Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Management
To cite this article: Simon L. Albrecht & Andrew Marty (2017): Personality, self-efficacy
and job resources and their associations with employee engagement, affective commitment
and turnover intentions, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2017.1362660
Article views: 85
Download by: [Gadjah Mada University] Date: 28 August 2017, At: 01:56
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1362660
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this paper, we examine the extent to which personality Work engagement; JD-R;
characteristics influence employees’ psychological connection personality; self-Efficacy;
to their work beyond that predicted by job context factors. affective Commitment;
More specifically, using Job Demands-Resources theory, turnover Intentions
we examined the influence of HEXACO personality facets,
self-efficacy, and job resources on engagement, affective
commitment and turnover intention. We used structural
equation modelling on data collected from 623 participants
working in a variety of organizational settings to test a
proposed and a re-specified model. The results showed that
both job resources and individual differences factors had direct
and indirect effects on engagement, affective commitment
and turnover intention. The personality facet liveliness was
positively associated with engagement; sentimentality
was positively associated with affective commitment; and
social boldness, diligence and sentimentality were positively
associated with self-efficacy. The model explained 69% of
the variance in engagement, 60% of the variance in affective
commitment and 33% of the variance in turnover intention.
Despite the stronger influence of job resources, the results
suggest that both individual factors and job context factors
influence employees’ psychological attachment to their work.
Practical implications in terms of selection, engagement
and organizational development interventions, and further
research opportunities are identified.
job autonomy
skill utilization
job feedback
Job Resources
supervisor support
development Self-Efficacy
opportunities Affective
Work Commitment
Engagement
Liveliness (X)
Turnover
Boldness (X)
Intention
Diligence (C)
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Sentimentality (E)
lines (Albrecht, 2012; Albrecht & Dineen, 2016), work engagement has been
shown to influence organizational commitment and to mediate the influence
of job resources on commitment (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Saks,
2006). Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958) has been invoked to explain
this relationship (Biswas & Bhatnagar, 2013; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Saks,
2006). Biswas and Bhatnagar (2013), for example, argued that engaged employ-
ees feel an obligation to be socio-emotionally attached to their organization as
the source of their engagement. Affective commitment, as previously noted, has
consistently been shown to directly influence turnover intentions (e.g. Albrecht
& Andreetta, 2011; Meyer et al., 2002). Turnover intention is an important atti-
tudinal outcome because it is known to be associated with significant recruit-
ment and training costs associated with actual turnover (Griffeth, Hom, &
Gaertner, 2000; Tziner & Birati, 1996). Researchers have argued that the JD-R
could usefully be extended to include attitudinal outcomes such as commitment
and turnover intention given their practical importance in organizational con-
texts (e.g. Albrecht et al., 2015; Hakanen et al., 2006; Huynh, Xanthopoulou,
& Winefield, 2014).
part, the influence of basic traits on specific abilities and performances, by sus-
taining the cognitive, affective and motivational processes leading to successful
performance’ (p. 79).
Method
Participants and procedure
Data were collected by a large Australian consulting organization that routinely
collects survey data from consenting clients and contacts for its own internal
research, norming and marketing purposes. The use of the data for present
research purposes was approved by the first author’s university ethics committee.
On-line survey data from 729 respondents about how they think and feel about
their work (e.g. job autonomy, supervisor support, job feedback, engagement,
self-efficacy, affective commitment, turnover intention) were matched with per-
sonality data collected at least one year previously. Of the 729 respondents, 687
could be fully matched across the two data points on the basis of their email
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
address, age and gender. Of these 687 cases, 623 cases had ninety-five percent or
more complete data and missing data missing at random. Respondents were 43%
female and 56% male, with ages ranging from 21 to 71 years. A broad range of
occupational groupings and industry sectors were represented, with the highest
proportions being from local government (9.5%), education and training (9%),
state government (8%), health care (7.5%), and professional, scientific and tech-
nical services (6.9%).
Measures
Job resources
Each of five job resources was measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Job autonomy was measured using three items
adapted from Spreitzer’s (1995) self-determination sub-scale and Hackman and
8 S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY
Oldham’s (1980) autonomy scale. Job feedback was measured using three items
adapted from Albrecht and Su (2012) and Bakker, Demerouti, and Euwema (2005).
Skill utilization was measured with four items adapted from O’brien (1983) and
Morrison, Cordery, Girardi, and Payne (2005) and supervisor support was meas-
ured using three items adapted from Albrecht and Su (2012) and Xanthopoulou
et al. (2007). Opportunity for professional development was measured using three
items adapted from Xanthopoulou et al. (2007). Bakker et al., Xanthopoulou et
al., and Albrecht and Su reported alpha reliabilities of .74 or greater for similarly
constructed scales.
Engagement
Engagement was measured with six items drawn from the UWES-9 (Schaufeli,
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) on a scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (almost always).
Although the UWES-9 assumes three sub-dimensions, researchers have argued
that the vigour and dedication sub-scales are the core dimensions of engagement,
with absorption being better conceptualized as an outcome of engagement (Bakker
et al., 2011; Costa, Passos, & Bakker, 2016). Furthermore, because of the strong
correlations among the sub-dimensions, Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) argued in
support of averaging scores across the sub-scales to create a single composite score.
Albrecht (2015) reported alpha reliabilities of .81 and .84 for a uni-dimensional
engagement scale comprised of vigour and dedication items.
In line with Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach to structural equa-
tion modeling, analyses were first conducted to determine the discriminant and
convergent validity of the constructs included in the model. Given that struc-
tural equation modeling provides more stable solutions with models that are not
overly complex in terms of the number of parameters estimated (Hoyle & Panter,
1995; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000), preliminary analyses were conducted to iden-
tify the personality facets most strongly associated with engagement, affective
commitment, and self-efficacy. Furthermore, given that three item scales enable
reliable and efficient specification of constructs (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), the
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 9
preliminary analyses also aimed, where appropriate, to identify the three to four
highest loading items for each construct. Preliminary analyses also aimed to deter-
mine whether a factor or a facet level of analysis was most appropriate, and to
establish the defensibility of modeling job resources as a higher order construct.
Having established a defensible measurement model, SEM was then conducted
to test the proposed relationships. All CFA and SEM models were assessed against
generally accepted fit indices: χ2/df < 2, TLI > .90 or .95, CFI > .95, RMSEA < .50,
and upper RMSEA confidence interval <.05 (Jackson, Gillaspy, & Purc-Stephenson,
2009; Kline, 2011; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Akaike’s Information
Criterion (AIC) was used to make assessments between competing non-nested
models.
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Results
Preliminary analyses and measurement modeling
To assess whether a factor or a facet level of analysis better fitted the data, a
first order twelve facet model (with 8 items per facet) was compared to a model
with three higher order factors (E, X and C) with four facets per factor. Neither
the first order facet model nor the higher order factor model yielded good fit
to the data (χ2 = 10,854.715; df = 4399; χ2/df = 2.468; TLI = .711, CFI = .721,
RMSEA = .049 [90%CI = .047–.050]; χ2 = 11,510.077; df = 4450; χ2/df = 2.587;
TLI = .687, CFI = .695, RMSEA = .051 [.049–.052], respectively). Therefore, to
improve model fit, the factor loadings and modification indices were examined
to identify the three highest loading items for each facet (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). A re-specified first order facet model, with 3 items per facet, was compared
to the higher order model comprised of the three higher order factors (E, X and
C), with four three-item facets per factor.
Table 1 shows that the re-specified 3-item first-order measurement model
yielded acceptable fit. Furthermore, the AIC statistics support the facet level
model over the factor level model (Browne & Cudeck, 1989). Additionally, the
correlations between the facets within each factor (ranging from .042 to .497 for E,
.324 to .752 for X, and .152 to .350 for C) also supported the first order modeling
(Christiansen, Lovejoy, Szymanski, & Lang, 1996). All subsequent analyses were
therefore conducted at the first order facet level of analysis.
Table 1. Fit indices for competing first order facet and higher order factor models.
Model χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA AIC
FO 12 facets 11,009.084 528 1.911 .910 .925 . 038 1285.084
HO 3 factors (EXC) 11,400.595 579 2.419 .860 .871 . 048 1574.595
Notes: FO = first order model; HO = higher order modeling of E, X and C with each factor subsuming their four facets;
E = emotional stability; X = extraversion; C = conscientiousness; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit
index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; AIC = Akaike’s information criterion; all facets measured
with 3 items.
10 S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY
To determine which of the twelve facets to take into the structural model (see
Figure 1), tests were conducted to determine which of the facets were significantly
associated with engagement, self-efficacy, or affective commitment. Liveliness
(β = .277; p = .036) and diligence (β = .171; p = .004) were the only facets sig-
nificantly associated with engagement; social boldness (β = .232; p < .001) and
diligence (β = .226; p < .001) were the only facets significantly associated with
self-efficacy; and sentimentality (β = .253; p = .003) was the only facet significantly
associated with affective commitment. Three item measures of social boldness
(X), liveliness (X), diligence (C) and sentimentality (N) were therefore retained
for subsequent analyses.
A CFA of the four personality facets derived from the preliminary analyses,
the five first order job resources, self-efficacy, engagement, affective commit-
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
ment and turnover intention yielded some indices with less than acceptable fit
(χ2 = 1723.245; df = 741; χ2/df = 2.326; TLI = .936, CFI = .945, RMSEA = .046
[.043–.049]). However, deleting two of the six engagement items, that the modi-
fication indices identified as contributing most to model misspecification, yielded
improved and acceptable fit (χ2 = 1327.999; df = 662; χ2/df = 2.006; TLI = .953,
CFI = .960, RMSEA = .040 [.037–.043]). As shown in Table 2, all loadings (ranging
from .491 to .950) were statistically significant (p < .001), and all but one of the
loadings clearly exceeded the recommended value of .50 (Kline, 2011).
The descriptive statistics, alphas reliabilities, and composite reliabilities for all
variables included in the proposed model are shown in Table 3. Except for the
alpha reliability for sentimentality, the alphas and composite reliabilities were very
close to or above criterion values (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). The
correlations (see Table 4) suggest no problems with multicollinearity.
Figure 1 shows job resources modeled as a higher order construct. Credé
and Harms (2015) argued that the legitimacy of higher order models cannot
be assumed and needs to be tested. The higher order modeling of job resources
was tested with reference to the ‘target coefficient 2’ (TC2; Marsh, 1987). TC2 is
calculated as the ratio of the χ2 of the proposed higher order model relative to
the correlated first-order model, after taking into account the χ2 of the uncorre-
lated first order model. In support of the higher order modeling, the TC2 of .969
exceeded the recommended criterion value of .90 (Marsh, 1987). Furthermore,
as shown in Table 2, the loadings of each first order factor on the higher-order
factor were strong, ranging from .633 to .856.
Structural modeling
10. I feel like crying when I see other people crying .622
11. I feel strong emotions when someone close to me is going away .491
12. I remain unemotional even in situations where most people get very senti- .814
mental (R)
Self-efficacy
13. I feel confident representing my work area in meetings with management .751
14. I feel I can always manage to solve difficult problems at work if I try hard .773
enough
15. I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my area .858
Job resources
Autonomy
Higher order job resources .726
16. I have control over how my work is carried out .867
17. I can participate in decision-making regarding my work .856
18. I can decide on my own how I go about doing my work .869
Job feedback
Higher order job resources .820
19. My job offers me opportunities to find out how well I do my work .872
20. I receive sufficient information about the results of my work .867
21. Just doing my job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am .733
doing
Development opportunities
Higher order job resources .856
22. I have sufficient opportunities to develop new skills and competencies in my .913
role
23. I feel like I am developing and learning in my role .932
24. My work offers me the possibility to learn new things .858
Supervisor support
Higher order job resources .633
25. I feel valued by my supervisor .924
26. My supervisor is behind me 100% .947
27. My supervisor is easy to talk to about work related problems .873
Skill utilization
Higher order job resources .828
28. In my job I use all of the skills, talents and abilities I possess on a regular basis .845
29. Most of the skills and abilities I use on my job are important to me .723
30. In my job I usually get a chance to use my specialist skills and abilities .834
Engagement
31. At my job I feel strong and vigorous .794
32. I am enthusiastic about my job .906
33. My job inspires me .889
34. When I get up in the morning I feel like going to work .815
Affective com-
mitment
35. Working at this organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me .883
36. I really feel this organization’s problems are also my own problems .708
37. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization .920
(Continued)
12 S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY
Table 2. (Continued)
Personality Standardized
facets loadings
Turnover
intention
38. I will probably look for a new job in the next year .950
39. Sometimes I feel like leaving this organization for good .826
40. I am looking for a new job outside this organization .942
proposed parameters from diligence (C), social boldness (X) and sentimentality
(E) to engagement were not significant (p = .581, p = .260, p = .617, respectively).
The proposed parameters from liveliness to self-efficacy and from self-efficacy to
affective commitment were also not significant (p = .691; p = .151). As per the
preliminary analyses, sentimentality was the only personality facet significantly
associated with commitment (p = .009).
A re-specified model, with the non-significant proposed paths deleted yielded
acceptable fit (χ2 = 1543.187; df = 713; χ2/df = 2.164; NFI = .911; TLI = .945,
CFI = .950, RMSEA = .043 [.040–.046]). The upper RMSEA confidence interval
suggested the hypothesis of ‘not close fit’ could confidently be rejected (MacCallum
et al., 1996). As shown in Figure 2, all of the re-specified direct associations were
significant. Furthermore, pairwise parameter comparisons showed that job
resources had a significantly stronger association with engagement than the live-
liness facet (z = 6.099). Job resources also had a significantly stronger association
with affective commitment than sentimentality (z = −4.398). Both social boldness
and diligence had a stronger association with self-efficacy than sentimentality
(z = −3.961, z = −5.482, respectively) and there was no significant difference in
the association between social boldness and diligence (z = −1.528).
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
job autonomy
skill utilization
Job
job feedback
Resources
supervisor
support .381
development Self-Efficacy
2
opportunities (R = .36)
.676 .591 Affective
Commitment
.111 2
Work .198 (R = .60)
Liveliness (X) Engagement
.248 2
.207 (R = .69) -.398
Boldness (X)
.259
Turnover
Diligence (C) * -.228 Intention
-.108 2
(R = .33)
Sentimentality (E) .099**
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Discussion
It is widely accepted that having an engaged and committed workforce is critical to
organizational performance and competitive advantage (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Researchers have argued on theoretical and practical grounds that it is important
to determine the extent to which employee psychological attachment to work is
determined by personal and context factors (Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben,
2010; Mäkikangas et al., 2013). Drawing from the Job-Demands-Resources theory
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 15
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), the study is the first to examine the direct and indi-
rect associations between HEXACO personality facets, job resources and self-effi-
cacy, and work engagement, affective commitment and turnover intention within
a JD-R context. Although the subject of previous research, the present study is the
first to examine the variables in a single theoretically based nomological model. A
re-specified structural model (see Figure 2) yielded good fit and explained sizable
amounts of the variance in the predicted variables.
The results showed that the personality facets of social boldness, liveliness,
diligence and sentimentality were significantly associated with engagement,
self-efficacy and affective commitment. Liveliness was the only facet that had a
direct positive association with engagement. As such, selecting employees who
are dispositionally high in enthusiasm and energy will likely have high levels
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Salanova, & Schaufeli, 2012), the current research suggests the importance of
identifying which particular personality facets within the broader factors are
associated with particular motivational and withdrawal attitudes and outcomes.
The results showed job resources, modeled as a higher order construct, had
strong positive associations with work engagement and commitment, and a mod-
erately strong positive association with self-efficacy. More broadly, the results
showed that job context factors had a stronger influence on employees’ psycholog-
ical connection to their work than individual difference variables. As such, organ-
izations that ensure employees have job resources such as control and discretion
over their work processes will likely have employees who feel more energized,
enthusiastic and motivated to do a good job for the organization. Such employees
will also be more likely to feel emotionally connected to their organization and
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
less likely to turnover. Given that job resources also had significant indirect effects
through self-efficacy on engagement, and through self-efficacy and engagement
on affective commitment, the results highlighted the important downstream influ-
ence that job resources can have on how employees experience work. Importantly,
the results suggest an elaboration of the JD-R to include affective commitment
and turnover intention. Even though engagement, commitment and turnover
intention are independently recognized as important indicators of the employ-
ee-organization relationship, affective commitment and turnover intention have
not often been explicitly modeled in JD-R research contexts.
As proposed, self-efficacy was shown to have significant positive associations
with work engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions. Self-
efficacy also had a significant indirect effect on commitment through engagement.
As such, and in line with theory (e.g. Gist & Mitchell, 1992) and meta-analytic
findings (e.g. Halbesleben, 2010; Meyer et al., 2002), the results corroborate self-ef-
ficacy as an important direct and indirect determinant of the development and
maintenance of the employee-organization relationship. The results suggest that
the provision of job resources such as job autonomy, supervisor support, profes-
sional development, job feedback and skill utilization will more likely influence
self-efficacy than will personality characteristics.
In line with limited previous findings (e.g. Saks, 2006), and as proposed, the
results showed engagement had a strong direct association with affective commit-
ment, and affective commitment had a strong inverse association with turnover
intention. Furthermore, engagement had a negative indirect effect on turno-
ver intention through commitment. These results suggest the JD-R framework
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) might usefully be elaborated to explicitly include
such outcomes.
Overall, even though the influence of personality facets was not as strong as
job resources, the results confirm that personality facets are helpful in explain-
ing employee psychological connection to their work. In support of a facet level
of analysis, a number of specific facets were shown to have significant associ-
ations with work engagement, affective commitment and turnover intention.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 17
Additionally, and beyond their direct effects, the results showed that personality
facets had indirect effects on engagement, affective commitment and turnover
intentions. These findings further confirm the utility of individual factors when
attempting to account for employees’ psychological connection to their work.
A number of facets within the well-researched personality factors did not have
significant associations.
The findings also suggest an elaboration of the JD-R to more explicitly acknowl-
edge the influence of dispositional factors and self-efficacy on an extended range
of outcomes (see Albrecht et al., 2015).
Practical implications
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
The results of the current study have several practical implications. Given the
direct effects found for job resources on employee engagement, commitment and
turnover intention, organizations might usefully look at implementing a range of
job level training and development programs aimed at embedding processes and
systems to more effectively support employees’ psychological connection to their
work. More specifically, such systems and supports might include establishing
senior management’s active commitment to the establishment of more partic-
ipative work cultures, climates and practices; job re-design initiatives; training
and development opportunities focused on engagement principles and practices;
and the redesign of supervisor performance criteria to incorporate the effective
management of participation and autonomy. Regular administration of organ-
izational climate and engagement surveys and multi-rater feedback processes
might provide useful indicators of the extent to which such processes are being
effectively implemented and sustained.
The results of the present research can help organizations and consultants
design and deliver selection processes aimed at identifying employees who will
likely be psychologically connected to their work. Somewhat surprisingly, there
has been limited research or practitioner attention devoted to understanding and
validating the links between personality at the facet level and engagement and
self-efficacy. The present results suggest that an assessment of employee liveli-
ness will likely predict employees most likely to be engaged at work. The results
also suggest that social boldness, diligence and sentimentality are associated with
generalized self-efficacy, and that self-efficacy, in part, provides the psychological
medium through which personality influences engagement and commitment.
Given that engagement and self-efficacy have been shown to be linked to both task
and contextual performance outcomes (e.g. Christian et al., 2011; Judge & Bono,
2001), and despite the relatively modest effect sizes for the individual difference
predictors, utility analysis suggests that such effects might nevertheless result
in significant performance and financial outcomes (Cascio, 1993). Overall, the
findings suggest targeted selection procedures that focus on personality facets.
However, in line with trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), the results
18 S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY
also suggest that selecting for self-efficacy and engagement will only be effective
if the organizational context supports or ‘activates’ the personality traits most
predictive of self-efficacy, engagement and commitment.
Limitations
enable much stronger claims to be made about causality and reciprocal influence
among the variables. Additionally, given that all of the data were collected through
self-report procedures, the usual caveats around ‘common method variance’ apply.
However, given that the measurement model demonstrated acceptable fit, that the
correlations among the constructs were not high, and that the individual difference
variables and the job factors were collected at different time points, the issue of
common method variance appeared not to be overly problematic.
Another limitation centers on the items loading and the scale reliabilities for
sentimentality. The alpha reliability and the composite reliability were marginally
below the accepted thresholds (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). Even
though the importance of alpha reliability on validity has been questioned (e.g.
McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011), that alpha is typically lower with
fewer items (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), and the .70 criterion has been dis-
puted (Schmitt, 1996), the three-item measure of sentimentality requires further
development. More generally, given due consideration of content validity, the
results suggest additional research to test the validity and generalizability of more
parsimonious measures of the HEXACO personality facets. While the present
research supports, for example, the development and use of shorter versions of
established personality measures (e.g. HEXACO-60) the item content derived
from the present study did not fully correspond with items published as part of
the HEXACO-60 (Ashton & Lee, 2009).
Future research
The research suggests a number of areas for future research. Further research
could, for example, be conducted to determine if combinations of personality
facets most influence employee’s psychological connection to their work and their
performance (Mäkikangas et al., 2013). As such, personality profiles could be
developed for different occupational types and different organizational or profes-
sional contexts. Such profiles might also extend from the individual to the team
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 19
how job resources and personality facets interact to influence self-efficacy, engage-
ment, commitment and additional performance related outcomes. Furthermore,
even though the present study correlations between job resources and personality
facets were very modest, additional research could be devoted toward determining
whether personality facets determine how employees perceive or make use of
their job resources. For example, employees high in social boldness might initiate
and receive more feedback and autonomy from their supervisor because of their
confident disposition. Additional research could usefully include consideration
of the moderating effects of the identified personality facets on the relationship
between job resources and engagement and on the relationship between self-ef-
ficacy and engagement. More generally, all eight potential configurations of how
individual differences and work characteristics might influence engagement, as
identified by Mäkikangas et al. (2013), could be examined.
Conclusion
Overall, the results suggest that contextual factors such as job resources and self-ef-
ficacy have a much stronger influence of employee psychological connection to
work than individual differences in personality. Nevertheless, the findings sug-
gest that, even when taking account of the influence of known job resources, the
personality facets of liveliness, diligence, social boldness and sentimentality have
direct and indirect effects on employee engagement and self-efficacy and indi-
rect effects on affective commitment and turnover intentions. As such the results
support the use of personality facets within a JD-R framework to examine how
both individual difference factors and job context factors influence the extent to
which employees are psychologically attached to their work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
20 S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY
References
Abbott, G. N., White, F. A., & Charles, M. A. (2005). Linking values and organizational
commitment: A correlational and experimental investigation in two organizations. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 531–551.
Albrecht, S. L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on
employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: Test of a model.
International Journal of Manpower, 33, 840–853.
Albrecht, S. L. (2015). Challenge demands, hindrance demands and psychological need
satisfaction: Their influence on employee engagement and emotional exhaustion. Journal
of Personnel Psychology, 14, 70–79.
Albrecht, S. L., & Andreetta, M. (2011). The influence of empowering leadership, empowerment
and engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health
service workers. Leadership in Health Services, 24, 228–237.
Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2012). Nature and use of personality in selection. In N. Schmitt
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 225–251). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Bateman, T. S. & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behaviour:
A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 103–118.
Becker, T. E., Klein, H. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2009). Commitment in organizations: Accumulated
wisdom and new directions. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, J. P. Meyer, H. J. Klein, T. E.
Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new
directions (pp. 417-450). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: Role of perceived
organizational support, P-O fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Vikalpa:
The Journal for Decision Makers, 38, 27–40.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance
structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosociality: The contribution of traits,
values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1289–1303.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The
contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A
longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 78–96.
Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee
engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 199–208.
Cascio, W. F. (1993). Assessing the utility of selection decisions: Theoretical and practical
considerations. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations
(pp. 310–340). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64, 89–136.
Christiansen, N. D., Lovejoy, M. C., Szymanski, J., & Lang, A. (1996). Evaluating the structural
validity of measures of hierarchical models: An illustrative example using the social problem-
solving inventory. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, 600–625.
Costa, P. L., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). The work engagement grid: Predicting
engagement from two core dimensions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 774–789.
Credé, M., & Harms, P. D. (2015). 25 years of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis in the
organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting recommendations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 845–872.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Del Líbano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). About the dark and bright
sides of self-efficacy: Workaholism and work engagement. The Spanish journal of psychology,
15, 688–701.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to
organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 959–970.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. The Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates
of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next
millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22 S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with
burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.),
Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be
discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist,
11, 119–127.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial–organizational
psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
1, 272–290.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation modelling. In R. H.
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huynh, J. Y., Xanthopoulou, D., & Winefield, A. H. (2014). The job demands-resources model
in emergency service volunteers: Examining the mediating roles of exhaustion, work
engagement and organizational connectedness. Work & Stress, 28, 305–322.
Inceoglu, I., & Warr, P. (2011). Personality and job engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology,
10, 177–181.
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in
confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological
Methods, 14, 6–23.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equations modeling with SIMPLIS
command language. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits – Self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability to job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–
122.
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis
using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
28, 96–104.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:
Guildford.
Kumar, K., & Bakhshi, A. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and organizational
commitment: Is there any relationship? Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 5, 25–34.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming
composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3,
186–207.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality
inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting
performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 21, 41–67.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J., & Norman, S. (2007). Positive psychological capital:
Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
60, 541–572.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 23
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination
of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Mäkikangas, A., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2013). Does personality matter? A
review on individual differences in occupational well-being. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances
in positive organizational psychology (pp. 107–143). Bingley: Emerald.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept and the application of
hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 17–39.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational
& Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency,
retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 15, 28–50.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Gagné, M., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2010). Toward an evidence-based model of
engagement: What we can learn from motivation and commitment research. In S. L. Albrecht
(Ed.), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp.
62–73). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,
and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The
nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 1–16.
Morrison, D., Cordery, J., Girardi, A., & Payne, R. (2005). Job design, opportunities for skill
utilization, and intrinsic job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 14, 59–79.
Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral
work engagement new and useful construct “Wines”? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1, 31–35.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, L. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’brien, G. E. (1983). Skill-utilization, skill-variety and the job characteristics model. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 35, 461–468.
Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2012). Five-factor model of personality and organizational
commitment: The mediating role of positive and negative affective states. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 647–658.
Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty!. Journal of
Personality, 68, 821–835.
Pervan, L. A. (1989). Persons, situation, interactions: The history of a controversy and a
discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14, 350–360.
24 S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job-demands-resources model:
Implications for improving work and health. In G. Bauer, & O. Hammig (Eds.), Bridging
occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Dordrecht: Springer.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350–353.
Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (Eds.). (1982). Observing and measuring
organizational change: A guide to field practice. NewYork, NY: Wiley.
Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of
organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70–83.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct definition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429–459.
Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behaviour in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6, 569–576.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (2003). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,
46, 259–293.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The
affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and
integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945.
Tziner, A., & Birati, A. (1996). Assessing employee turnover costs: A revised approach. Human
Resource Management Review, 6, 113–122.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the
relationships between job characteristics, burnout and engagement: The role of basic
psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22, 277–294.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Kapun, D. (2005). Perceptions of politics and perceived performance in
public and private organisations: A test of one model across two sectors. Policy & Politics,
33, 251–276.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063–1070.
Wildermuth, C. S. (2010). The personal side of engagement: The influence of personality
factors. In Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research
and practice (pp. 197–208). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 25
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management,
14, 121–141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal
relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 74, 235–244.
Young, S. F., & Steelman, L. A. (2016). Marrying personality and job resources and their effect
on engagement via critical psychological states. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 28, 797-824. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1138501
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017