The autonomy experience and job autonomy: Which is more important predictor?
The Relationship Between Autonomy Experience, Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction and the Mediation Role of Challenge and Hindrance Appraisals.
Katerina Angelidou (s4032659) University of Groningen
Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands
E-mail: a.a.angelidou@student.rug.nl
WORD COUNT: 7104 words (excluding abstract, references, and figures)
Author Note
The present paper is my master’s thesis and is written under the supervision of L. Maxim Laurijssen. Correspondence concerning this thesis should be addressed to Katerina
Angelidou, a.a.angelidou@student.rug.nl
Abstract
Job autonomy is typically considered as a job resource that buffers against job demands.
However, the subjectivity of autonomy experience is crucial for the conceptualization of autonomy. In the present research, whether job autonomy or autonomy experience is positively linked to job satisfaction was tested. The results indicated that autonomy experience is a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than job autonomy. Furthermore, the mediating role of challenges and hindrances is considered, since employees appraise the same job design or job tasks in a different way. For disentangling the regulatory effect of autonomy on job satisfaction, this research focused on how hindrance appraisals mediate the link between autonomy and job satisfaction. Data was collected from individual employees in different organizations. The research identifies autonomy experience as linked to hindrance appraisals, which partially mediate the link between autonomy experience and job satisfaction. Future research is discussed on individual need for structure.
Keywords: Job autonomy, autonomy experience, hindrance-challenge appraisals, job satisfaction
The autonomy experience and job autonomy: Which is more important predictor? The Relationship Between Autonomy Experience, Job Autonomy and Job Satisfaction and the
Mediation Role of Challenge Hindrance Appraisals.
Research revealed that autonomy is considered employees’ freedom to schedule work, make decisions at work, and choose the methods to work (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
Autonomy is an important job resource that is typically considered beneficial to employees (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Van den Broeck et al., 2016; Parker, Van den Broeck, & Holman, 2017). Within the job demands-resources model (Bakker et al., 2005; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), job resources are job aspects that reduce job demands, facilitate the success of work goals, and are linked to increased job satisfaction and reduced job stress (Demerouti et al.2001b).
However, drawing from the challenge-hindrance framework, recent research acknowledges that for some employees, autonomy may not be beneficial and that they may perceive autonomy as a job demand, which are job aspects that require sustained physical and psychological effort, which is linked to reduced job satisfaction and increased job stress. This research proposes that employees’ subjective experience of autonomy is a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than is structural job autonomy because job autonomy could be appraised as a hindrance instead of a challenge, thus undermining their job satisfaction (see Figure 1).
Autonomy enables employees’ innate desire to perform good work (Deci & Ryan, 2000) which in turn, leads to innovation, growth, and overall improvement of the organization (cf.
Bailyn, 1985; Greenberg,1992; Hackman & Oldham,1976; Van den Broeck et al., 2016). More recently, a distinction between job autonomy, namely how much autonomy the organization provides – and employees’ experience of autonomy in their work has arisen in the literature (Berg, 2003; Hamtiaux & Houssemand 2013; Meiser & Machunsky,2008; Sollar & Turzakova,
2014). This seems to suggest that employees’ may experience their autonomy differently than the objective or structural autonomy that they are provided with.
Specifically, job autonomy research focused on employees’ ability to partake in decision making, to self-arrange work, and to be independent of others (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In contrast, research on the experience of autonomy (cf. Ryan & Deci, 2000) focused on the individual’s desire for growth and self-actualization. Thus, employees may be provided with an abundance of freedom concerning the way they may self-arrange their work, without this may necessarily increasing their experience of autonomy. That is, employees can have choice and independence, but their work environment does not necessarily enable them to grow and pursue their core interests (Sheldon, 2014). Therefore, this research compares employees’ subjective autonomy experience with more structural job autonomy in its link with job satisfaction via challenges and hindrances.
The challenge-hindrance framework proposes the way, positive or negative, in which employees appraise these work stressors (Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007). However, recent research supports the idea that employees may differ in how they appraise similar work stressors (Tai & Lui, 2007). This seems to suggest that employees may also vary in the extent to which they appraise autonomy as a challenge or a hindrance. This research considers the mediating role of challenge and hindrance appraisals to explain why autonomy –perceived and structural - may be beneficial or detrimental to employees’ work experiences. Since employees generally have a strong desire for growth and self-actualization (cf. Deci & Ryan, 2000), the expectation is that employees’ autonomy experience is more important and a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than job autonomy.
Taken together, this research considers the pivotal role of challenge and hindrance appraisals in uncovering how job autonomy and autonomy experience relates to job satisfaction.
This research challenges the old adage that “more autonomy is always good” by studying the mediating role of challenge and hindrance appraisals between autonomy and job satisfaction.
Furthermore, this research aims to provide further insight into the importance of autonomy experience and job autonomy and may add to our understanding of how these predictors linked to job satisfaction. In sum, this study supplements practice by driving the message home that
“providing more job autonomy” is not always the best step forward in interventions. This is important because the trend nowadays seems to be towards job crafting (Shin & Jung, 2019), where employees are provided with the freedom to change work aspects, which may not work equally well for all employees.
Job Autonomy and Autonomy Experience
Job autonomy is an important work factor, which can be subdivided into freedom regards work scheduling, work methods, and decision-making (Karasek et al., 1998; Morgeson &
Humphrey, 2006). The current research supports the definition of job autonomy as the amount of structural autonomy to which job allows freedom to schedule work, make decisions, and choose work methods (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Job autonomy is considered as a key variable in organizational behavior research, which is positively associated with organizational and em- ployee level outcomes (Van den Broeck et al., 2016).
Job autonomy is linked to positive effects in the workplace. Langfred and Moye (2004) argued that the motivational effect job of autonomy is dependent on characteristics based on in- dividual differences and preferences. Moreover, structural characteristics of the job may increase
or restrict the process advantages of task autonomy based on task interdependence, task variabil- ity, and organizational formalization (Langfred & Moye, 2004). According to Chung-Yan
(2010), job autonomy is significantly linked to job satisfaction, turnover plans, and psychological well-being. Job satisfaction may be influenced by the level of job autonomy. More autonomy may be related to greater job satisfaction because workers have a greater feeling of psychological freedom (Nguyen, Taylor, & Bradley, 2003; Van de Broeck et al., 2010). Previous researchers Thompson and Pottas (2006) concluded that employees with higher levels of job autonomy are more likely to have higher rates of job satisfaction, which means that providing employees with job autonomy leads to satisfaction by increasing their mental health (Park & Jang, 2015). For the above reasons, it is expected that job autonomy is a direct predictor to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1a: Job autonomy is positively linked to job satisfaction.
In addition to job autonomy, there is another approach to autonomy in the workplace, which focuses more on employees’ subjective experience. Specifically, autonomy satisfaction is defined as individual’s desire to experience ownership of behaviour and action with a sense of will (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Previous literature on autonomy inspired by self-determination theory (e.g, Deci & Ryan, 2000; Van de Broeck et al., 2008) focuses on employees’ subjective experi- ence of autonomy instead of the more structural autonomy that is provided to employees in their job and work tasks. This theory emphasizes that people generally have a strong desire to grow and self-actualize. Hence, the research adds to theory the importance of employees being able to actually be their true selves at work, focusing at their core values and interests (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon, 2014). Indeed, research on authenticity showed that employees’ experience of autonomy and intrinsic motivation go hand in hand with employees having the feeling that they can be themselves at work (cf. Kernis & Goldman, 2006). This seems to suggest that employees
may be provided all the freedom to self-arrange their work and to be independent at work (e.g., job autonomy), which does not necessarily increase their experience of autonomy when employ- ees’ freedom does not enable them to pursue their core interests and values. If the need for auton- omy is satisfied, employees are likely to feel less exhausted and more energetic (Schaufeli & Ta- ris, 2013). People working in a resourceful environment may develop self-confidence. The Self- Determination theory persists that satisfaction of the need for autonomy increases mental health (Deci et al., 1989; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Consequently, this research proposes that employees’
experience of autonomy is more strongly linked to their job satisfaction than is more structural job autonomy. Correspondingly, Brief and Weiss (2002) states that job satisfaction is influenced by an employee’s emotional experience in work environment. The present research is in line with the state that job satisfaction is more of an affect-driven process (Brief & Weiss, 2002) and predicts that an individual’s autonomy experience leads directly to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2b: Autonomy experience is positively linked to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1c: Autonomy experience is more strongly linked to job satisfaction than job autonomy.
Importantly, even though research typically positions autonomy as an important and beneficial job resource, not all employees may prefer to have more autonomy. One general finding that supports this idea is research on personal need for structure, which showed that people may forego autonomy in favor of clear and structured (directive) work (Rietzschel, Slijkhuis, & Van Yperen, 2014). Therefore, this research considers the mediation role of challenge and hindrance appraisals in the link between autonomy and job satisfaction.
The Role of Challenge and Hindrance in Job Autonomy and Autonomy Experience Individuals interact with and appraise work situations in different ways and could perceive them either positively or negatively (Liu & Li, 2017). This idea is reflected in the challenge-hindrance framework. Employees appraise their work situation positively or negatively in terms of challenge-hindrance framework (Lepine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, 2005;
Podsakoff et al., 2007).
Challenge stressors are stressful demands that employees perceive as potentially promoting their development and growth, including time pressure, job scope, and high responsibility. Challenge stressors are a prerequisite for flow experience and are linked to
positive outcomes, such as increased intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction (Skinner & Brewer, 2002; Ohly & Fritz, 2009).
In contrast, hindrance stressors are work demands employees perceive as potentially limiting their personal development and goal attainment, for example, organizational politics, role ambiguity, job security (Lepine, Podsakoff & Lepine, 2005; Sacramento, Fay & West, 2011:142). Hindrance typically constitutes as a barrier for goal achievement and is linked to negative work outcomes mainly as a result of work pressure (Pearsall et al., 2009; Min et al., 2015). Lepine and colleagues’ (2005) meta-analysis supports this distinction between challenge and hindrance stressors.
Recent research acknowledged that employees may appraise the same job situation differently and speculates that one reason is for that is the fact that the relationship among job characteristics and their outcomes is affected by their psychological needs (Latham & Pinder, 2005). For example, Peng, Schaubroeck, and Xie (2015) demonstrated that highly efficacious employees reflect job demands as challenge appraisals rather than as threats for or barriers to their
well-being. Understanding of how employees perceived autonomy is leading to a positive outcome for themselves (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
Job Autonomy and Challenges and Hindrances
Importantly, challenges and hindrances are also linked to autonomy. Lepine and colleagues (2016) showed that autonomy as challenge stressor elicits positive performance, indicating a positive relationship with motivation. Job challenges and job resources could be positively related because they share stimulating characteristics (Van de Broeck, 2010). For example, Ohly and Fritz (2009) showed that – generally – job autonomy is perceived as a work challenge which, in turn, was linked to creativity and proactive behavior. However, job
autonomy can also be a hindrance as job autonomy may not be equally beneficial for employees.
For instance, some persons may have higher levels of stress when they are involved in work tasks, meaning that they evaluate job autonomy as a hindrance stressor rather than challenge stressor (Abbas & Raja, 2018, Prem et al., 2016). Also, employees’ job autonomy was linked to reduced job satisfaction particularly under higher levels of workload (Tregaskis, Daniels, Glover, Butler, & Meyer, 2013). For some employees, job autonomy may be considered as a job demand rather a job resource. Taken together, employees may appraise job autonomy as a challenge as well as a hindrance:
Hypothesis 2a: Job autonomy is positively linked to challenge appraisals.
Hypothesis 2b: Job autonomy is positively linked to hindrance appraisals.
Autonomy Experience and Challenges and Hindrances
Employees’ autonomy experience may also be linked to challenges as well as hindrances.
Van den Broeck and colleagues (2010) showed that job challenges can motivate employees to
put their greatest effort in their work and that they boost employee’s motivation to achieve their goals. Consequently, job challenges were linked to job satisfaction and (autonomy) need
satisfaction. Employees’ may also appraise the autonomy they experience in their work as a hindrance. Some employees simply do not like to have autonomy in their work, or their work does not allow them to grow and prosper (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In that case, employees’
experience of autonomy is undesired, and employees appraise autonomy as a hindrance
(Veldhoven et al., 2020; Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2011). In a related vein, the absence of people’s need for autonomy satisfaction is negatively associated to their well-being (Ryan, 2005) since this need elicits job satisfaction by decreasing the exhaustion and anxiety as well as increasing energy (Van den Broeck et al., 2008; Schaufeli & Taris, 2013). Employees perceive autonomy in terms of their personal beliefs in their job. In line with Ohly & Fritz (2009), even when job task may be easy or difficult and employees find it enjoyable or not, this may not necessarily mean that it is associated with experience of challenge but also with the experience of hindrance.
Hypothesis 3a: Employees’ autonomy experience is positively linked to challenge appraisals.
Hypothesis 3b: Employees’ autonomy experience is positively linked to hindrance appraisals.
The Mediating Role of Challenges and Hindrances
Challenges and hindrances are linked to job satisfaction. Podsakoff and colleagues (2007) showed that challenge appraisals are generally positively linked to job satisfaction, whereas hindrance appraisals are generally negatively linked to job satisfaction. Importantly, employees may perceive the same work aspects – job autonomy and autonomy experience – differently
(Tomaka et al., 1997), suggesting that both challenge and hindrance appraisals can mediate the link between job autonomy and autonomy experience, as well as job satisfaction.
First, job autonomy enables employees to attain their personally valued goals and enables them to cope with job demands by supplying them with the freedom and independence to deal with them (Grover et al.,2017). In this vein, job autonomy is seen as a job resource that buffers against job demands (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Since job autonomy directly linked to job satisfaction (e.g., Morgeson et al., 2007), and that literature suggests that job autonomy enables employees to attain valued goals in line with challenge appraisals (e.g., Lepine et al., 2016), it is expected that:
Hypothesis 4a: The challenge appraisals mediate the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction.
Job autonomy, however, has also been linked to undesired outcomes. For example, job autonomy does not always help employees to cope with job stressors, and the presence of job autonomy may highlight that employees cannot use autonomy in their work to cope with stressful job demands. In that case, job autonomy only highlights the inability of employees to deal with work stressors, making it more likely that employees appraise job autonomy as a hindrance (Liu
& Li, 2017; Lepine et al.,2005). For example, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Dollard and colleagues (2007) found that job autonomy did not buffer the negative outcome of workload on burnout, which is typically seen as a job demand. Thus, it is argued that hindrance appraisals mediate the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction:
Hypothesis 4b: The hindrance appraisals mediate the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction.
In line with previous multilevel analyses that work characteristics are perceived as challenge appraisals which in turn, are linked to creativity, it can be suggested that perceived autonomy as challenge appraisal is linked to job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is defined as a psychological attitude resulting from the appraisal of job experiences (Webster et al., 2010). In line with this, Webster and colleagues (2010) argued that challenge stressors were positively associated with job satisfaction while hindrance stressors were negatively associated with job satisfaction. Thus, appealing job tasks could be appraised by employees as challenge and subsequently, can induce job satisfaction. Therefore, it is expected the mediating effect of challenge appraisals between autonomy experience and job satisfaction:
Hypothesis 5a: Challenge appraisals mediate the relationship between autonomy experience and job satisfaction.
In turn, observations suggest that hindrance appraisals involving undesirable or excessive limits have a negative impact in the employees’ well-being (Cavanaugh et al., 2000) and thus they tend to increase anxiety and psychological strain. They are also liable to lessen enthusiasm and motivation as the effort will be deemed unsuccessful (Clarke, 2012; Wood & Michaelidis, 2015).
According to Bartholomew and colleagues (2011) employees who be confronted with autonomy may feel impeded from decision-making in terms of the way of working, compelled to behave in a certain way and/or forced to follow rules. Subsequently, it may be considered that some employees may appraise their autonomy experience as a threat or an obligation. This may also influence employees job satisfaction. De Cuyper & De Witte (2006) stated that autonomy introduces elements of subjectivity as opposed to unambiguously defined job requirements which possibly might not fit with job design. Some employees may not feel integrated into their autonomy experience and this, in turn, leads them to appraise autonomy as a hindrance appraisal
for their well-being. As such, it is expected that hindrance appraisals mediate the link between autonomy experience and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5b: The hindrance appraisals mediate the relationship between autonomy experience and job satisfaction.
Overview of the Present Research
In essence, five objectives are empirically tested in this research (see model in Figure 1).
Firstly, this research compares whether a more subjective autonomy (autonomy experience) or more structural (job autonomy) of employees is important in relation to job satisfaction. Secondly, this research considers the employees’ variety of perception and appraisal of autonomy as a challenge or hindrance. Suggesting job autonomy as a typical job resource, is more likely to be considered a challenge stressor rather than a hindrance stressor. Thirdly, this research tests the aforementioned by investigating the mediating role between job autonomy and job satisfaction and between autonomy experience and job satisfaction as well via challenge and hindrance appraisals.
In light of the above, the aim of this study is to demonstrate how the mediating role of hindrance appraisals form the relation between the autonomy experience and job satisfaction.
Method
Procedure
The online survey was distributed through the Prolific platform and has been received approval by the Institutional Review Board of the faculty of Economics and Business.
Respondents passed through a screening procedure and thus Prolific platform guaranteed a representative sample. The aim of this online survey was to recruit only employees who work in more than two multiple teams for 21 hours per week. The objective of this research was to select
data from multiple team-working members in organizations Respondents were necessary to have either American or British nationality since the questionnaire was in the English language. The time required to fill in the survey was on average 13 minutes (SD = 6.5).
Respondents
Respondents were employees pursuing part-time or full-time jobs, with a duration of 21 hours or more in a week. The initial sample consisted of a total of 280 employees nine of whom reported working less than 21 hours a week and were therefore excluded. Thus, the final sample is 271 participants. The average age of the participants was 33.6 years (range 18-72, SD = 9.11).
The majority of participants were female 67.5%. Respondents had English language as their mother tongue. Most of the respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree (45.0%), while others held a high school degree (27.3%), a graduate or professional degree (MSc, MA) (23.6%), a Master of Business Administration (MBA) (2.2%) and a doctoral degree (PhD) (1.8%). The mean tenure of employees was 14.8 (SD = 10.84). The number of teams ranged from two to five teams. Participants were asked at the beginning of the questionnaire if they are not multiple team members and if so, they were asked to end their participation. The question referring to participating in multiple teams is "Do you work in 2 or more teams simultaneously in your current job?", where the percentage of 94.4 % responded “yes” in this question. The average employees worked in 2.5 teams (SD = 0.85).
Measures
Autonomy Experience. Autonomy experience was assessed with four items by Van den
Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, and Lens (2010) rated on a 7-point Linkert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An example item for the measurement is “I feel free to express my ideas and opinions in this job” (see Appedix). The overall mean and SD values are
5.3 and 1.1 respectively for the autonomy experience variable. Internal consistency reliability was 83%.
Job autonomy. Job autonomy was assessed by nine items validated by Morgeson and
Humphrey (2006) and Hackman & Oldham (1980). The measurement was conducted by a combination of three autonomy subscales of the work design questionnaire: work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy (see Appedix). In particular , example items are “I am allowed to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work”,
“I am allowed to make a lot of decisions on my own”, “I am allowed to plan how I do my work”
and “I am allowed to make decisions about what methods I use to complete my work” as well as
“I am allowed to decide on my own how I go about doing my work.” . Through Prolific, these items rated on 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The mean value for the job autonomy variable is 5.3 and SD is 1.1 while internal consistency reliability was 92.8%.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with the three-item scale since reliability
and validity of these items are supported through previous analytic findings Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski and Erez (2003) and Bowling & Hammond (2008). The items were scored on a 7- point strongly agree to strongly disagree scale. Example of this item is “I find real enjoyment in my job” (see Appedix). The mean value for job satisfaction variable is 5.2 and the SD is 1.4, respectively. Internal consistency reliability was 93.5%.
Challenge Appraisals. Consistent with the body of previous research (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Lepine, et al., 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2006) participants were asked whether they
experience challenges and/or hindrances at work. Challenge was measured with a sample item,
particularly after a brief description, the item was “To what extent do you perceive your
involvement in your job as a challenge?”. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert rating scale ranging from to ‘‘not at all’’ to ‘‘extremely” (see Appedix). The mean value for challenge variable is 3.1 and the SD is 0.9, respectively.
Hindrance Appraisals. Similarly, hindrance was assessed with one single item scale
reported by Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau (2000) and Lepine, Podsakoff, &
Lepine (2005). After the a briefly explanation of hindrance, it is measured by the example of
“To what extent do you perceive your involvement in your job as a hindrance?” (see Appedix ).
The answers made on a 5-point Likert rating scale ranging from to ‘‘not at all’’ to ‘‘extremely”.
The mean value of hindrance variable is 1.9 and SD is 1.0.
Control variables. Seven controls were concluded, gender, age, education, working
hours, tenure, work experience, and years of supervision. These control variables may be possible related to the autonomy experience, job autonomy and job satisfaction measures and thus, are used in this study.
Results Preliminary Analyses
To test the main hypotheses in this study, two mediation analyses were performed (Model 4; Hayes, 2017). In the first analysis, job autonomy was the independent variable, challenge and hindrance appraisals were the mediators, job satisfaction was the dependent variable, and
autonomy experience was the control variable. In the second analyses, autonomy experience was the independent variable and job autonomy was the control variable. These analyses were
repeated with and without the control variables gender, age, education, working hours, tenure, work experience, and years of supervision. Results of analysis without control variables revealed
that there was a positive link of job autonomy to job satisfaction (r = .386) and a strong positive link of autonomy experience to job satisfaction (r = .735). Job autonomy is also positively correlated to challenge (r =.202) and negatively correlated to hindrance (r = -.249). In addition, there was a positive link of autonomy experience to challenge (r = .203) and a negative link of autonomy experience to hindrance (r = -.431) while challenge is positively correlated to job satisfaction (r = .298) and hindrance negatively correlated to job satisfaction (r = -.425) However, the results of analysis with control variables and descriptive statistics did not offer outstanding differences (see correlations in Table 1). Consequently, all results are reported without control variables.
Hypothesis Testing
First, the impact of job autonomy to job satisfaction as well as of autonomy experience to job satisfaction was tested (Hypothesis 1). Results revealed that the main effect of job autonomy to job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1a) was non-significant and negative main effect (b = -.09, SEb
=.0580, t (266) = -1.52, p=1.3). Here, job autonomy was the independent variable and autonomy experience was the control variable. Thus, job autonomy was not significantly linked to job satis- faction. Therefore, Hypothesis 1a is not supported. However, the main effect of autonomy expe- rience to job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1b) was determined statistically significant and positive (b
= .80, SEb =.0613, t (266) = 13.1058, p <0.01). Here, autonomy experience was the independent variable and job autonomy was the control variable. Thus, autonomy experience is significantly linked to job satisfaction. The direction of this effect is positive which means that the more au- tonomy experience in employees the greater the likelihood to job satisfaction. Therefore, Hy- pothesis 1b is supported. Furthermore, Hypothesis 1c stated that autonomy experience is more strongly linked to job satisfaction than job satisfaction. Results uncovered that the direct effect
of job autonomy (IV) on job satisfaction (DV) was negative and non-significant (b = -.09, SEb
=.0580, t (266) = -1.52, p=1.3) while the direct effect of autonomy experience (IV) on job satis- faction (DV) was positive and significant (b = .80, SEb =.0613, t (266) = 13.1058, p <0.01). In- deed, the direct effect of autonomy experience to job satisfaction (b=.80, p=1.3) was higher than the direct effect of job autonomy on job satisfaction (b=-.09, p<0.01). This means that autonomy experience is more strongly linked to job satisfaction than job autonomy, Hypothesis 1c is sup- ported.
Furthermore, testing the main effect of job autonomy to challenge appraisals (Hypothesis 2a), there was positive and non-significant main effect between them statistically (b= .1074, SEb= .0609, t (268) =1.7623, p= .0792). The hypothesis 2a is not supported. Thus, job autonomy was not significantly linked to challenge appraisals. Also, the main effect of job autonomy to hindrance appraisals was tested (Hypothesis 2b). There was a negative and non-significant main effect for this link as hypothesis tested (b=-.0023, SEb = .0578, t (268) = -.0401, p=.9680). The hypothesis 2b is not supported. Thus, job autonomy was not significantly linked to hindrance ap- praisals.
Next, Hypothesis 3a predicts a main effect of autonomy experience on challenge apprais-
als. However, there was non-significant and positive main effect between autonomy experience and challenge statistically (b = .11, SEb = -.0601, t (268) = 1.7913, p=.0744). The results provide no support for the direct positive relationship of autonomy experience to challenge appraisals, Hypothesis 3a is not confirmed. Then, the main effect of autonomy experience on hindrance ap- praisals (Hypothesis 3b) was investigated, where there was a significant main effect for the direct link between autonomy experience and hindrance (b= -.37, SEb=.0569, t (268)=-6.3864,
p<0.01). Thus, autonomy experience significantly negatively linked to hindrance appraisals.
The Hypothesis 4a stated that the relation between job autonomy and job satisfaction is mediated via challenge appraisals. The indirect effect of job autonomy via challenge appraisals was non-significant (estimate: 0.02, BCa LLCI = -.005, BCa ULCI = .07). This means that there is no mediation of challenge appraisals between job autonomy and job satisfaction. Therefore, there was no support for the hypothesis 4a. Finally, hypothesis 4b entailed that hindrance ap- praisals mediate the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction. This indirect effect was also non-significant (estimate: 0.0004, BCa LLCI= -.03, BCa ULCI= .02). Thus, no media- tion of hindrance appraisals between job autonomy and job satisfaction was found. Hypothesis 4b is not confirmed in the present research.
The hypothesis 5a states that challenge appraisals mediate the link between autonomy ex- perience and job satisfaction. Bootstrapping showed that the indirect effect of challenge apprais- als was positive and non-significant (estimate: 0.02, BCa LLCI= -.004, BCa ULCI = .0073). In addition, an unhypothesized positive direct effect of challenge appraisals on job satisfaction was also found (b = .24, SEb = .058, t (266) = 4.064, p = .0001). Therefore, there was no support for the hypothesis 5a. The Hypothesis 5b included the mediating role of hindrance appraisals be- tween autonomy experience and job satisfaction. In this case, the indirect effect was positive and significant (estimate: 0.07, BCa LLCI = .02, BCa ULCI = .15). Further, an unhypothesized nega- tive direct effect of hindrance on job satisfaction was also uncovered (b= -.19, SEb = .0610, t (266) = - 3.137, p = .0019). Thus, increases in autonomy experience were positively linked to hindrance appraisals which are negatively linked to job satisfaction. Overall, challenge appraisals do not mediate the relationship between autonomy experience and job satisfaction, but hindrance appraisals partially mediate this relationship.
Discussion
The present research investigated whether the main effect of autonomy experience and of job autonomy was directly linked to job satisfaction and whether autonomy experience was strongly linked to job satisfaction than job autonomy (hypothesis 1), whether the main effect of job autonomy was directly linked to challenge and hindrance appraisals (hypothesis 2), whether the main effect of autonomy experience was directly linked to challenge and hindrance
appraisals (hypothesis 3), whether challenge and hindrance appraisals mediated the link between job autonomy and job satisfaction (hypothesis 4), and also whether they mediated the link between autonomy experience and job satisfaction (hypothesis 5).
Yet, the direct effect of job autonomy to job satisfaction was non-significant (hypothesis 1a), and so was the direct effect of job autonomy to challenge as well as hindrance appraisals (hypothesis 2). Results indicated no support about hypothesis 1a and hypothesis 2. Similarly, results showed that the mediation of challenge and hindrance appraisals between job autonomy and job satisfaction (hypothesis 4) was not confirmed.
The results showed evidence for hypothesis 1b. Autonomy experience was positively linked to job satisfaction. Indeed, when employee’s autonomy experience is higher their job satisfaction is also greater. Also, the results confirmed Hypothesis 1c. Autonomy experience was a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than job autonomy. However, the direct effect of
autonomy experience to challenge appraisals was non-significant (Hypothesis 3a) and so there was no mediation of challenge appraisals between autonomy experience and job satisfaction (Hypothesis 5a). Finally, the results indicated that autonomy experience was directly and negatively linked with hindrance appraisals (hypothesis 3b). Interestingly, the indirect effect of hindrance appraisals was positive and thus, the relationship between autonomy experience and
job satisfaction was indeed partially mediated by hindrance appraisals, which is in line with hypothesis 5b.
Theoretical Implications
In accordance with the results, the present research contributes to the literature in many ways. Firstly, the suggested results did not support the potential of the direct effect of job auton- omy (structural autonomy) to job satisfaction which indeed related with the conducted research of Bakker & Demerouti (2007) that job autonomy is not always positively associated with job satisfaction. However, Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) asserted that job autonomy is positively related to beneficial individual outcomes such as job satisfaction. A possible expla- nation for not finding a significant direct effect of job autonomy to job satisfaction could lie in the fact that it is unclear why autonomy would be the most important resource for employees. It is always assumed but never explained in previous literature (cf. Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
The interaction between job resources and job demands may be multiple-way connection besides and between personal resources (Demerouti & Bakker, 2017). Hence, most previous research in the Job Demand-Resource model assumes that the execution of job autonomy as a job resource buffers job satisfaction. However, it depends on plenty of boundary conditions such as the rate levels of job demands and/or job resources, maintenance and accumulation of them, the types of stressors and job crafting (Hobfoll, 2002; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Demerouti & Bakker, 2007). Leadership management can determine employees’ job demands and resources so indi- rectly related to job satisfaction (Nielsen et al., 2008; Demerouti & Bakker,2017). In other words, these boundary conditions may typically be more important than a simple main effect or relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction.
Next, the present research contributes to expanding our understanding of autonomy expe- rience which is positively linked to job satisfaction. The support of this relationship adds to the literature by uncovering that the autonomy experience is generated by a positive content of em- ployee’s behavior (Parker & Wall, 2001). In line with Van de Broeck and colleagues (2008), when employees experience a feeling of autonomy, they will feel less exhausted. Thus, this re- search suggests that increases in autonomy experience are positively linked to satisfaction. Em- ployees’ autonomy experience allows them to be themselves and their autonomy satisfaction in- creases their well-being (Deci & Ryan, 200; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Thus, the present re- search adds to literature that autonomy experience is a stronger predictor on job satisfaction than job autonomy.
Recent studies identified that job autonomy as a typical job resource can buffer the rela- tion of job hindrances and employee’s commitment (Rai, 2018). The results of the research did not support the view that there is mediating role of challenge-hindrance appraisals between job autonomy as a work-characteristic and job satisfaction (Lepine et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007; Van de Broeck et al., 2010). However, by indicating the non-mediation of challenge and hindrance appraisals between job autonomy and job satisfaction this research contributes to the literature on job autonomy in a view that other criteria should be examined between this relation such as personal resources.
Furthermore, these findings contribute to the literature on employee’s job satisfaction by demonstrating that challenge appraisals explain variance in criteria besides the considering of hindrance appraisals (Podsakoff et al., 2007). The results did not support a main direct effect of autonomy experience to challenge appraisals. This could be in alignment with previous finding that both challenge and hindrance stressors through cognitive appraisal might not be explained
by positive meaning at work (Prem et al., 2016). Challenge stressors may be appraised via expe- rienced emotion at work (Prem et al.,2017). The way employees may appraise autonomy may vary in terms of their both cognitive and emotional perceptions. However, results showed a main negative direct effect to hindrance appraisals. This could be in line with previous findings that while it is negatively related to negative outcomes such as stress and role ambiguity, which may be hindrance stressors (Humphrey et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2007). By taking into account the existence of individual differences, the present research provides a further step in examining the interaction effects between perceived autonomy and hindrance appraisals.
More specifically, this research contributes to theory by offering and testing the theoreti- cal model that explains the positive indirect effect between autonomy experience to hindrance appraisals and that merely hindrance appraisals partially mediate the link between autonomy ex- perience and job satisfaction. Autonomy experience is linked to hindrance appraisals which in- fluence employees’ work behavior (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte & Lens, 2008).
Previous research stated that increases in hindrance stressors are likely to be perceived as intimi- dating (Wood & Michaelides, 2015). Thus, the above could explain that more autonomy experi- ence is linked to more hindrance appraisals. The present research shows the mediation role of hindrance appraisals between autonomy experience and job satisfaction. A possible interpre- tantion may be that hindrance appraisals may be more strongly effective in psychological strain than challenge appraisals (Abbas & Raja, 2019). This contribution is important given to psycho- logical and management research.
Practical Implications
First, this research showed that autonomy is not always beneficial for employees, since many mediations were not significant. Although non-significant findings should be interpreted with care. Since lower levels of job satisfaction is a precedent for other negative outcomes like burn- out and absenteeism (Jang, Park, & Zippay, 2011; Lu, Ruan, Xing, & Hu 2015), it is important for organizations to consider further the consequences of job autonomy and how employees ap- praise autonomy for their well-being. Although the research does not identify any management practice per se, the observations of autonomy experience play an essential role in reducing hin- drance appraisals. Given this pattern of findings and together with Lepine and colleagues (2005) it may be necessary for managers to try to reduce hindrances at work through management prac- tices. Since hindrances affect in an absolute way the workplace, managers could find a way to eliminate them or to keep them in a minimum for the well-being of the organization (Podsakoff et al., 2007). For example, additional research needs to be conducted about what, how and when leadership styles facilitate autonomy and are linked to job satisfaction in the workplace. Besides that, Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand & Brière (2001) have examined that the autonomy-supportive style facilitates and enhances autonomy while controlling interpersonal style undermines the feelings of autonomy. However, further research should be conducted about leadership styles and organizational policies which will form a mechanism to reduce hindrances in the workplace.
Furthermore, the line of thinking could be how the effect of autonomy experience to hindrance appraisal can be balanced. Managers can provide training policies intended to help employees investigate their autonomy in job tasks and find out the reasons for the negative or positive im- pact related to autonomy experience. In line with the Self Determination Theory, psychological need for autonomy should be tested comprehensively in organizational settings (Van den Broeck,
Ferris & Chang, Rosen, 2016). Therefore, it is advised to managers to provide training methods such as stress-reducing activities in order to keep reducing hindrance at a minimum rate regard- less of the cost for training.
Strength and Limitations
Although this research provides evidence of the direct link between autonomy and job satisfaction and the mediation of hindrance appraisals between the autonomy experience and job satisfaction, some limitations need to be mentioned. Firstly, the present research accounts for a part of the link between autonomy and job satisfaction while many other variables may explain this relation, but they have not been measured, such as the need for structure, need for frustration etc. Secondly, the gathered data may likely suffer from common-source biases that have inflated these research findings, since participants answered a questionnaire for the collection data depending on self-report measures (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, Podsakoff, 2003; Humphrey, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007). Thirdly, the focus of this research is on how an individual reacted to the autonomy in the workplace rather than on how teams reacted to job autonomy (Morgeson et al., 2005). This study did not include team-level research. Last, considering that most of the participative employees are well-educated America or English females, it is not clear whether these results would be the same with balanced heterogeneous participation and multiple nationalities.
Directions for Future Research
In light of these findings, additional research should be conducted to confirm the conceptual model. Future research could investigate the essential role of personal need for structure in order to examine thoroughly structural and perceived autonomy. Indeed, Rietzschel, Slijkhuis, and Van
Yperen (2014) unveiled that these people seek structure because they dislike uncertainty. Lepine and colleagues (2005) showed that personal need for structure can influence whether a job aspect is perceived as a challenge or a hindrance. Thus, together with the mediating effect of challenge and hindrance appraisals it could be additional research of the moderating effect of need for structure. Combined with research showing that people high in personal need for structure dislike autonomy (Slijkhuis et al., 2013; Rietzschel et al., 2014) the future research could examine to what extent people with high need of structure are more likely to appraise autonomy experience as a hindrance. In turn, it can be implied that employees with a low need for structure may prefer autonomy because they delight in rules in contrast to people with a high need for structure.
Indeed, the need for structure is a wide area for research since there are personal differences in the chronic desire for a simple structure that may significantly affect how people perceive, behave, experience, and interact (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993).
Moreover, the relationship between a variable and an outcome was estimated by a population of
271 employees. This is an important approximation of population to estimate the results, but future research is appropriate to increase this population coefficient (Morgeson et al., 2005).
Another direction of future research could be the technological and market changes. The work environment has been highlighting by technological equipment, rising competition, varying turnover, and changing workforce combinations (Parker et al., 2001; Morgeson & Campion, 2003). It is evident that work has become more complex and demanding due to the rapid
evolution of technology and market competition (Park et al, 2001). Thus, future research should study these changes in how technology and competition across organizations affect the
relationship between autonomy and behavioral outcomes such as job satisfaction. Finally, several psychological and organizational types of research still utilize the structural and perceived
autonomy in the investigation of a team-level phenomenon since teams have a different construct that may not exist in an individual level analysis (Morgeson et al., 2005). Yet, these findings suggest the need to examine more complex relationships also on a team level. For example, recent research has identified that people seek for chances to rebuild their autonomy in different contexts when their need for autonomy is not satisfied in a central context (Radel et al., 2011;
Radel et al., 2012). Further research could investigate whether leader autonomy experience within a team has a direct effect on job performance or even how autonomy satisfaction is linked markedly between a team and within a team.
Conclusion
In sum, the present research shows the importance of autonomy experience as a stronger predictor to job satisfaction. The higher employee’s autonomy experience is the more satisfied they are in their job. Results contribute to literature by highlighting the mediating effect of hindrance appraisals between autonomy experience and job satisfaction. Increasing autonomy experience leads to more hindrance appraisals which are negatively related to job satisfaction.
Even though job autonomy and job satisfaction do not indicate a significant direct impact on each other, they are important elements of organizational psychology. There may be other criteria by which employees appraise their type of autonomy such as personal need for structure.
References
Abbas, M., & Raja, U. (2018). Challenge-Hindrance Stressors and Job Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Conscientiousness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(2), 189- 201.
Bailyn, L (1985). Autonomy in the industrial r&d lab. Human Resource Management, 24,129- 146.
Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. (2005). Job Resources Buffer the Impact of Job Demands on Burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170-180.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bartholomew, K., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R., Bosch, J., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self- Determination Theory and Diminished Functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459-1473.
Berg, A. E. (2003). Personal Need for Structure and Environmental Preference. Human decision making and environmental perception: Understanding and assisting human decision making in real-life settings.
Boswell WR, Olson-Buchanan JB and LePine M (2004) The relationship between work-related stress and work outcomes: The role of felt-challenge and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(1): 165–181.
Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta- analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73.
Cavanaugh MA, Boswell W, Roehling MV and Boudreau JW (2000) An empirical examination of self-reported stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(1): 65–74.
Chung-Yan, G. (2010). The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job satisfaction, turnover, and psychological well-being. Journal Of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 237-251.
Clarke, S. (2012) The effect of challenge and hindrance stressors on safety behaviour and safety outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17(4): 387–397.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–
76.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self‐determination in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319338.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001b). The job demands- resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). Autonomy and workload among temporary workers:
Their effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, and self-rated performance. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4), 441-459.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2011). Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on the relationship between perceived job autonomy and work performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 367-387.
Greenberg, E. (1992). Creativity, autonomy, and evaluation of creative work: Artistic workers in organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26(2), 75-80.
Grover, S., Teo, S., Pick, D., & Roche, M. (2017). Mindfulness as a personal resource to reduce work stress in the job demands-resources model. Stress and Health, 33(4), 426-436.
Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through design of work: Test of an Organizational Behavior and Human Perfonnance, 16,250-279.
Hamtiaux, A., & Houssemand , C. (2012). Adaptability, Cognitive Flexibility, Personal Need for Structure, and Rigidity.
Hayes, A. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach / Andrew F. Hayes (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324.
Humphrey, S., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356.
Jang, S., Park, R., & Zippay, A. (2011). The interaction effects of scheduling control and work- life balance programs on job satisfaction and mental health. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20, 135-143
Karasek, R. A., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative
assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 322–355.
Kernis, M., & Goldman, B. (2006). A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity:
Theory and Research. Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, 283-357.
Langfred, C., & Moye, N. (2004). Effects of Task Autonomy on Performance: An Extended Model Considering Motivational, Informational, and Structural Mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934-945.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516
Lepine, J., Podsakoff, N., & Lepine, M. (2005). A Meta-Analytic Test of the Challenge Stressor–
Hindrance Stressor Framework: An Explanation for Inconsistent Relationships Among Stressors and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.
Lepine, M., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E., & Rich, B. (2016). Turning their Pain to Gain: Charismatic Leader Influence on Follower Stress Appraisal and Job Performance. Retrieved 1 January 2020, from
Liu, L., Wang, L., Ren, J., & Liu, C. (2017). Promotion/prevention focus and creative performance: Is it moderated by evaluative stress? Personality and Individual Differences,105, 185-193.
Lu, M., Ruan, H., Xing, W., & Hu, Y. (2015). Nurse burnout in China: A questionnaire survey on staffing, job satisfaction and quality of care. Journal of nursing management, 23, 440- 447.
Min, H., Kim, H., & Lee, S. (2015). Extending the challenge–hindrance stressor framework: The role of psychological capital. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 105- 114.
Meiser, T., & Machunsky, M. (2008). The Personal Structure of Personal Need for Structure.
European Journal Of Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 27-34.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J., & Erez, M. (2003). Why people stay:
Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321-1339
Morgeson, F., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. (2005). The Importance of Job
Autonomy, Cognitive Ability, and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399-406.
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
12, pp. 423– 452). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Neuberg, S., & Newsom, J. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 113-131.
Nguyen, A. N., Taylor , J., & Bradley, S. (2003). Job autonomy and job satisfaction: new evidence.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S.O. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22, 16–32.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2009). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and proactive behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 543-565.
Park, R., & Jang, S. (2015). Mediating role of perceived supervisor support in the relationship between job autonomy and mental health: moderating role of value–means fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(5), 703-723.
Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (2001). Work design: Learning from the past and mapping a new terrain. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology (Vol. 1 - Personnel Psychology, pp. 90-109).
London: Sage
Parker, S., Van den Broeck, A., & Holman, D. (2017). Work Design Influences: A Synthesis of Multilevel Factors that Affect the Design of Jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 267-308.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice:
Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413– 440.
Pearsall, M., Ellis, A., & Stein, J. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 18-28.
Peng, A., Schaubroeck, J., & Xie, J. (2020). When confidence comes and goes: How variation in self-efficacy moderates stressor–strain relationships.
Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., & Brière, N. (2001). Associations Among Perceived Autonomy Support, Forms of Self-Regulation, and Persistence: A Prospective Study.
Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279-306.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 –903.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor- hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454.
Prem, R., Kubicek, B., Diestel, S., & Korunka, C. (2016). Regulatory job stressors and their within-person relationships with ego depletion: The roles of state anxiety, self-control effort, and job autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 22-32.
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Corrigendum: Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as antecedents of thriving at work.
Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 39(1), 129-129.
Radel, R., Pelletier, L., Sarrazin, P., & Milyavskaya, M. (2011). Restoration process of the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 919-934.
Radel, R., Pelletier, L., & Sarrazin, P. (2012). Restoration processes after need thwarting: When autonomy depends on competence. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 234-244.
Rietzschel, E., Slijkhuis, J., & Van Yperen, N. (2014). Task structure need for structure, and creativity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 386-399.
Rietzschel, E.F., Slijkhuis, M., & Van Yperen, N.W. (2014). Close monitoring as a contextual stimulator: How need for structure affects the relation between close monitoring and work outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 394-404.
