- Email: [email protected]
Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance
Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci
Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance Tahira M. Probst a,⇑, Nicholas J. Gailey a, Lixin Jiang b, Sergio López Bohle c a
Washington State University Vancouver, United States University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, United States c Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Chile b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 2 September 2016 Received in revised form 31 January 2017 Accepted 5 February 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Job insecurity Performance Organizational citizenship behaviors Psychological capital
a b s t r a c t Job insecurity is a psychosocial risk that can present significant problems for organizational performance and employees’ health and well-being. The purpose of the current research was to investigate the curvilinear relationship between employee job insecurity and three types of job performance: in-role task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the organization (OCB-O), and organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (OCB-I). Additionally, we tested whether a higher order construct, Psychological Capital, consisting of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism would moderate the relationships between job insecurity and performance. Using a 3-wave design, anonymous survey data were collected online from a sample of 300 employees via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Time 1 job insecurity was curvilinearly related to Time 2 and Time 3 measures of job performance. In addition, these curvilinear relationships were largely attenuated among employees with higher levels of PsyCap. These results are discussed in light of rising job insecurity and the need for psychosocial interventions to attenuate its adverse effects. Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction Organizations today face rapidly changing workforce demographics, increasing globalization, and shifting governmental policies regarding work and labor relations. These forces, coupled with intermittent financial crises such as the Great Recession of 2007– 2009 and its ensuing global economic instability, have led organizations to increasingly engage in restructuring, acquisitions, mergers, and downsizing to remain competitive (Hirsch and De Soucey, 2006). Kalleberg (2013) argued that together these factors have led to fundamental shifts in the nature of work characterized by greater income inequality and less secure employment systems compared to those faced by earlier generations of workers. Not surprisingly, surveys suggest that increasingly high levels of job insecurity among today’s workers are the result – notably, worries about work and income rank among the top concerns of respondents (e.g., American Psychological Association surveys of Stress in America, 2013, 2015). Another recent U.S. survey of financial well-being (PwC’s Employee Financial Wellness Survey, 2016) found that being laid off from work was the top concern of 20% of respondents. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.M. Probst).
Job insecurity (i.e., subjective perceptions that one’s job is unstable or at risk, and the associated fears and anxiety that often accompany those perceptions) is a psychosocial risk that can present significant problems for organizations and their employees’ health and well-being. Meta-analyses of the consequences of job insecurity (Sverke et al., 2002; Cheng and Chan, 2008) have found that job insecurity is significantly negatively correlated with job satisfaction (rc = 0.41), job involvement (rc = 0.37), organizational commitment (rc = 0.41), trust (rc = 0.50), and physical (rc = 0.16) and mental health (rc = 0.24), and positively associated with turnover intentions (rc = 0.28). A more recent metaanalysis (Virtanen et al., 2013) found that experiencing high job insecurity increased the odds of developing heart disease by 32% compared to employees with secure position. Despite the clear evidence that job insecurity is a potent stressor facing many of today’s employees, unfortunately little research has examined potential developable personality characteristics that might resist these negative workplace outcomes. Rather, much research at the individual-level has focused on variables such as coping styles (Probst and Jiang, 2016; Richter et al., 2013) and locus of control (Orpen, 1994; Näswall et al., 2005), or more stable personality traits, such as emotional intelligence (Cheng et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2002). Therefore, in line with this Special Issue focus on ways to develop a healthier psychosocial work environ-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002 0925-7535/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
2
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
ment, the purpose of our study was to test whether Psychological Capital (PsyCap), a malleable set of psychological resources, has the potential to significantly enhance successful coping with job insecurity. Below we begin by discussing the link between job insecurity and in-role and extra-role aspects of job performance (the primary dependent variables of interest in this study). We next discuss in greater detail the construct of PsyCap and develop the theoretical foundation for its hypothesized buffering effect on the relationship between job insecurity and performance.
1.1. Job insecurity and performance As noted earlier, research has consistently linked job insecurity to a variety of adverse negative work-related attitudes, behaviors, and employee health (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002). However, less attention has been paid to the relationship between job insecurity and job performance (Sverke et al., 2010). While some studies have indicated a negative relationship between job insecurity and performance (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Gilboa et al., 2008), others have found no relationship or even a positive relationship (Probst, 2002; Probst et al., 2007; Sverke et al., 2002). Researchers have posited that these mixed findings are perhaps due to methodological artifacts, including a lack of consistency in how performance has been operationalized (Sverke et al., 2002; Probst et al., 2007). Moreover, whereas effects of job insecurity on job attitudes and satisfaction tend to occur relatively quickly, adverse effects on other outcomes such as job performance and organizational citizenship may accumulate over the long-term. Thus, longitudinal data collection is needed to more fully explore these relationships. Researchers have also suggested that inconsistent performance findings might instead be the result of non-linearity in the relationship between job insecurity and performance (Selenko et al., 2013). Specifically, Selenko and colleagues argue that job insecurity creates strain and reduced vigor and motivation among employees. Thus, with increasing levels of job insecurity one can expect to see performance decrements. However, they also argue that individuals with extremely high levels of job insecurity may be more resilient and persistent in the face of such insecurity, as evidenced by their decision to remain with the organization despite their high levels of job insecurity. As noted earlier, meta-analyses have found that high levels of insecurity are associated with higher turnover intentions (Cheng and Chan, 2008). Thus, individuals who elect to remain with an organization despite their high job insecurity may be more adaptive and persistent in the face of this stressor. In support of this, in a longitudinal study of Finnish university employees, Selenko et al. (2013) found that the relationship between job insecurity and performance (operationalized as selfrated task proficiency) was U-shaped in nature. In other words, self-assessments of task proficiency decreased under moderate levels of job insecurity but then increased again under high levels of job insecurity. In the current study, we sought to extend Selenko et al.’s research by considering multiple forms of job performance, including in-role and extra-role aspects of job performance. Akin to Selenko et al.’s (2013) focus on task proficiency, in-role job behaviors include completion of tasks and responsibilities that are formal requirements of one’s job (Williams and Anderson, 1991). On the other hand, extra-role behaviors (Katz, 1964) are discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) that, while not explicitly or formally recognized by the reward system of an organization, nonetheless contribute to the overall effectiveness of an organization (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Such discretionary behaviors can be directed at other individuals within the company (OCB-I; e.g., helping others with their work tasks) or
toward the organization itself (OCB-O; e.g., providing advance notice prior to an absence). Thus, we expect to replicate and extend Selenko et al.’s work by hypothesizing that job insecurity will have a U-shaped relationship with in-role and extra-role job performance, such that low and high levels of job insecurity will be associated with higher levels of performance, whereas moderate levels of job insecurity will be associated with lower levels of performance. Specifically, we predict that: Hypothesis 1. Job insecurity will have a U-shaped relationship with self-reported in-role behaviors (H1a), organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the organization (H1b), and organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (H1c).
1.2. Psychological capital: A developable resource for employees As noted above, the empirical results found by Selenko et al. (2013) suggest that the relationship between job insecurity and performance might be curvilinear. However, an alternative explanation is that moderator variables could be influencing the association of job insecurity with job performance (or, indeed, both curvilinear and interaction effects could be co-occurring). Although Selenko and colleagues tested the moderating effects of optimism and supervisor support, they did not find support for either of these moderating effects. Yet, these null results do not rule out the effect of other moderating variables. According to Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), employees strive to obtain, build and protect a variety of resources. Moreover, stress occurs when such resources are lost, threatened with loss, or when individuals fail to gain expected resources. These resources can take on many different forms, including physical possessions (e.g., a car), energies (e.g., time), conditions (e.g., friends and social support), as well as personal characteristics (e.g., personality). Based on COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), one would expect that individuals who have access to and can draw upon a deeper well of resources would be better cope with the stress and uncertainty of job insecurity. Thus, these resources might serve as a moderating variable when examining the relationship between job insecurity and job performance. In the current study, we examined the influence of PsyCap as one such resource. PsyCap is a multifaceted construct that consists of four positive personality strengths: self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2010); moreover, the psychological capacity generated by the interaction of these four constructs is argued to be synergistically greater than would be predicted by each construct alone (Luthans et al., 2007) and forms a higher order construct known as psychological capital (see Luthans et al., 2007, for psychometric evidence of the posited higher order factor structure). We focused on this construct in particular because researchers have argued that it is malleable trait; moreover, research has shown that training interventions can increase employee levels of PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2014, 2006, 2010, 2008). Additionally, once developed, PsyCap resources tend to persist over time (Peterson et al., 2011). Compared to other personality constructs (e.g., conscientiousness), this balance between stability and potential for further development suggests that a focus on PsyCap might offer more promise as potential mechanism for intervention to better assist individuals with coping with job insecurity. PsyCap has important implications for organizations because it directly relates to the way in which employees act and think within their organization. This, in turn, impacts the effectiveness of employees within their roles and how successful they can contribute to their organization. Avey et al. (2008) proposed that Psy-
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Cap increases positive emotions which then affects employee attitudes and behaviors. For example, employees who possess high levels of PsyCap are able to experience more positive emotions within their organization, even when they are faced with stressful situations (e.g. job insecurity). The positive emotions that these employees possess can assist them in navigating stressful circumstances with their organization. This is accomplished through positive expectations for achieving their goals (optimism) and successful coping strategies where they experience positive feeling of confidence (efficacy). These positive emotions are then used to increase their ability to create multiple pathways to deal with situations (hope) and if workplace adversity arises then they will have the ability to bounce back and use an alternative path (resilience; Avey et al., 2008). 1.3. Psychological capital as a moderator of the job insecurityperformance link The statistics noted earlier indicate that job insecurity is prevalent in today’s workplace. Given that individuals with high PsyCap tend to form positive appraisals of past, present, and future events, we explore the buffering effect of PsyCap on the U-shaped relationship between job insecurity and in-role and extra-role behaviors. Preliminary research on PsyCap appears to provide some support. For example, the finding that individuals with higher PsyCap reported fewer symptoms of job stress (Avey et al., 2009) supports the contention that PsyCap partially operates by influencing the primary appraisal of potential stressors. PsyCap also appears to predict adaptive behaviors in the face of stress such as increased preparatory and active job search behaviors following job loss (Cheng et al., 2012; Oglensky, 2014). In line with COR theory’s focus on the importance of resources, Millard (2011) proposed that the psychological resources provided by PsyCap might offset socalled ‘‘psychological debt” (including job insecurity and job stress) resulting in a certain level of psychological net worth. Because very little research to date has been focused on the higher-order construct of PsyCap in relation to job insecurity specifically, we consider below the empirical evidence for each of these constructs separately. Hope has been defined as ‘‘a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 287), including both willpower (i.e. determination to achieve one’s goals) and ‘‘waypower” (i.e., planned pathways to meet one’s goals). Because those with hope tend to proactively deal with obstacles and engage in contingency planning, hope promotes goal achievement (Snyder, 2000). Consequently, hope might be an effective aid to coping with the threat and/or experience of losing one’s job in that high-hope employees tend to proactively make contingency plans for the potential job loss. Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s ability to successfully ‘‘organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). As with other PsyCap variables, Bandura (1997) proposes that self-efficacy can be developed via mastery experiences, vicarious learning/modeling, social persuasion, and physiological and psychological arousal. COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) posits self-efficacy as an important personal resource in coping with stress by influencing how people react when faced with potential resource loss. Specifically, high self-efficacy may buffer the negative effect of job insecurity on performance, since individuals high in self-efficacy may perceive that they have the capacity to successfully cope with the potential challenges of job loss. Indeed, Lau and Knardahl (2008) found that job insecurity (measured as confidence in having a good job in 2 years) predicted one’s mental distress and that this effect was strongest
3
among participants who reported low self-efficacy. However, they also acknowledged that causality could run in the opposite direction, such that among low self-efficacy individuals, poor mental health might be associated with less confidence in obtaining a job in the future. Resilience is the positive psychological capacity to ‘‘rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002a, p. 702). Resilience in the face of economic stress would primarily be expected to operate as a reactive aid to coping, rather than influencing the primary appraisal of the stressor itself. However, like the other sub-facets of PsyCap, resilience has been demonstrated to be developable (Masten, 2001; Masten et al., 2009) and therefore, would be a potential target for intervention. Resilience may allow employees to better deal with the threats of job insecurity as resilient employees are likely to be open to new experiences, flexible in the face of changing demands, and have demonstrated more emotional stability when faced with adversity (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). Optimism consists of a generalized expectation of positive outcomes (Carver et al., 2009) coupled with an attributional style (Seligman, 1998) whereby individuals view adversity as an externally-driven, challenging, and temporary setback. Because optimists tend to view obstacles to goal accomplishment as resolvable and use differential avoidance coping strategies (Scheier et al., 1986), optimism may help attenuate the impact of stress. For example, Scheier et al. (1986) found that optimists are more likely to use problem-focused coping, seek social support, and emphasize positive aspects of the stressful situation, whereas pessimists are more likely to use avoidance coping strategies such as denial and distancing, emphasize one’s stressful feelings, and disengage from goal attainment. Like the other PsyCap constructs, one can learn and develop optimism through training (Seligman, 1998). Evidence suggests that optimism may operate as a moderator of reactions to economic stress. During and following a major organizational downsizing, Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser (2008) conducted a longitudinal study among managers and found that optimism measured 18 months prior to the downsizing was predictive of higher managerial cognitions, attitudes, job performance, and self-reported coping effectiveness 12 months following the downsizing. Based on COR theory and the empirical evidence reviewed above, we propose that psychological capital will serve as a valuable resource allowing employees to more effectively cope with the stressor of job insecurity. Thus, we predict that: Hypothesis 2. Psychological capital will moderate the quadratic relationship between job insecurity and self-reported in-role behaviors (H2a), OCB-Os (H2b), and OCB-Is (H2c).
2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure In order to test the proposed hypotheses, an online survey was administered via Qualtrics at three different time-points (baseline, one-month, and two-months) to workers throughout the U.S. using the online service, Amazon Mechanical Turk. A power analysis conducted using G⁄Power (Faul et al., 2009) identified a minimum sample of 264 to have 80% power (with an a = 0.05) to detect a small effect size of 3% variance explained due to the hypothesized three-way interaction between the polynomial term and job insecurity. Therefore, we collected anonymous T1 survey data from 300 participants; of those, 226 participants completed the T2 survey and 184 completed all three waves. Ten participants failed 3 of
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
4
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
3 attention checks embedded within the survey (e.g., ‘‘Select ‘agree’ if you are reading this question”); therefore, their data were discarded from further analysis. The sample was predominantly male (54%). The average age of respondents was 37.3 years, with a range from 19 to 67. The vast majority (94%) held a permanent position within their organization. Over half (51.1%) had been with their current employer for 5 or more years (14.3% indicated one year or less). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Job insecurity Job insecurity was measured using the 9-item Job Security Satisfaction scale (Probst, 2003), a measure of affective job insecurity (Cronbach’s a = 0.94). Respondents indicated on a 3-point scale (yes, ?, no) the extent to which a series of phrases describes their affective responses to their perceived level of job security. Sample phrases include ‘‘never been more secure” (reverse coded), ‘‘upsetting how little job security I have,” and ‘‘nerve-wracking.” Using a scoring system recommended by Hanisch (1992), item responses were scored as follows. Agreement with negatively worded items (i.e., ‘‘nerve-wracking”) was scored 3. Agreement with positively worded items (i.e., ‘‘never been more secure”) was scored 0. Finally, ‘‘?” responses were scored 2, based on prior analyses suggesting that endorsement of the ‘‘?” anchor is psychometrically closer to a negative response than a positive one. Thus, responses were coded such that higher scores on the scale from 0 to 3 indicate greater job insecurity. 2.2.2. Psychological capital Psychological capital was measured using the 24-item scale developed by Luthans et al. (2007) (Cronbach’s a = 0.95). Each of the four lower-order constructs was measured by 6 items that participants responded to using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Sample items include: ‘‘There are lots of ways around any problem” (hope); ‘‘I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution” (efficacy); ‘‘When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on” (resilience; reverse coded); and, ‘‘I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job” (optimism). Responses were coded such that higher numbers reflect higher levels of PsyCap and averaged to create a single aggregate PsyCap score. 2.2.3. Job performance To assess performance, we used three different measures developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). In-role behaviors (IRB) were measured using seven items (Cronbach’s a = 0.84) using a Likert response scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. A sample item is: ‘‘I met formal performance requirements of my job.” OCB’s were measured using seven items (a = 0.90) targeting the individual (e.g., ‘‘Helps others who have been absent”) and six items (a = 0.78) targeting the organization (e.g., ‘‘Attendance at work is above the norm”). All OCB items used a response scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree and were coded such that higher numbers reflect better performance. 3. Results 3.1. Missing data analysis and tests of regression assumptions At Time 1, there was very little missing data (.003% for the PsyCap measure and 1% for the job insecurity measure). At Time 2 and Time 3, due to subject attrition, we had 23% and 37% missing data respectively. Encouragingly, analyses indicated that individuals who were missing at Time 2 were not significantly different from
non-missing participants on either independent variable of interest (JI or PsyCap) measured at Time 1 as determined by a multivariate test, F(2, 284) = 0.194, p = 0.824. Similarly, individuals who were missing at Time 3 were not significantly different on either independent variable of interest measured at T1, F(2, 284) = 0.656, p = 0.520. Additional exploratory chi-square analyses and multivariate F-tests indicated missing vs. non-missing participants at Time 2 and Time 3 did not differ based on gender, race, permanent/temporary status, managerial status, or years in their position. Finally, missing participants at Time 3 did not differ in their Time 2 levels of IRBs, OCB-Os or OCB-Is, F(3, 219) = 0.698, p = 0.554. Taken together, these analyses suggest the missing data were completely at random, in which case listwise deletion will not introduce meaningful bias (Allison, 2009, 2014). Therefore, we next proceeded to test the assumptions of our regression analysis concerning normality of residuals and homoscedasticity before continuing with the main analyses. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality were all significant (K-S statistics ranging from 0.082 to 0.105). Given that nonnormality of residuals can arise due to non-linearity, this supports our decision to explore curvilinear effects. More importantly, based on an inspection of the standardized residual plots, the variance in errors was equal across all values of the independent variables, suggesting support for the assumption of homoscedasticity. Finally, Durbin-Watson statistics ranged from 1.89 to 2.13, indicating support for the independence of errors assumption. 3.2. Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the study variables at the three time points. As can be seen, PsyCap (measured at T1) was consistently positively related to all of the performance measures at T2 and T3 with correlations ranging from 0.421 to 0.465. Moreover, employees with higher levels of PsyCap reported significantly lower affective job insecurity (r = 0.463, p < 0.001). Finally, job insecurity at T1 was significantly negatively correlated with in-role behaviors at T2 and T3 (r = 0.164, p = 0.015 and r = 0.148, p = 0.046, respectively) and OCB-Is (r = 0.136, p = 0.045 and r = -0.157, p = 0.035, respectively); however, there was no significant relationship with OCBOs. Of course, these zero-order correlations do not indicate whether a curvilinear relationship might be present. 3.3. Hypothesis tests We tested our hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. In order to facilitate the interpretation of the interaction effects, job insecurity and PsyCap were first standardized. Two analyses were conducted for each measure of performance, the first predicting job performance at T2 and another predicting performance at T3, while using baseline T1 measures for affective job insecurity and psychological capital. This provided a within-study opportunity to replicate our hypothesis tests at two different subsequent points in time, and to evaluate whether any observed effects persist over time. In order to control for Type I error, we first conducted a multivariate multiple regression analysis with the 6 dependent variables. The multivariate test provided preliminary support for our hypotheses. The main effect of the quadratic job insecurity term (i.e., JI2) was significant, F(6, 171) = 2.357, p = 0.033, partial g2 = 0.076, suggesting support for H1. The interaction between PsyCap and the quadratic term was also significant, F(6, 171) = 3.348, p = 0.004, partial g2 = 0.105, providing initial support for H2. Therefore, we proceeded with the individual hierarchical multiple regression analyses (see Tables 2–4). For each dependent variable, in step 1, we entered the main effects of job insecurity and
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
5
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Table 1 Descriptive statistics and scale intercorrelations. Variable
M
SD
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
0.80 4.62 4.53 4.54 5.44 5.49 5.81 5.86
0.98 0.77 0.53 0.48 1.06 1.04 0.95 0.90
287 289 223 184 223 184 223 184
0.46** 0.16* 0.15* 0.14* 0.16* 0.06 0.11
0.45** 0.42** 0.42** 0.45** 0.43** 0.47**
0.65** 0.25** 0.24** 0.60** 0.57**
0.26** 0.35** 0.51** 0.60**
0.77** 0.31** 0.40**
0.26** 0.41**
0.69**
Job Insecurity PsyCap IRB T2 IRB T3 OCB-I T2 OCB-I T3 OCB-O T2 OCB-O T3
Note: PsyCap = Psychological Capital; IRB = In-role behavior; OCB-I = Organizational citizenship behavior targeting individuals; OCB-O = Organizational citizenship behavior targeting the organization. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table 2 Hierarchical multiple regression results for in-role performance. Variable
IRB T2 B
Step 1 JI PsyCap Step 2 JI2 JI PsyCap Step 3 JI2 PsyCap
IRB T3 SE
t
B
SE
t
0.007 0.036 0.253 0.037 ** 2 DF(2, 217) = 27.476 DR = 0.202
0.187 6.904**
0.012 0.035 0.214 0.036 ** 2 DF(2, 179) = 20.090 DR = 0.183
0.346 5.949**
0.158 0.044 0.016 0.032 DF(2, 215) = 7.188** DR2 = 0.050
3.608** 0.502
0.180 0.043 0.016 0.030 DF(2, 177) = 9.547** DR2 = 0.080
4.177** 0.52
0.138 0.046 DF(1, 214) = 9.070** DR2 = 0.030
3.012**
0.125 0.044 DF(1, 176) = 8.240** DR2 = 0.033
2.870**
Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression results for OCB-O. Variable
OCB-O T2 B
Step 1 JI PsyCap Step 2 JI2 JI PsyCap Step 3 JI2 PsyCap
OCB-O T3 SE
t
B
SE
t
0.125 0.063 0.476 0.065 ** 2 DF(2, 217) = 27.280 DR = 0.201
1.980* 7.327**
0.082 0.065 0.462 0.066 ** 2 DF(2, 179) = 25.759 DR = 0.223
1.270 6.990**
0.218 0.078 0.101 0.056 DF(2, 215) = 6.601** DR2 = 0.046
2.787** 1.796y
0.211 0.082 0.046 0.058 DF(2, 177) = 4.154* DR2 = 0.035
2.582* 0.800
0.263 0.082 DF(1, 214) = 10.425** DR2 = 0.035
3.229**
0.151 0.084 DF(1, 176) = 3.276y DR2 = 0.014
1.810y
Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term. y p < 0.10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
PsyCap. Next, in step 2, we entered the polynomial quadratic term for job insecurity and the lower order interaction between job insecurity and PsyCap. Finally, in step 3, we entered the three way interaction (i.e., the interaction between the quadratic job insecurity term and PsyCap). In support of our hypotheses, we observed a quadratic relationship between affective job insecurity and T2 IRB (b = 0.158, SE = 0.044, p < 0.001), and OCB-O (b = 0.218, SE = 0.078, p = 0.006), but not OCB-I (b = 0.103, SE = 0.091, p = 0.258). Furthermore, we found a significant interaction effect between the quadratic job insecurity term and PsyCap on T2 IRB (b = -0.138, SE = 0.046,
p = 0.003), OCB-O (b = 0.263, SE = 0.082, p = 0.001), and a marginal effect on OCB-I (b = 0.187, SE = 0.096, p = 0.053). In order to evaluate the form of the interactions, we used the Excel plotting program developed by Dawson (2014). In all three interactions (see Figs. 1–3), the relationship between job insecurity and performance demonstrated the expected U-shaped form but only for those individuals with low PsyCap. On the other hand, high PsyCap individuals maintained high performance regardless of their job insecurity. These effects were largely replicated for our T3 measures of performance. Specifically, we observed a quadratic relationship
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
6
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression results for OCB-I. Variable
OCB-I T2 B
Step 1 JI PsyCap Step 2 JI2 JI PsyCap Step 3 JI2 PsyCap
OCB-I T3 SE
t
B
SE
t
0.036 0.072 0.483 0.074 ** 2 DF(2, 217) = 23.756 DR = 0.180
0.500 6.531**
0.029 0.076 0.498 0.077 ** 2 DF(2, 179) = 23.529 DR = 0.208
0.389 6.443**
0.103 0.091 0.096 0.066 DF(2, 215) = 2.070 DR2 = 0.016
1.134 1.460
0.059 0.098 0.033 0.069 DF(2, 177) = 0.360 DR2 = 0.003
0.602 0.481
0.187 0.096 DF(1, 214) = 3.773y DR2 = 0.014
1.942y
0.151 0.100 DF(1, 176) = 2.252 DR2 = 0.010
1.501
Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term. * p < 0.05. y p < 0.06. ** p < 0.01.
7
7
6
High PsyCap
5
OCB-I Time 2
In Role Behaviors Time 2
Low PsyCap
6
4 3
5 4 3 2
2
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
1 Low Insecurity
High Insecurity
Fig. 1. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T2 in-role behaviors.
OCB-O Time 2
6 5 4
Fig. 3. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T2 OCB-I.
4. Discussion
3
1 Low Insecurity
High Insecurity
term and PsyCap on T3 IRB (b = 0.125, SE = 0.044, p = 0.005), a marginal effect on OCB-O (b = 0.151, SE = 0.084, p = 0.072), and a non-significant effect on OCB-I (b = 0.151, SE = 0.100, p = 0.135). Despite the fewer significant effects with the T3 measures, this seems to be due to a loss of sample size from T2 to T3 rather than a diminishing effect, since the direction and size of the regression coefficients was very similar across the two timepoints (Figs. 4 and 5).
7
2
1 Low Insecurity
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
High Insecurity
Fig. 2. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T2 OCB-O.
between affective job insecurity and T3 IRB (b = 0.180, SE = 0.043, p < 0.001) and OCB-O (b = 0.211, SE = 0.082, p = 0.011), but not OCB-I (b = 0.059, SE = 0.098, p = 0.548). Furthermore, we found a significant interaction effect between the quadratic job insecurity
The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the earlier findings by Selenko et al. (2013) by investigating the U-shaped relationship with additional measures of extra-role performance (i.e. OCB-O and OCB-I) as well as testing the moderating effect of PsyCap. As expected and comporting with Selenko et al.’s (2013) findings, there was a U-shaped relationship between job insecurity and in-role performance. This same relationship was also found for the measures of extra-role performance. Thus, employees with moderate levels of job insecurity reported lower levels of in-role and extra-role performance compared to employees with very low levels of insecurity or extremely high levels of insecurity. Interestingly, employees with high PsyCap performed at high levels regardless of their perceived level of job insecurity. Below we discuss these findings in greater detail.
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
7
ers who perceive that their employment is at risk may not feel a high level of obligation toward the organization, compared to employees who perceive their job to be secure, and thus, may exhibit a lower level of performance. Social exchange theory would explain the left-hand section of the U-shaped plots (i.e., negative relationship) between job insecurity and our measures of performance. Yet, our data also indicate that at very high levels of insecurity, OCBs and in-role task performance begin to increase (i.e., the right-hand section showing a slightly positive relationship between job insecurity and performance). This comports with Selenko et al.’s (2013) argument that employees with very high levels of job insecurity who have decided to remain with their organization may in fact be less susceptible to the otherwise observed negative effects of job insecurity.
In Role Behaviors Time 3
6 5 4 3 2
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
1 Low Insecurity
High Insecurity
Fig. 4. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T3 in-role behaviors.
7
OCB-O Time 3
6 5 4 3 2
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
1 Low Insecurity
7
High Insecurity
Fig. 5. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T3 OCB-O.
4.1. Explaining the curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance While in-role job performance reflects proficiency with the required elements of one’s job (and is clearly related to overall organizational performance), extra-role behaviors such as OCBs directed toward individuals or the organization itself are also important valued behaviors. Although such discretionary acts may not be directly recognized by the reward system, metaanalyses indicate that employee engagement in OCBs is associated with improved organizational performance (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Thus, it is important to understand psychosocial factors operating within organizations that can adversely affect employee performance, both in terms of in-role and extra-role behaviors. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), the norm of reciprocity stimulates a feeling of obligation toward others. Organizations that treat their employees in a positive fashion may in turn see their employees respond in the same positive manner toward the institution (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Turnley et al., 2003). By contrast, employees may decrease their level of performance when the organization violates this exchange relationship (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; Robinson and Morrison, 1995). Social exchange theory might then predict a negative relationship between job insecurity and performance. Work-
4.2. Psychological capital as a valuable psychosocial resource As noted earlier, fundamental changes in the psychosocial work environment are occurring due to systemic factors such as economic crisis, market recessions, privatization and technological innovation (Cascio, 1993; Coile and Levine, 2011; Datta et al., 2010; Gandolfi, 2010). In order to achieve greater efficiency, productivity and competitiveness, organizations increasingly utilize strategies such as mergers and workforce reductions, which have generated a pervasive sense of job insecurity among workers today (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984). Thus, it is imperative for scholars and organizations to identify mechanisms of countering the frequently seen adverse effects of such job insecurity. As a result, perhaps the larger contribution of the current study is the support found for the hypothesized moderating effect of PsyCap on the curvilinear longitudinal relationships between job insecurity and the three measures of job performance. Specifically, our results suggest that the aforementioned U-shaped relationship might only be found for individuals with low levels of PsyCap, whereas high PsyCap employees appear to maintain positive performance levels with respect to in-role and extra-role behaviors regardless of their perceived job insecurity. Notably, these results were largely replicated at one month and two months after the initial measurement of job insecurity. These findings significantly contribute to the extant organizational literature by demonstrating that enhancing employee levels of positive psychological resources may be used as a mechanism to buffer the negative consequences of job insecurity. Not only do individuals with higher levels of PsyCap appear to fare better in the face of job insecurity, prior research has found that PsyCap is a developable resource (Luthans et al., 2006, 2008). Thus, even employees who may not initially have high levels of PsyCap can be trained to develop these capacities. For example, Luthans et al. (2006) found that a trainer-facilitated face-to-face PsyCap intervention significantly increased participant levels of PsyCap. Similarly effective results were found with a short trainer-facilitated intervention conducted online (Luthans et al., 2008). Although trainer-facilitated interventions can be costly, logistically difficult, and require an expert trainer, Gailey (2016) recently found that even a self-guided online PsyCap intervention resulted in significant improvements in PsyCap one-week posttraining compared to a control group of participants who were exposed to a decision making intervention. 4.3. Limitations and future directions While our current findings suggest that PsyCap is a moderator of the relationship between job insecurity and performance, future research should implement an intervention (such as the ones described above) to determine whether such training might assist
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
8
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
employees and their organizations with coping with the increasingly pervasive workplace stressor of job insecurity while maintaining high levels of workplace performance. Future research should also be conducted to test the boundary conditions of the current results. For example, although the current study indicates a curvilinear relationship between job insecurity and in-role and extra-role measures of performance, it would be useful to generalize this to other important measures of performance, namely workplace safety behavior and subsequent injuries and accidents. While a strength of the current study was its utilization of longitudinal data to explore our primary hypotheses, all of our measures of performance were nonetheless self-report in nature. Thus, it would be helpful to complement the current findings with objective measures of performance that could be obtained from supervisors or archival organizational records (e.g., injury data). Finally, although our results suggest the promise of PsyCap as a valuable employee resource, future research should consider other developable positive psychological resources that might also attenuate the negative effects of job insecurity. These might include constructs such as grit (Duckworth and Quinn, 2009), gratitude (Emmons and McCullough, 2003), or hardiness (Parkes, 1994; Parkes and Rendell, 1988).
5. Conclusion Job insecurity is a pervasive psychosocial stressor in today’s workplace with documented negative effects on employee health and well-being. This study demonstrated that there are curvilinear longitudinal relationships between job insecurity and three measures of job performance: in-role task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward others in the workplace, and OCBs directed to the organization itself. Moreover, our findings indicate that a set of developable psychological resources, known as PsyCap, can attenuate those curvilinear effects such that high levels of performance are observed regardless of employee perceptions of job insecurity. Acknowledgements This research was partially funded by an Edward R. Meyer Distinguished Professorship awarded to the first author by Washington State University. References Allison, P., 2009. Missing data. In: Milsap, R.E., Maydeu-Olivares, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methods on Psychology. Sage Publications, London, UK, pp. 73–90. Allison, P., 2014, June 13. Listwise deletion: It’s NOT evil. Retrieved from:. Armstrong-Stassen, M., Schlosser, F., 2008. Taking a positive approach to organizational downsizing. Can. J. Admin. Sci. 25, 93–106. Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S., Luthans, F., 2008. Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44 (1), 48–70. Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Jensen, S.M., 2009. Psychological capital: a positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resour. Manage. 48 (5), 677–693. Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura, A., 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman, New York. Blau, P., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York, NY. Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., Miller, C.J., Fulford, D., 2009. Optimism. In: Lopez, S.J., Snyder, C.R. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 303–311. Cascio, W., 1993. Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Acad. Manage. Execut. 7, 95–104. Cheng, G.H.L., Chan, D.K.S., 2008. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A metaanalytic review. Appl. Psychol. 57 (2), 272–303.
Cheng, T., Huang, G.H., Lee, C., Ren, X., 2012. Longitudinal effects of job insecurity on employee outcomes: The moderating role of emotional intelligence and the leader-member exchange. Asia Pacific J. Manage. 29 (3), 709–728. Coile, C.C., Levine, P.B., 2011. The market crash and mass layoffs: How the current economic crisis may affect retirement. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 11 (1). Coyle-Shapiro, J.A., 2002. A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23 (8), 927–946. Datta, D.K., Guthrie, J.P., Basuil, D., Pandey, A., 2010. Causes and effects of employee downsizing: A review and synthesis. J. Manage. 36, 281–348. Dawson, J.F., 2014. Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. J. Bus. Psychol. 29, 1–19. De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., 2006. The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioral reports: A psychological contract perspective. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79 (3), 395–409. Duckworth, A.L., Quinn, P.D., 2009. Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). J. Pers. Assess. 91, 166–174. Emmons, R.A., McCullough, M.E., 2003. Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 377–389. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.-G., 2009. Statistical power analyses using G⁄Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160. Gailey, N.J., 2016. Creation and Validation of a Self-Guided Positive Psychological Capital Intervention Training Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Gandolfi, F., 2010. New developments in reduction-in-force. J. Manage. Res. 10 (1), 3–14. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., Cooper, C., 2008. A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Pers. Psychol. 61 (2), 227–271. Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25 (2), 161–178. Greenhalgh, L., Rosenblatt, Z., 1984. Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 9 (3), 438–448. Hanisch, K.A., 1992. The job descriptive index revisited: questions about the question mark. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 (3), 377–382. Hirsch, P.M., De Soucey, M., 2006. Organizational restructuring and its consequences: Rhetorical and structural. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 32, 171–189. Hobfoll, S.E., 1989. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 44 (3), 513. Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J., 2002. Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 27, 61–372. Kalleberg, A.L., 2013. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY. Katz, D., 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 9, 131– 133. Lau, B., Knardahl, S., 2008. Perceived job insecurity, job predictability, personality, and health. J. Occup. Environ. Med./Am. Coll. Occup. Environ. Med. 50 (2), 172– 181. Luthans, F., 2002. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 695–706. Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M., Combs, G.M., 2006. Psychological capital development: Toward a micro intervention. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 387– 393. Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., Norman, S.M., 2007. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 60, 541–572. Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Patera, J.L., 2008. Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Acad. Manage. Learn. Educ. 7 (2), 209–221. Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Peterson, S.J., 2010. The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resour. Dev. Quart. 21 (1), 41–67. Luthans, B.C., Luthans, K.W., Avey, J.B., 2014. Building the leaders of tomorrow: the development of academic psychological capital. J. Leadership Organ. Stud. 21 (2), 191–199. Masten, A.S., 2001. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am. Psychol. 56, 227–239. Masten, A.S., Cutuli, J.J., Herbers, J.E., Reed, M.-G.J., 2009. Resilience in development. In: Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Millard, M.L., 2011. Psychological net worth: finding the balance between psychological capital and psychological debt. Theses, Dissertations, & Student Scholarship: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department. Paper 29. Retrieved from:. Näswall, K., Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., 2005. The moderating role of personality characteristics on the relationship between job insecurity and strain. Work Stress 19 (1), 37–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370500057850. Oglensky, M.I., 2014. A quantitative study of the correlational impact of psychological capital on job search intensity as measured by job search behaviors. (Order No. AAI3588173, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. Retrieved from: . (1539478148; 201499111-125).
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Orpen, C., 1994. The effects of self-esteem and personal control on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being. Soc. Behav. Personal.: Int. J. 22 (1), 53–55. Parkes, K.R., 1994. Personality and coping as moderators of work stress process: Models, methods and measures. Work Stress 8 (2), 110–129. Parkes, K.R., Rendell, D., 1988. The hardy personality and its relationship to extraversion and neuroticism. Person Ind. Diff. 9 (4), 785–790. Peterson, S.J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., Zhang, Z., 2011. Psychological capital and employee performance: a latent growth modeling approach. Pers. Psychol. 64, 427–450. Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., Blume, B.D., 2009. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 122–141. Probst, T.M., 2002. Layoffs and tradeoffs: Production, quality, and safety demands under the threat of job loss. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7, 211–220. Probst, T.M., 2003. Development and validation of the job security index and the job security satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 76, 451–467. Probst, T.M., Jiang, L., 2016. Mitigating physiological responses to layoff threat: an experimental test of the efficacy of two coping interventions. Special issue on Occupational Stress, Human Health and Wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13, 338. Probst, T.M., Stewart, S.M., Gruys, M.L., Tierney, B.W., 2007. Productivity, counter productivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80, 479–497. Richter, A., Näswall, K., De Cuyper, N., Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Hellgren, J., 2013. Coping with job insecurity: Exploring effects on perceived health and organizational attitudes. Career Dev. Int. 18 (5), 484–502.
9
Robinson, S.L., Morrison, E., 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 16 (3), 289–298. Scheier, M.F., Weintraub, J.K., Carver, C.S., 1986. Coping with stress: divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1257–1264. Selenko, E., Mäkikangas, A., Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., 2013. How does job insecurity relate to self-reported job performance? Analysing curvilinear associations in a longitudinal sample. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86 (4), 522–542. Seligman, M.E.P., 1998. Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. Pocket Books, New York. Snyder, C.R., 2000. The past and possible futures of hope. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19, 11–28. Snyder, C.R., Irving, L., Anderson, J.R., 1991. Hope and health: measuring the will and the ways. In: Snyder, C.R., Forsyth, D.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology: The Health Perspective. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Naswall, K., 2002. No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7 (3), 242–264. Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Naswall, K., Hellgren, J., 2010. European perspectives on job insecurity: Editorial introduction. Econ. Ind. Democracy 31, 175–178. Tugade, M.M., Fredrickson, B.L., 2004. Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86 (2), 320–333. Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., Bloodgood, J.M., 2003. The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Manage. 29 (2), 187–206. Virtanen, M., Nyberg, S.T., Batty, G.D., Jokela, M., Heikkilä, K., Fransson, E.I., Alfredsson, L., Bjorner, J.B., Borritz, M., Burr, H., Casini, A., 2013. Perceived job insecurity as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 347. Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manage. 17 (3), 601–617.
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci
Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance Tahira M. Probst a,⇑, Nicholas J. Gailey a, Lixin Jiang b, Sergio López Bohle c a
Washington State University Vancouver, United States University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, United States c Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Chile b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 2 September 2016 Received in revised form 31 January 2017 Accepted 5 February 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Job insecurity Performance Organizational citizenship behaviors Psychological capital
a b s t r a c t Job insecurity is a psychosocial risk that can present significant problems for organizational performance and employees’ health and well-being. The purpose of the current research was to investigate the curvilinear relationship between employee job insecurity and three types of job performance: in-role task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the organization (OCB-O), and organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (OCB-I). Additionally, we tested whether a higher order construct, Psychological Capital, consisting of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism would moderate the relationships between job insecurity and performance. Using a 3-wave design, anonymous survey data were collected online from a sample of 300 employees via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Time 1 job insecurity was curvilinearly related to Time 2 and Time 3 measures of job performance. In addition, these curvilinear relationships were largely attenuated among employees with higher levels of PsyCap. These results are discussed in light of rising job insecurity and the need for psychosocial interventions to attenuate its adverse effects. Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction Organizations today face rapidly changing workforce demographics, increasing globalization, and shifting governmental policies regarding work and labor relations. These forces, coupled with intermittent financial crises such as the Great Recession of 2007– 2009 and its ensuing global economic instability, have led organizations to increasingly engage in restructuring, acquisitions, mergers, and downsizing to remain competitive (Hirsch and De Soucey, 2006). Kalleberg (2013) argued that together these factors have led to fundamental shifts in the nature of work characterized by greater income inequality and less secure employment systems compared to those faced by earlier generations of workers. Not surprisingly, surveys suggest that increasingly high levels of job insecurity among today’s workers are the result – notably, worries about work and income rank among the top concerns of respondents (e.g., American Psychological Association surveys of Stress in America, 2013, 2015). Another recent U.S. survey of financial well-being (PwC’s Employee Financial Wellness Survey, 2016) found that being laid off from work was the top concern of 20% of respondents. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.M. Probst).
Job insecurity (i.e., subjective perceptions that one’s job is unstable or at risk, and the associated fears and anxiety that often accompany those perceptions) is a psychosocial risk that can present significant problems for organizations and their employees’ health and well-being. Meta-analyses of the consequences of job insecurity (Sverke et al., 2002; Cheng and Chan, 2008) have found that job insecurity is significantly negatively correlated with job satisfaction (rc = 0.41), job involvement (rc = 0.37), organizational commitment (rc = 0.41), trust (rc = 0.50), and physical (rc = 0.16) and mental health (rc = 0.24), and positively associated with turnover intentions (rc = 0.28). A more recent metaanalysis (Virtanen et al., 2013) found that experiencing high job insecurity increased the odds of developing heart disease by 32% compared to employees with secure position. Despite the clear evidence that job insecurity is a potent stressor facing many of today’s employees, unfortunately little research has examined potential developable personality characteristics that might resist these negative workplace outcomes. Rather, much research at the individual-level has focused on variables such as coping styles (Probst and Jiang, 2016; Richter et al., 2013) and locus of control (Orpen, 1994; Näswall et al., 2005), or more stable personality traits, such as emotional intelligence (Cheng et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2002). Therefore, in line with this Special Issue focus on ways to develop a healthier psychosocial work environ-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002 0925-7535/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
2
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
ment, the purpose of our study was to test whether Psychological Capital (PsyCap), a malleable set of psychological resources, has the potential to significantly enhance successful coping with job insecurity. Below we begin by discussing the link between job insecurity and in-role and extra-role aspects of job performance (the primary dependent variables of interest in this study). We next discuss in greater detail the construct of PsyCap and develop the theoretical foundation for its hypothesized buffering effect on the relationship between job insecurity and performance.
1.1. Job insecurity and performance As noted earlier, research has consistently linked job insecurity to a variety of adverse negative work-related attitudes, behaviors, and employee health (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002). However, less attention has been paid to the relationship between job insecurity and job performance (Sverke et al., 2010). While some studies have indicated a negative relationship between job insecurity and performance (Cheng and Chan, 2008; Gilboa et al., 2008), others have found no relationship or even a positive relationship (Probst, 2002; Probst et al., 2007; Sverke et al., 2002). Researchers have posited that these mixed findings are perhaps due to methodological artifacts, including a lack of consistency in how performance has been operationalized (Sverke et al., 2002; Probst et al., 2007). Moreover, whereas effects of job insecurity on job attitudes and satisfaction tend to occur relatively quickly, adverse effects on other outcomes such as job performance and organizational citizenship may accumulate over the long-term. Thus, longitudinal data collection is needed to more fully explore these relationships. Researchers have also suggested that inconsistent performance findings might instead be the result of non-linearity in the relationship between job insecurity and performance (Selenko et al., 2013). Specifically, Selenko and colleagues argue that job insecurity creates strain and reduced vigor and motivation among employees. Thus, with increasing levels of job insecurity one can expect to see performance decrements. However, they also argue that individuals with extremely high levels of job insecurity may be more resilient and persistent in the face of such insecurity, as evidenced by their decision to remain with the organization despite their high levels of job insecurity. As noted earlier, meta-analyses have found that high levels of insecurity are associated with higher turnover intentions (Cheng and Chan, 2008). Thus, individuals who elect to remain with an organization despite their high job insecurity may be more adaptive and persistent in the face of this stressor. In support of this, in a longitudinal study of Finnish university employees, Selenko et al. (2013) found that the relationship between job insecurity and performance (operationalized as selfrated task proficiency) was U-shaped in nature. In other words, self-assessments of task proficiency decreased under moderate levels of job insecurity but then increased again under high levels of job insecurity. In the current study, we sought to extend Selenko et al.’s research by considering multiple forms of job performance, including in-role and extra-role aspects of job performance. Akin to Selenko et al.’s (2013) focus on task proficiency, in-role job behaviors include completion of tasks and responsibilities that are formal requirements of one’s job (Williams and Anderson, 1991). On the other hand, extra-role behaviors (Katz, 1964) are discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) that, while not explicitly or formally recognized by the reward system of an organization, nonetheless contribute to the overall effectiveness of an organization (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Such discretionary behaviors can be directed at other individuals within the company (OCB-I; e.g., helping others with their work tasks) or
toward the organization itself (OCB-O; e.g., providing advance notice prior to an absence). Thus, we expect to replicate and extend Selenko et al.’s work by hypothesizing that job insecurity will have a U-shaped relationship with in-role and extra-role job performance, such that low and high levels of job insecurity will be associated with higher levels of performance, whereas moderate levels of job insecurity will be associated with lower levels of performance. Specifically, we predict that: Hypothesis 1. Job insecurity will have a U-shaped relationship with self-reported in-role behaviors (H1a), organizational citizenship behaviors directed to the organization (H1b), and organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals (H1c).
1.2. Psychological capital: A developable resource for employees As noted above, the empirical results found by Selenko et al. (2013) suggest that the relationship between job insecurity and performance might be curvilinear. However, an alternative explanation is that moderator variables could be influencing the association of job insecurity with job performance (or, indeed, both curvilinear and interaction effects could be co-occurring). Although Selenko and colleagues tested the moderating effects of optimism and supervisor support, they did not find support for either of these moderating effects. Yet, these null results do not rule out the effect of other moderating variables. According to Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), employees strive to obtain, build and protect a variety of resources. Moreover, stress occurs when such resources are lost, threatened with loss, or when individuals fail to gain expected resources. These resources can take on many different forms, including physical possessions (e.g., a car), energies (e.g., time), conditions (e.g., friends and social support), as well as personal characteristics (e.g., personality). Based on COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), one would expect that individuals who have access to and can draw upon a deeper well of resources would be better cope with the stress and uncertainty of job insecurity. Thus, these resources might serve as a moderating variable when examining the relationship between job insecurity and job performance. In the current study, we examined the influence of PsyCap as one such resource. PsyCap is a multifaceted construct that consists of four positive personality strengths: self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism (Luthans et al., 2010); moreover, the psychological capacity generated by the interaction of these four constructs is argued to be synergistically greater than would be predicted by each construct alone (Luthans et al., 2007) and forms a higher order construct known as psychological capital (see Luthans et al., 2007, for psychometric evidence of the posited higher order factor structure). We focused on this construct in particular because researchers have argued that it is malleable trait; moreover, research has shown that training interventions can increase employee levels of PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2014, 2006, 2010, 2008). Additionally, once developed, PsyCap resources tend to persist over time (Peterson et al., 2011). Compared to other personality constructs (e.g., conscientiousness), this balance between stability and potential for further development suggests that a focus on PsyCap might offer more promise as potential mechanism for intervention to better assist individuals with coping with job insecurity. PsyCap has important implications for organizations because it directly relates to the way in which employees act and think within their organization. This, in turn, impacts the effectiveness of employees within their roles and how successful they can contribute to their organization. Avey et al. (2008) proposed that Psy-
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Cap increases positive emotions which then affects employee attitudes and behaviors. For example, employees who possess high levels of PsyCap are able to experience more positive emotions within their organization, even when they are faced with stressful situations (e.g. job insecurity). The positive emotions that these employees possess can assist them in navigating stressful circumstances with their organization. This is accomplished through positive expectations for achieving their goals (optimism) and successful coping strategies where they experience positive feeling of confidence (efficacy). These positive emotions are then used to increase their ability to create multiple pathways to deal with situations (hope) and if workplace adversity arises then they will have the ability to bounce back and use an alternative path (resilience; Avey et al., 2008). 1.3. Psychological capital as a moderator of the job insecurityperformance link The statistics noted earlier indicate that job insecurity is prevalent in today’s workplace. Given that individuals with high PsyCap tend to form positive appraisals of past, present, and future events, we explore the buffering effect of PsyCap on the U-shaped relationship between job insecurity and in-role and extra-role behaviors. Preliminary research on PsyCap appears to provide some support. For example, the finding that individuals with higher PsyCap reported fewer symptoms of job stress (Avey et al., 2009) supports the contention that PsyCap partially operates by influencing the primary appraisal of potential stressors. PsyCap also appears to predict adaptive behaviors in the face of stress such as increased preparatory and active job search behaviors following job loss (Cheng et al., 2012; Oglensky, 2014). In line with COR theory’s focus on the importance of resources, Millard (2011) proposed that the psychological resources provided by PsyCap might offset socalled ‘‘psychological debt” (including job insecurity and job stress) resulting in a certain level of psychological net worth. Because very little research to date has been focused on the higher-order construct of PsyCap in relation to job insecurity specifically, we consider below the empirical evidence for each of these constructs separately. Hope has been defined as ‘‘a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 287), including both willpower (i.e. determination to achieve one’s goals) and ‘‘waypower” (i.e., planned pathways to meet one’s goals). Because those with hope tend to proactively deal with obstacles and engage in contingency planning, hope promotes goal achievement (Snyder, 2000). Consequently, hope might be an effective aid to coping with the threat and/or experience of losing one’s job in that high-hope employees tend to proactively make contingency plans for the potential job loss. Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s ability to successfully ‘‘organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). As with other PsyCap variables, Bandura (1997) proposes that self-efficacy can be developed via mastery experiences, vicarious learning/modeling, social persuasion, and physiological and psychological arousal. COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) posits self-efficacy as an important personal resource in coping with stress by influencing how people react when faced with potential resource loss. Specifically, high self-efficacy may buffer the negative effect of job insecurity on performance, since individuals high in self-efficacy may perceive that they have the capacity to successfully cope with the potential challenges of job loss. Indeed, Lau and Knardahl (2008) found that job insecurity (measured as confidence in having a good job in 2 years) predicted one’s mental distress and that this effect was strongest
3
among participants who reported low self-efficacy. However, they also acknowledged that causality could run in the opposite direction, such that among low self-efficacy individuals, poor mental health might be associated with less confidence in obtaining a job in the future. Resilience is the positive psychological capacity to ‘‘rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure or even positive events, progress, and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002a, p. 702). Resilience in the face of economic stress would primarily be expected to operate as a reactive aid to coping, rather than influencing the primary appraisal of the stressor itself. However, like the other sub-facets of PsyCap, resilience has been demonstrated to be developable (Masten, 2001; Masten et al., 2009) and therefore, would be a potential target for intervention. Resilience may allow employees to better deal with the threats of job insecurity as resilient employees are likely to be open to new experiences, flexible in the face of changing demands, and have demonstrated more emotional stability when faced with adversity (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). Optimism consists of a generalized expectation of positive outcomes (Carver et al., 2009) coupled with an attributional style (Seligman, 1998) whereby individuals view adversity as an externally-driven, challenging, and temporary setback. Because optimists tend to view obstacles to goal accomplishment as resolvable and use differential avoidance coping strategies (Scheier et al., 1986), optimism may help attenuate the impact of stress. For example, Scheier et al. (1986) found that optimists are more likely to use problem-focused coping, seek social support, and emphasize positive aspects of the stressful situation, whereas pessimists are more likely to use avoidance coping strategies such as denial and distancing, emphasize one’s stressful feelings, and disengage from goal attainment. Like the other PsyCap constructs, one can learn and develop optimism through training (Seligman, 1998). Evidence suggests that optimism may operate as a moderator of reactions to economic stress. During and following a major organizational downsizing, Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser (2008) conducted a longitudinal study among managers and found that optimism measured 18 months prior to the downsizing was predictive of higher managerial cognitions, attitudes, job performance, and self-reported coping effectiveness 12 months following the downsizing. Based on COR theory and the empirical evidence reviewed above, we propose that psychological capital will serve as a valuable resource allowing employees to more effectively cope with the stressor of job insecurity. Thus, we predict that: Hypothesis 2. Psychological capital will moderate the quadratic relationship between job insecurity and self-reported in-role behaviors (H2a), OCB-Os (H2b), and OCB-Is (H2c).
2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure In order to test the proposed hypotheses, an online survey was administered via Qualtrics at three different time-points (baseline, one-month, and two-months) to workers throughout the U.S. using the online service, Amazon Mechanical Turk. A power analysis conducted using G⁄Power (Faul et al., 2009) identified a minimum sample of 264 to have 80% power (with an a = 0.05) to detect a small effect size of 3% variance explained due to the hypothesized three-way interaction between the polynomial term and job insecurity. Therefore, we collected anonymous T1 survey data from 300 participants; of those, 226 participants completed the T2 survey and 184 completed all three waves. Ten participants failed 3 of
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
4
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
3 attention checks embedded within the survey (e.g., ‘‘Select ‘agree’ if you are reading this question”); therefore, their data were discarded from further analysis. The sample was predominantly male (54%). The average age of respondents was 37.3 years, with a range from 19 to 67. The vast majority (94%) held a permanent position within their organization. Over half (51.1%) had been with their current employer for 5 or more years (14.3% indicated one year or less). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Job insecurity Job insecurity was measured using the 9-item Job Security Satisfaction scale (Probst, 2003), a measure of affective job insecurity (Cronbach’s a = 0.94). Respondents indicated on a 3-point scale (yes, ?, no) the extent to which a series of phrases describes their affective responses to their perceived level of job security. Sample phrases include ‘‘never been more secure” (reverse coded), ‘‘upsetting how little job security I have,” and ‘‘nerve-wracking.” Using a scoring system recommended by Hanisch (1992), item responses were scored as follows. Agreement with negatively worded items (i.e., ‘‘nerve-wracking”) was scored 3. Agreement with positively worded items (i.e., ‘‘never been more secure”) was scored 0. Finally, ‘‘?” responses were scored 2, based on prior analyses suggesting that endorsement of the ‘‘?” anchor is psychometrically closer to a negative response than a positive one. Thus, responses were coded such that higher scores on the scale from 0 to 3 indicate greater job insecurity. 2.2.2. Psychological capital Psychological capital was measured using the 24-item scale developed by Luthans et al. (2007) (Cronbach’s a = 0.95). Each of the four lower-order constructs was measured by 6 items that participants responded to using a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Sample items include: ‘‘There are lots of ways around any problem” (hope); ‘‘I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution” (efficacy); ‘‘When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on” (resilience; reverse coded); and, ‘‘I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job” (optimism). Responses were coded such that higher numbers reflect higher levels of PsyCap and averaged to create a single aggregate PsyCap score. 2.2.3. Job performance To assess performance, we used three different measures developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). In-role behaviors (IRB) were measured using seven items (Cronbach’s a = 0.84) using a Likert response scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = always. A sample item is: ‘‘I met formal performance requirements of my job.” OCB’s were measured using seven items (a = 0.90) targeting the individual (e.g., ‘‘Helps others who have been absent”) and six items (a = 0.78) targeting the organization (e.g., ‘‘Attendance at work is above the norm”). All OCB items used a response scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree and were coded such that higher numbers reflect better performance. 3. Results 3.1. Missing data analysis and tests of regression assumptions At Time 1, there was very little missing data (.003% for the PsyCap measure and 1% for the job insecurity measure). At Time 2 and Time 3, due to subject attrition, we had 23% and 37% missing data respectively. Encouragingly, analyses indicated that individuals who were missing at Time 2 were not significantly different from
non-missing participants on either independent variable of interest (JI or PsyCap) measured at Time 1 as determined by a multivariate test, F(2, 284) = 0.194, p = 0.824. Similarly, individuals who were missing at Time 3 were not significantly different on either independent variable of interest measured at T1, F(2, 284) = 0.656, p = 0.520. Additional exploratory chi-square analyses and multivariate F-tests indicated missing vs. non-missing participants at Time 2 and Time 3 did not differ based on gender, race, permanent/temporary status, managerial status, or years in their position. Finally, missing participants at Time 3 did not differ in their Time 2 levels of IRBs, OCB-Os or OCB-Is, F(3, 219) = 0.698, p = 0.554. Taken together, these analyses suggest the missing data were completely at random, in which case listwise deletion will not introduce meaningful bias (Allison, 2009, 2014). Therefore, we next proceeded to test the assumptions of our regression analysis concerning normality of residuals and homoscedasticity before continuing with the main analyses. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality were all significant (K-S statistics ranging from 0.082 to 0.105). Given that nonnormality of residuals can arise due to non-linearity, this supports our decision to explore curvilinear effects. More importantly, based on an inspection of the standardized residual plots, the variance in errors was equal across all values of the independent variables, suggesting support for the assumption of homoscedasticity. Finally, Durbin-Watson statistics ranged from 1.89 to 2.13, indicating support for the independence of errors assumption. 3.2. Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the study variables at the three time points. As can be seen, PsyCap (measured at T1) was consistently positively related to all of the performance measures at T2 and T3 with correlations ranging from 0.421 to 0.465. Moreover, employees with higher levels of PsyCap reported significantly lower affective job insecurity (r = 0.463, p < 0.001). Finally, job insecurity at T1 was significantly negatively correlated with in-role behaviors at T2 and T3 (r = 0.164, p = 0.015 and r = 0.148, p = 0.046, respectively) and OCB-Is (r = 0.136, p = 0.045 and r = -0.157, p = 0.035, respectively); however, there was no significant relationship with OCBOs. Of course, these zero-order correlations do not indicate whether a curvilinear relationship might be present. 3.3. Hypothesis tests We tested our hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. In order to facilitate the interpretation of the interaction effects, job insecurity and PsyCap were first standardized. Two analyses were conducted for each measure of performance, the first predicting job performance at T2 and another predicting performance at T3, while using baseline T1 measures for affective job insecurity and psychological capital. This provided a within-study opportunity to replicate our hypothesis tests at two different subsequent points in time, and to evaluate whether any observed effects persist over time. In order to control for Type I error, we first conducted a multivariate multiple regression analysis with the 6 dependent variables. The multivariate test provided preliminary support for our hypotheses. The main effect of the quadratic job insecurity term (i.e., JI2) was significant, F(6, 171) = 2.357, p = 0.033, partial g2 = 0.076, suggesting support for H1. The interaction between PsyCap and the quadratic term was also significant, F(6, 171) = 3.348, p = 0.004, partial g2 = 0.105, providing initial support for H2. Therefore, we proceeded with the individual hierarchical multiple regression analyses (see Tables 2–4). For each dependent variable, in step 1, we entered the main effects of job insecurity and
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
5
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Table 1 Descriptive statistics and scale intercorrelations. Variable
M
SD
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
0.80 4.62 4.53 4.54 5.44 5.49 5.81 5.86
0.98 0.77 0.53 0.48 1.06 1.04 0.95 0.90
287 289 223 184 223 184 223 184
0.46** 0.16* 0.15* 0.14* 0.16* 0.06 0.11
0.45** 0.42** 0.42** 0.45** 0.43** 0.47**
0.65** 0.25** 0.24** 0.60** 0.57**
0.26** 0.35** 0.51** 0.60**
0.77** 0.31** 0.40**
0.26** 0.41**
0.69**
Job Insecurity PsyCap IRB T2 IRB T3 OCB-I T2 OCB-I T3 OCB-O T2 OCB-O T3
Note: PsyCap = Psychological Capital; IRB = In-role behavior; OCB-I = Organizational citizenship behavior targeting individuals; OCB-O = Organizational citizenship behavior targeting the organization. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table 2 Hierarchical multiple regression results for in-role performance. Variable
IRB T2 B
Step 1 JI PsyCap Step 2 JI2 JI PsyCap Step 3 JI2 PsyCap
IRB T3 SE
t
B
SE
t
0.007 0.036 0.253 0.037 ** 2 DF(2, 217) = 27.476 DR = 0.202
0.187 6.904**
0.012 0.035 0.214 0.036 ** 2 DF(2, 179) = 20.090 DR = 0.183
0.346 5.949**
0.158 0.044 0.016 0.032 DF(2, 215) = 7.188** DR2 = 0.050
3.608** 0.502
0.180 0.043 0.016 0.030 DF(2, 177) = 9.547** DR2 = 0.080
4.177** 0.52
0.138 0.046 DF(1, 214) = 9.070** DR2 = 0.030
3.012**
0.125 0.044 DF(1, 176) = 8.240** DR2 = 0.033
2.870**
Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression results for OCB-O. Variable
OCB-O T2 B
Step 1 JI PsyCap Step 2 JI2 JI PsyCap Step 3 JI2 PsyCap
OCB-O T3 SE
t
B
SE
t
0.125 0.063 0.476 0.065 ** 2 DF(2, 217) = 27.280 DR = 0.201
1.980* 7.327**
0.082 0.065 0.462 0.066 ** 2 DF(2, 179) = 25.759 DR = 0.223
1.270 6.990**
0.218 0.078 0.101 0.056 DF(2, 215) = 6.601** DR2 = 0.046
2.787** 1.796y
0.211 0.082 0.046 0.058 DF(2, 177) = 4.154* DR2 = 0.035
2.582* 0.800
0.263 0.082 DF(1, 214) = 10.425** DR2 = 0.035
3.229**
0.151 0.084 DF(1, 176) = 3.276y DR2 = 0.014
1.810y
Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term. y p < 0.10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
PsyCap. Next, in step 2, we entered the polynomial quadratic term for job insecurity and the lower order interaction between job insecurity and PsyCap. Finally, in step 3, we entered the three way interaction (i.e., the interaction between the quadratic job insecurity term and PsyCap). In support of our hypotheses, we observed a quadratic relationship between affective job insecurity and T2 IRB (b = 0.158, SE = 0.044, p < 0.001), and OCB-O (b = 0.218, SE = 0.078, p = 0.006), but not OCB-I (b = 0.103, SE = 0.091, p = 0.258). Furthermore, we found a significant interaction effect between the quadratic job insecurity term and PsyCap on T2 IRB (b = -0.138, SE = 0.046,
p = 0.003), OCB-O (b = 0.263, SE = 0.082, p = 0.001), and a marginal effect on OCB-I (b = 0.187, SE = 0.096, p = 0.053). In order to evaluate the form of the interactions, we used the Excel plotting program developed by Dawson (2014). In all three interactions (see Figs. 1–3), the relationship between job insecurity and performance demonstrated the expected U-shaped form but only for those individuals with low PsyCap. On the other hand, high PsyCap individuals maintained high performance regardless of their job insecurity. These effects were largely replicated for our T3 measures of performance. Specifically, we observed a quadratic relationship
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
6
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression results for OCB-I. Variable
OCB-I T2 B
Step 1 JI PsyCap Step 2 JI2 JI PsyCap Step 3 JI2 PsyCap
OCB-I T3 SE
t
B
SE
t
0.036 0.072 0.483 0.074 ** 2 DF(2, 217) = 23.756 DR = 0.180
0.500 6.531**
0.029 0.076 0.498 0.077 ** 2 DF(2, 179) = 23.529 DR = 0.208
0.389 6.443**
0.103 0.091 0.096 0.066 DF(2, 215) = 2.070 DR2 = 0.016
1.134 1.460
0.059 0.098 0.033 0.069 DF(2, 177) = 0.360 DR2 = 0.003
0.602 0.481
0.187 0.096 DF(1, 214) = 3.773y DR2 = 0.014
1.942y
0.151 0.100 DF(1, 176) = 2.252 DR2 = 0.010
1.501
Notes: JI = Job Insecurity; PsyCap = Psychological Capital; JI2 = the quadratic JI term. * p < 0.05. y p < 0.06. ** p < 0.01.
7
7
6
High PsyCap
5
OCB-I Time 2
In Role Behaviors Time 2
Low PsyCap
6
4 3
5 4 3 2
2
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
1 Low Insecurity
High Insecurity
Fig. 1. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T2 in-role behaviors.
OCB-O Time 2
6 5 4
Fig. 3. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T2 OCB-I.
4. Discussion
3
1 Low Insecurity
High Insecurity
term and PsyCap on T3 IRB (b = 0.125, SE = 0.044, p = 0.005), a marginal effect on OCB-O (b = 0.151, SE = 0.084, p = 0.072), and a non-significant effect on OCB-I (b = 0.151, SE = 0.100, p = 0.135). Despite the fewer significant effects with the T3 measures, this seems to be due to a loss of sample size from T2 to T3 rather than a diminishing effect, since the direction and size of the regression coefficients was very similar across the two timepoints (Figs. 4 and 5).
7
2
1 Low Insecurity
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
High Insecurity
Fig. 2. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T2 OCB-O.
between affective job insecurity and T3 IRB (b = 0.180, SE = 0.043, p < 0.001) and OCB-O (b = 0.211, SE = 0.082, p = 0.011), but not OCB-I (b = 0.059, SE = 0.098, p = 0.548). Furthermore, we found a significant interaction effect between the quadratic job insecurity
The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the earlier findings by Selenko et al. (2013) by investigating the U-shaped relationship with additional measures of extra-role performance (i.e. OCB-O and OCB-I) as well as testing the moderating effect of PsyCap. As expected and comporting with Selenko et al.’s (2013) findings, there was a U-shaped relationship between job insecurity and in-role performance. This same relationship was also found for the measures of extra-role performance. Thus, employees with moderate levels of job insecurity reported lower levels of in-role and extra-role performance compared to employees with very low levels of insecurity or extremely high levels of insecurity. Interestingly, employees with high PsyCap performed at high levels regardless of their perceived level of job insecurity. Below we discuss these findings in greater detail.
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
7
ers who perceive that their employment is at risk may not feel a high level of obligation toward the organization, compared to employees who perceive their job to be secure, and thus, may exhibit a lower level of performance. Social exchange theory would explain the left-hand section of the U-shaped plots (i.e., negative relationship) between job insecurity and our measures of performance. Yet, our data also indicate that at very high levels of insecurity, OCBs and in-role task performance begin to increase (i.e., the right-hand section showing a slightly positive relationship between job insecurity and performance). This comports with Selenko et al.’s (2013) argument that employees with very high levels of job insecurity who have decided to remain with their organization may in fact be less susceptible to the otherwise observed negative effects of job insecurity.
In Role Behaviors Time 3
6 5 4 3 2
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
1 Low Insecurity
High Insecurity
Fig. 4. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T3 in-role behaviors.
7
OCB-O Time 3
6 5 4 3 2
Low PsyCap High PsyCap
1 Low Insecurity
7
High Insecurity
Fig. 5. Moderating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between T1 job insecurity and T3 OCB-O.
4.1. Explaining the curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance While in-role job performance reflects proficiency with the required elements of one’s job (and is clearly related to overall organizational performance), extra-role behaviors such as OCBs directed toward individuals or the organization itself are also important valued behaviors. Although such discretionary acts may not be directly recognized by the reward system, metaanalyses indicate that employee engagement in OCBs is associated with improved organizational performance (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Thus, it is important to understand psychosocial factors operating within organizations that can adversely affect employee performance, both in terms of in-role and extra-role behaviors. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), the norm of reciprocity stimulates a feeling of obligation toward others. Organizations that treat their employees in a positive fashion may in turn see their employees respond in the same positive manner toward the institution (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Turnley et al., 2003). By contrast, employees may decrease their level of performance when the organization violates this exchange relationship (De Cuyper and De Witte, 2006; Robinson and Morrison, 1995). Social exchange theory might then predict a negative relationship between job insecurity and performance. Work-
4.2. Psychological capital as a valuable psychosocial resource As noted earlier, fundamental changes in the psychosocial work environment are occurring due to systemic factors such as economic crisis, market recessions, privatization and technological innovation (Cascio, 1993; Coile and Levine, 2011; Datta et al., 2010; Gandolfi, 2010). In order to achieve greater efficiency, productivity and competitiveness, organizations increasingly utilize strategies such as mergers and workforce reductions, which have generated a pervasive sense of job insecurity among workers today (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984). Thus, it is imperative for scholars and organizations to identify mechanisms of countering the frequently seen adverse effects of such job insecurity. As a result, perhaps the larger contribution of the current study is the support found for the hypothesized moderating effect of PsyCap on the curvilinear longitudinal relationships between job insecurity and the three measures of job performance. Specifically, our results suggest that the aforementioned U-shaped relationship might only be found for individuals with low levels of PsyCap, whereas high PsyCap employees appear to maintain positive performance levels with respect to in-role and extra-role behaviors regardless of their perceived job insecurity. Notably, these results were largely replicated at one month and two months after the initial measurement of job insecurity. These findings significantly contribute to the extant organizational literature by demonstrating that enhancing employee levels of positive psychological resources may be used as a mechanism to buffer the negative consequences of job insecurity. Not only do individuals with higher levels of PsyCap appear to fare better in the face of job insecurity, prior research has found that PsyCap is a developable resource (Luthans et al., 2006, 2008). Thus, even employees who may not initially have high levels of PsyCap can be trained to develop these capacities. For example, Luthans et al. (2006) found that a trainer-facilitated face-to-face PsyCap intervention significantly increased participant levels of PsyCap. Similarly effective results were found with a short trainer-facilitated intervention conducted online (Luthans et al., 2008). Although trainer-facilitated interventions can be costly, logistically difficult, and require an expert trainer, Gailey (2016) recently found that even a self-guided online PsyCap intervention resulted in significant improvements in PsyCap one-week posttraining compared to a control group of participants who were exposed to a decision making intervention. 4.3. Limitations and future directions While our current findings suggest that PsyCap is a moderator of the relationship between job insecurity and performance, future research should implement an intervention (such as the ones described above) to determine whether such training might assist
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
8
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
employees and their organizations with coping with the increasingly pervasive workplace stressor of job insecurity while maintaining high levels of workplace performance. Future research should also be conducted to test the boundary conditions of the current results. For example, although the current study indicates a curvilinear relationship between job insecurity and in-role and extra-role measures of performance, it would be useful to generalize this to other important measures of performance, namely workplace safety behavior and subsequent injuries and accidents. While a strength of the current study was its utilization of longitudinal data to explore our primary hypotheses, all of our measures of performance were nonetheless self-report in nature. Thus, it would be helpful to complement the current findings with objective measures of performance that could be obtained from supervisors or archival organizational records (e.g., injury data). Finally, although our results suggest the promise of PsyCap as a valuable employee resource, future research should consider other developable positive psychological resources that might also attenuate the negative effects of job insecurity. These might include constructs such as grit (Duckworth and Quinn, 2009), gratitude (Emmons and McCullough, 2003), or hardiness (Parkes, 1994; Parkes and Rendell, 1988).
5. Conclusion Job insecurity is a pervasive psychosocial stressor in today’s workplace with documented negative effects on employee health and well-being. This study demonstrated that there are curvilinear longitudinal relationships between job insecurity and three measures of job performance: in-role task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward others in the workplace, and OCBs directed to the organization itself. Moreover, our findings indicate that a set of developable psychological resources, known as PsyCap, can attenuate those curvilinear effects such that high levels of performance are observed regardless of employee perceptions of job insecurity. Acknowledgements This research was partially funded by an Edward R. Meyer Distinguished Professorship awarded to the first author by Washington State University. References Allison, P., 2009. Missing data. In: Milsap, R.E., Maydeu-Olivares, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methods on Psychology. Sage Publications, London, UK, pp. 73–90. Allison, P., 2014, June 13. Listwise deletion: It’s NOT evil. Retrieved from:
Cheng, T., Huang, G.H., Lee, C., Ren, X., 2012. Longitudinal effects of job insecurity on employee outcomes: The moderating role of emotional intelligence and the leader-member exchange. Asia Pacific J. Manage. 29 (3), 709–728. Coile, C.C., Levine, P.B., 2011. The market crash and mass layoffs: How the current economic crisis may affect retirement. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 11 (1). Coyle-Shapiro, J.A., 2002. A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23 (8), 927–946. Datta, D.K., Guthrie, J.P., Basuil, D., Pandey, A., 2010. Causes and effects of employee downsizing: A review and synthesis. J. Manage. 36, 281–348. Dawson, J.F., 2014. Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. J. Bus. Psychol. 29, 1–19. De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., 2006. The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioral reports: A psychological contract perspective. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79 (3), 395–409. Duckworth, A.L., Quinn, P.D., 2009. Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). J. Pers. Assess. 91, 166–174. Emmons, R.A., McCullough, M.E., 2003. Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 377–389. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.-G., 2009. Statistical power analyses using G⁄Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160. Gailey, N.J., 2016. Creation and Validation of a Self-Guided Positive Psychological Capital Intervention Training Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Gandolfi, F., 2010. New developments in reduction-in-force. J. Manage. Res. 10 (1), 3–14. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., Cooper, C., 2008. A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Pers. Psychol. 61 (2), 227–271. Gouldner, A.W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25 (2), 161–178. Greenhalgh, L., Rosenblatt, Z., 1984. Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 9 (3), 438–448. Hanisch, K.A., 1992. The job descriptive index revisited: questions about the question mark. J. Appl. Psychol. 77 (3), 377–382. Hirsch, P.M., De Soucey, M., 2006. Organizational restructuring and its consequences: Rhetorical and structural. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 32, 171–189. Hobfoll, S.E., 1989. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 44 (3), 513. Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E.J., 2002. Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Acad. Manage. Rev. 27, 61–372. Kalleberg, A.L., 2013. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY. Katz, D., 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behav. Sci. 9, 131– 133. Lau, B., Knardahl, S., 2008. Perceived job insecurity, job predictability, personality, and health. J. Occup. Environ. Med./Am. Coll. Occup. Environ. Med. 50 (2), 172– 181. Luthans, F., 2002. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 695–706. Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M., Combs, G.M., 2006. Psychological capital development: Toward a micro intervention. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 387– 393. Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., Norman, S.M., 2007. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 60, 541–572. Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Patera, J.L., 2008. Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Acad. Manage. Learn. Educ. 7 (2), 209–221. Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Peterson, S.J., 2010. The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resour. Dev. Quart. 21 (1), 41–67. Luthans, B.C., Luthans, K.W., Avey, J.B., 2014. Building the leaders of tomorrow: the development of academic psychological capital. J. Leadership Organ. Stud. 21 (2), 191–199. Masten, A.S., 2001. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am. Psychol. 56, 227–239. Masten, A.S., Cutuli, J.J., Herbers, J.E., Reed, M.-G.J., 2009. Resilience in development. In: Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology. second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Millard, M.L., 2011. Psychological net worth: finding the balance between psychological capital and psychological debt. Theses, Dissertations, & Student Scholarship: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department. Paper 29. Retrieved from:
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002
T.M. Probst et al. / Safety Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Orpen, C., 1994. The effects of self-esteem and personal control on the relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being. Soc. Behav. Personal.: Int. J. 22 (1), 53–55. Parkes, K.R., 1994. Personality and coping as moderators of work stress process: Models, methods and measures. Work Stress 8 (2), 110–129. Parkes, K.R., Rendell, D., 1988. The hardy personality and its relationship to extraversion and neuroticism. Person Ind. Diff. 9 (4), 785–790. Peterson, S.J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., Zhang, Z., 2011. Psychological capital and employee performance: a latent growth modeling approach. Pers. Psychol. 64, 427–450. Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., Blume, B.D., 2009. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 122–141. Probst, T.M., 2002. Layoffs and tradeoffs: Production, quality, and safety demands under the threat of job loss. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7, 211–220. Probst, T.M., 2003. Development and validation of the job security index and the job security satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 76, 451–467. Probst, T.M., Jiang, L., 2016. Mitigating physiological responses to layoff threat: an experimental test of the efficacy of two coping interventions. Special issue on Occupational Stress, Human Health and Wellbeing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13, 338. Probst, T.M., Stewart, S.M., Gruys, M.L., Tierney, B.W., 2007. Productivity, counter productivity and creativity: The ups and downs of job insecurity. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80, 479–497. Richter, A., Näswall, K., De Cuyper, N., Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Hellgren, J., 2013. Coping with job insecurity: Exploring effects on perceived health and organizational attitudes. Career Dev. Int. 18 (5), 484–502.
9
Robinson, S.L., Morrison, E., 1995. Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 16 (3), 289–298. Scheier, M.F., Weintraub, J.K., Carver, C.S., 1986. Coping with stress: divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1257–1264. Selenko, E., Mäkikangas, A., Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., 2013. How does job insecurity relate to self-reported job performance? Analysing curvilinear associations in a longitudinal sample. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 86 (4), 522–542. Seligman, M.E.P., 1998. Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. Pocket Books, New York. Snyder, C.R., 2000. The past and possible futures of hope. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19, 11–28. Snyder, C.R., Irving, L., Anderson, J.R., 1991. Hope and health: measuring the will and the ways. In: Snyder, C.R., Forsyth, D.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology: The Health Perspective. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York. Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., Naswall, K., 2002. No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7 (3), 242–264. Sverke, M., De Witte, H., Naswall, K., Hellgren, J., 2010. European perspectives on job insecurity: Editorial introduction. Econ. Ind. Democracy 31, 175–178. Tugade, M.M., Fredrickson, B.L., 2004. Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86 (2), 320–333. Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W., Bloodgood, J.M., 2003. The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Manage. 29 (2), 187–206. Virtanen, M., Nyberg, S.T., Batty, G.D., Jokela, M., Heikkilä, K., Fransson, E.I., Alfredsson, L., Bjorner, J.B., Borritz, M., Burr, H., Casini, A., 2013. Perceived job insecurity as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 347. Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manage. 17 (3), 601–617.
Please cite this article in press as: Probst, T.M., et al. Psychological capital: Buffering the longitudinal curvilinear effects of job insecurity on performance. Safety Sci. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.002