (AET) might explain why PCB is related to lower job satisfaction. Considering work behaviors, AET might explain the negative relationship between PCB and job performance. Furthermore, it might be that these relationships are mediated by a construct such as intrinsic work motivation, which has not yet been investigated. It is known that PCB has a big influence on emotions, as explained by AET (Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996), which are more short term aspects. Besides influencing emotions, it might also influence intrinsic work motivation, which can be seen as a longer term aspect. This study is thus more interested in the effects of PCB on longer term variables. The construct of intrinsic work motivation is explained below.
Intrinsic work motivation as a mediating process
Employees’ perception of a PCB has a negative effect on job satisfaction (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003)
as well as on job performance of employees (Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Lester et al., 2002). However,
this evidence is not assumed to explain everything about this relationship. Since many relationships
with PCB have been investigated, there is ample knowledge on different constructs that have a linkage
to PCB. Thus, to gain more insight into the relationship between PCB and job satisfaction and
performance, it might be useful to examine whether there is a construct that can function as an
9
explaining link between these three variables. Looking at earlier research on the affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), intrinsic motivation has also been part of the research on AET.
Beal and Ghandour (2011) have studied affective dynamics at work, in which they looked at intrinsic task motivation as a positive affective event. Results showed that intrinsic work motivation was positively related to daily positive affect and negatively related to daily negative affect. These findings seem to relate to the current research model, as PCB is related to negative affect, and PCB has a negative effect on job satisfaction and performance. Therefore, this study investigates the relationships between PCB and job satisfaction and job performance from an intrinsic motivational perspective.
Intrinsic motivation describes the reasons why people truly want to engage in goal-relevant behavior, in contrast to feeling that they have to (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic work motivation in turn is defined as “the degree to which a person wants to work well in his or her job, in order to achieve intrinsic satisfaction” (Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979: 135). In other words, it is the feeling that comes from within when a person truly likes doing his or her job, to achieve intrinsic satisfaction. The construct of intrinsic work motivation has rarely been investigated as an outcome variable in relation to PCB. However, other research suggests PCB and intrinsic work motivation do relate to each other.
When employees experience PCB, they may lose trust in their employer or organization (Bal et al., 2008). In addition, the experience of PCB is generally assumed to elicit negative reactions in employees, such as feelings of anger and betrayal (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). This evidence is in line with the already mentioned affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), which explains that a negative event within a work environment will cause negative emotional reactions. Due to these negative emotional reactions, employees achieve less intrinsic satisfaction through their jobs, leading to a decrease of intrinsic work motivation over time (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Zhao et al., 2007).
In turn, intrinsic work motivation may influence the outcome variables job satisfaction and job
performance. No studies that solely tested the possible relationship between intrinsic work motivation
and job performance have been found. Nevertheless, this research suggests that these relationships
exist and that it is important to gain more information on these possible relationships. For example,
Herzberg (1966) and McGregor (1960) proposed that work can be inherently interesting and
enjoyable. According to Gagné and Deci (2005), intrinsic motivation refers to the desire to make an
10
effort based on interest in and enjoyment of the work itself. This research assumes that when an employee has high levels of intrinsic work motivation, he or she will put more effort in the job because he or she truly likes to do the job, which will then probably lead to a better job performance.
Also, since Warr et al. (1979) stated that intrinsic work motivation is the degree to which a person wants to work well in his or her job in order to achieve intrinsic satisfaction, it appears logical that when an employee has a high level of intrinsic work motivation, he or she will likely be more satisfied with his or her job.
Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence so far on the relationship between PCB and intrinsic work motivation. De Lange, Bal, Van der Heijden, De Jong and Schaufeli (2011) were the first to examine the relationship between PCB and work motivation over time, with age as a moderator. As opposed to what the researchers expected, they could not support their hypothesis that experienced PCB has a negative effect on intrinsic work motivation over time. However, looking at the earlier research mentioned, this research suggests that PCB and intrinsic work motivation are related. De Lange et al. (2011) examined work motivation across time, but this study examines intrinsic work motivation over a short time period. It is suggested that for this short timeframe PCB will have a negative influence on intrinsic work motivation, as explained earlier. Furthermore, some research was conducted on the moderating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between prosocial motivation and performance productivity (Grant, 2008). Support was found for this hypothesis, which is why it is assumed that the variables intrinsic work motivation and job performance are related.
Finally, there is ample literature on the relationship between intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction. This relationship is mostly examined in large studies with multiple measured outcomes, for example in the study of Agho, Mueller and Price (1993). They found significant positive effects on job satisfaction by distributive justice, positive affectivity and intrinsic work motivation. Thus if work motivation is low, job satisfaction will be low as well.
As explained before, a thorough examination of the literature has not resulted in finding
previous research on this exact combination of variables. This study investigates the relationship
between PCB and job performance and satisfaction from an intrinsic motivational perspective, since it
is assumed that intrinsic work motivation is the missing mediating link between these constructs. AET
11
is assumed to explain why the current variables might be related. Since PCB can be seen as a negative event, it is supposed to lead to a lower intrinsic work motivation. Intrinsic motivation can also be seen as positive affect, according to Beal and Ghandour (2011), which could explain why it has a positive influence on job satisfaction and performance. It is therefore suggested that when employees experience PCB, their intrinsic work motivation will decrease, which will in turn decrease their job satisfaction and performance.
Thus, the hypotheses are
Hypothesis 1: Psychological contract breach will be negatively related to intrinsic work motivation
Hypothesis 2a: Intrinsic work motivation will be positively related to job satisfaction Hypothesis 2b: Intrinsic work motivation will be positively related to job performance Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between experienced psychological contract breach and job satisfaction will be mediated by reduced intrinsic work motivation
Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between experienced psychological contract breach and job performance will be mediated by reduced intrinsic work motivation
Core self-evaluation
Up to this point the relationship between PCB, intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction and job
performance has been thoroughly explained. However, the main question in this study is whether
individual employees differ in their motivational reactions to PCB, which in turn would then
differently influence their levels of job satisfaction and job performance. With the knowledge that
PCB has a negative influence on job satisfaction (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003; Zhao et al., 2007; Suazo,
2009), as well as on job performance (Turnley & Feldman, 1999; Lester et al., 2002; Suazo, 2009), the
question might rise whether these outcomes will be the same for all employees. The affective events
theory of Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) predicts that personality has a substantial impact on which
affective states are experienced and on how people typically feel at home and at work (Wegge, Van
Dick, Fisher, West & Dawson, 2006). From research on emotions it is evident that discrete emotions
such as anger or anxiety are triggered by specific events, and the consequences of these specific
12
emotions can differ substantially (Payne & Cooper, 2001). AET does not specify which work environments or work events might be associated with positive or negative reactions, but many clues are available in earlier research (Wegge et al., 2006), some of which will be explained below. Looking at the mentioned AET-studies, AET could explain why some people react differently to certain events such as PCB. It is therefore proposed there might be an individual construct that accounts for a difference in employees’ outcomes as a reaction to PCB.
The construct of core self-evaluations is such an individual construct. Core self-evaluations (CSE) are defined as the “fundamental premises that individuals hold about themselves and their function in the world” (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). According to Judge, Locke and Durham (1997) the four traits self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control are identified as CSE traits. The construct of CSE has been a popular subject for research in the last decades, as is shown by Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen and Tan’s review (2012). Many direct effects of CSE have been researched in combination with different variables, such as job satisfaction and motivation. CSE has a strong, positive relationship with both job and life satisfaction (Chang et al., 2012). Furthermore, there is a positive relationship between CSE and intrinsic motivation. This suggests that individuals with high CSE are more likely to be autonomously motivated (Gagné &
Deci, 2005). The study of Zhang, Kwan, Zhang and Wu (2012) demonstrated that CSE had a
moderating effect on the relationship between abusive supervision and intrinsic motivation. Since PCB
is also a negative event similarly to abusive supervision, it is assumed that CSE might have a
moderating effect on the relationship between PCB and intrinsic work motivation. People with high
CSE are motivated to actively and effectively set and attain high goals and are likely to show high
levels of job motivation (Erez & Judge, 2001). Additionally, CSE encourages employees to perceive
their jobs from a positive perspective, thus leading them to focus on the desirable characteristics of
their jobs (Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2009). Thus, employees with high CSE are less likely to lose
their enjoyment with and focus on their jobs following a negative event (Zhang et al., 2012). For the
current study, this could mean that high-CSE employees will still try to achieve intrinsic satisfaction
through the enjoyment of their job after experiencing PCB, thus not lowering their intrinsic work
motivation. Employees with low CSE will show a low degree of self-esteem and confidence and less
13
effective coping behavior when facing hardship (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009). Thus, after experiencing PCB low-CSE employees might find it hard to still achieve intrinsic satisfaction by doing their job, and have a lowered level of intrinsic work motivation. This study therefore suggests that employees with high levels of CSE, who thus have higher self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability and locus of control, will be affected less by the experience of PCB, and thus their intrinsic work motivation will not decrease as much as for the employees with low CSE.
To this research’ best understanding, CSE has not yet been tested as a moderator in the relationship between PCB and job satisfaction and performance. However, as explained above, it is assumed that there is a difference in intrinsic work motivation as a reaction to PCB between individuals with a high versus a low CSE, based on AET. Thus, the hypothesis is that
Hypothesis 4: Core self-evaluation will moderate the negative relationship between experienced psychological contract breach and intrinsic work motivation, such that this relationship will be weaker for employees with a high rather than a low core self-evaluation.
Mediated moderation model
The overall model tested in this study is a mediated moderation model (Muller, Judd & Yzerbyt, 2005;
Morgan-Lopez & MacKinnon, 2006). For this study, the relationship between PCB and decreased job satisfaction and job performance is suggested to be explained by decreased intrinsic work motivation.
Additionally, intrinsic motivation will be higher in reaction to PCB for employees with a high level of CSE. Thus, the study predicts that the score on CSE affects the influence that experienced PCB has on intrinsic work motivation. To conclude, this signifies that the indirect effect of PCB on job satisfaction and performance through intrinsic work motivation, is moderated by the employee’s level of CSE.
Therefore, the overall hypotheses of this study model are
Hypothesis 5a: Core self-evaluation moderates the negative indirect relationship between psychological contract breach and job satisfaction through intrinsic work motivation, so that this indirect relationship will be weaker for employees with a high rather
than a low core self-evaluation.
Hypothesis 5b: Core self-evaluation moderates the negative indirect relationship between
14
psychological contract breach and job performance through intrinsic work motivation, so that this indirect relationship will be weaker for employees with a high rather
than a low core self-evaluation.
METHOD Participants
Participants were 84 employees (27 males) from different organizations. The individuals have been acquired through the social network of the researcher. During the data collection, nine responses were deleted from the study, because they were not completed and no names were filled out, which were necessary to process the results. The 84 respondents who completed the study are Dutch employees with age ranging from 16 to 60. The mean age of the participants was 35.67 (SD= 11.05; fourteen respondents did not report their age). Furthermore, most participants finished an intermediate vocational education (27.4%), or higher professional education (57.1 %). The researcher has tried to acquire a sample which forms a reflection of the Dutch employee population. The companies or teams within which the employees are working are very diverse, ranging from a call center to an intermediate vocational education school.
Procedures
All English items were translated to Dutch, since the population for this study consists of Dutch employees. Two online surveys have been created in the online survey program Qualtrics. The two surveys were designed to acquire multisource data. The dependent variable job performance was measured by the ratings of the employees themselves, as well as the ratings of their direct supervisors.
For this reason, data was collected by approaching work teams to participate in this study, which made
the data processing much more feasible. The main survey was filled out by 84 employees, the other
survey on job performance was filled out by their 15 team leaders. Each measured variable was
represented by several matching items that have been tested in earlier research. Below all measures are
explained.
15 Measures
In this section the used measures of the surveys are explained in chronological order. First an informed consent was shown. After the respondents agreed to participate, the actual study started. All parts of the survey were measured on a Likert-scale, unless indicated otherwise.
Psychological contract breach was measured by five items from Robinson and Morrison (2000). An example was: “I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions”. PCB was measured on a five-point scale (1= not at all, to 5= to a very great extent; α = .87).
Job performance was measured by the seven-item in-role performance scale by Williams and Anderson (1991) on a five-point scale (1= strongly disagree, to 5= strongly agree; α = .92). An example was: “I adequately complete all of my assigned duties”. This scale was also used in the research on PCB by Lester et al. (2002).
Job satisfaction was measured with five items on a seven-point scale from Bono & Judge (2003) (1= strongly disagree, to 7= strongly agree). An example being: “I feel fairly satisfied with my present job” (α = .81).
Intrinsic work motivation was measured with a twelve-item scale developed by Van Yperen (2003), which is also used in the study of De Lange et al. (2011) on PCB and work motivation. An example was: “I work for the pleasure I feel while learning new things in my job”. These items consist of a seven-point scale (1= strongly disagree, to 7= strongly agree; α = .90).
Core self-evaluation was measured with twelve items by the five point-scale of Judge et al.
(2003), which is also used in the research of Zhang et al (2012) on CSE and intrinsic motivation (1=
strongly disagree, to 5= strongly agree; α = .81). An example being: “I am capable of coping with most of my problems”.
Demographical items were presented at the end of both surveys. Employees and supervisors
were asked the same following questions; “What is your age?”, “What is your gender?”, and “What is
your highest level of education?” Educational level was measured on a scale from 1 (lower secondary
school) to 8 (master’s degree). To finish the survey, participants were obligated to fill in their names,
16
since without this answer the results would be useless. The employee’s survey results were connected to the team leader’s survey results to measure the dependent variable job performance.
All survey items can be found in the Appendix of this study.
Data analysis
First, the reliability of the items of the scales of the four conceptual variables was tested by calculating the Cronbach’s Alpha. If α was above .70, the measurement scales were marked as reliable and mean scores for the variables were computed. Then, means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations for all tested variables were computed. Only control variables that significantly correlated with the dependent variable (i.e. job satisfaction and/or job performance) were incorporated in further analyses, as recommended by Becker (2005).
To test hypotheses 1 and 2a and 2b, regarding the relationships between psychological contract breach and intrinsic work motivation, and intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction and job performance, a linear regression analysis was conducted. To test hypothesis 3a and 3b, a mediation analysis was conducted by using model 4 of A.F. Hayes’ interactive PROCESS tool for SPSS (2013).
Model 1 of the same PROCESS tool was used to test the moderation effect of core self-evaluation on the relation between psychological contract breach and intrinsic work motivation (hypothesis 4), and model 7 was used to test hypothesis 5a and 5b which predicted a moderated mediation. Prior to analyses, all predictor variables were standardized.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. Regarding the
demographic variables, age was slightly positively correlated with job satisfaction (r = .24, p < .05)
and intrinsic work motivation (r = .24, p < .05). Educational level was slightly negatively correlated
with intrinsic work motivation (r = -.23, p < .05). Thus, only the control variable age was correlated
17
with one of the dependent variables, job satisfaction. It could be that the older an employee, the more satisfied he or she will be with the job (Thielgen, Krumm, Rauschenbach, & Hertel, 2015). Therefore, age was incorporated in further analyses.
Hypotheses testing
Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b were tested by regression analysis. Results are shown in table 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that psychological contract breach is negatively related to intrinsic work motivation.
Results of the regression analysis support this hypothesis (B= -.23, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 2a predicted that intrinsic work motivation is positively related to job satisfaction. Test results confirm a significant relationship between intrinsic work motivation and job satisfaction (B= .41, p < 0.001). Hypothesis 2b predicted that intrinsic work motivation is positively related to job performance. This relationship cannot be confirmed by the results (B= .09, p > 0.05).
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4, 5a and 5b were tested respectively by the use of model 4, 1, and 7 of
A.F. Hayes’ interactive PROCESS tool (available from www.afhayes.com). Results are presented in
table 2 and 3. The mediation test confirmed the indirect relationship between psychological contract
breach and job satisfaction through intrinsic work motivation as predicted by hypothesis 3a (indirect
effect = -.10; 95% CI -.23 to -.02). Hypothesis 3b predicted the mediation effect of intrinsic work
motivation between psychological contract breach and job performance. Results cannot confirm this
relationship (indirect effect = -.02; 95% CI -.09 to .01). All hypotheses that were tested were
controlled for the control variable age. In none of the hypotheses a significant relationship was found
between the control variable and dependent outcomes, as is shown in tables 2 and 3.
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables
Note: Gender (n=84) was coded 1=male, 2=female; highest completed education (n=84) was coded 1=preparatory secondary vocational education, 2=senior general secondary education, 3=pre-university education, 4=gymnasium, 5=intermediate vocational education, 6=higher vocational education, 7=university bachelor’s degree, 8=university master’s degree; psychological contract breach (n=83), job performance (n=80) and core self-evaluation (n=84) were measured on a 5-point scale from 1=totally disagree to 5=totally agree. Job satisfaction (n=84) and intrinsic work motivation (n=84) were measured on a 7-point scale from 1=totally disagree to 7=totally agree.
N = 84. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 35.67 11.05
2. Gender 1.68 .47 -.14
3. Education 5.63 1.12 .03 -.18
4. Psychological contract breach
1.80 .72 -.08 -.13 .01
5. Job performance
4.55 .64 -.13 .06 .02 -.08
6. Job satisfaction 5.95 .86 .24* .05 -.17 -.48** .26*
7. Intrinsic work motivation
5.64 .77 .24* .11 -.23* -.31** .05 .47**
8. Core self- evaluation
3.99 .46 .19 .17 .06 -.11 .10 .26** .22*
TABLE 2
Results of regression analyses for testing hypotheses 1, 2a and 2b and results of mediation analysis for testing hypothesis 3a and 3b
Predictor
Mediator variable Intrinsic work motivation Hypothesis 1
Constant
Psychological contract breach Age
B 5.05
-.23 .02
SE .31 .09 .01
t 16.36 -2.62 1.92
P .00 .01 .06 Predictor
Dependent variable Job satisfaction Hypothesis 2a B
Constant 5.64 Intrinsic work motivation .41
Age .01 SE
.32 .09 .01
t 17.77
4.59 1.10
P .00 .00 .28 Predictor
Dependent variable Job performance Hypothesis 2b
Constant
Intrinsic work motivation Age
B 4.89 .09 -.01
SE .27 .08 .01
t 18.12 1.24 -1.28
P .00 .22 .21
Predictor
Indirect relationship between psychological contract breach and job satisfaction through intrinsic work motivation Hypothesis 3a
Constant
Psychological contract breach Intrinsic work motivation Age
B 5.64 -.28 .33 .01
Indirect effect
-.10
SE .30 .09 .09 .01
SE
.05
t 18.90 -3.25 3.65 1.13
95 confidence interval*
-.23, -.02
P .00 .00 .00 .26
Note: *based on 1,000 bootstrap samples
20 TABLE 2 (continued)
Predictor
Indirect relationship between psychological contract breach and job performance through intrinsic work motivation Hypothesis 3b
Constant
Psychological contract breach Intrinsic work motivation Age
B 4.88 -.06 .07 -.01
Indirect effect
-.02
SE .27 .08 .08 .01
SE
.02
t 18.04 -.77 .95 -1.26
95% confidence interval*
-.09, .01
P .00 .45 .35 .21
Note: *based on 1,000 bootstrap samples
Hypothesis 4 predicted that core self-evaluation would moderate the negative relationship between
psychological contract breach and intrinsic work motivation, such that this relationship would be
weaker for employees with high rather than low core self-evaluation levels. Results show no
interaction effect between psychological contract breach and core self-evaluation in predicting
intrinsic work motivation (B = -.09, p > .05). As a result, hypothesis 5a cannot be confirmed by the
moderated mediation analysis. The indirect relationship between PCB and job satisfaction through
intrinsic work motivation (hypothesis 5a) did not significantly differ for low values (M-1 SD; indirect
effect = -.048; 95% CI = -.18 to .07) and high values (M+1 SD; indirect effect = -.125; 95% CI = -.33
to -.02) of core self-evaluation. Also, hypothesis 5b cannot be confirmed by the moderated mediation
analysis. The indirect relationship between PCB and job performance through intrinsic work
motivation did not significantly differ for low values (M-1 SD; indirect effect = -.011; 95% CI = -.09
to .01) and high values (M-1 SD; indirect effect = -.029; 95% CI = -.15 to .01).
TABLE 3
Results of mediated moderation analyses for testing hypotheses 4, 5a and 5b Predictor Mediator variable: Intrinsic work motivation
B SE t p
Hypothesis 4
Constant 5.10 .31 16.31 .00
Core self-evaluation .14 .10 1.48 .14
Psychological contract breach
-.21 .10 -2.33 .02
Core self-evaluation psychological contract breach
-.09 .10 -.95 .35
Age .01 .01 1.70 .10
Predictor Dependent variable: Job satisfaction Predictor Dependent variable: Job performance
B SE t P B SE t P
Hypothesis 5a Hypothesis 5b
Constant 5.64 .30 18.90 .00 Constant 4.88 .27 18.04 .00
Psychological contract breach
-.28 .10 -3.25 .00 Psychological
contract breach
-.06 .08 -.77 .45
Intrinsic work motivation .33 .10 3.65 .00 Intrinsic work motivation .07 .08 .95 .35
Age .01 .01 1.13 .26 Age -.01 .01 -1.26 .21
Indirect relationship between psychological contract breach and job satisfaction through intrinsic work motivation at low, middle, and high values
of core self-evaluation
Indirect relationship between psychological contract breach and job performance through intrinsic work motivation at low, middle, and high values
of core self-evaluation Conditional
indirect effect
SE 95% confidence interval*
Conditional indirect effect
SE 95% confidence interval*
Hypothesis 5a
Core self-evaluation
Hypothesis 5b Core self-evaluation
Low (M – 1SD) -.048 .06 -.18, .07 Low (M – 1SD) -.011 .02 -.09, .01
Middle -.087 .05 -.22, -.02 Middle -.020 .02 -.09, .01
High (M + 1SD) -.125 .08 -.33, -.02 High (M + 1SD) -.029 .03 -.15, .01
Note: *based on 1,000 bootstrap samples
