Você está na página 1de 26

The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and


their associations with employee engagement,
affective commitment and turnover intentions

Simon L. Albrecht & Andrew Marty

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

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1362660

Published online: 08 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 85

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20

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

Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their


associations with employee engagement, affective
commitment and turnover intentions
Simon L. Albrechta and Andrew Martyb
a
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia; bSACS Consulting, Melbourne, Australia
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

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.

A motivated and committed workforce is critical to competitive advantage


(Albrecht, Bakker, Gruman, Macey, & Saks, 2015; Macey & Schneider, 2008). As
such, there has been ongoing research aimed at developing an understanding of
the nature, causes, and consequences of employees’ psychological connection with
their work (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Cartwright & Holmes, 2006; Schaufeli
& Taris, 2014). Employee engagement and organizational commitment are widely

CONTACT  Simon L. Albrecht  simon.albrecht@deakin.edu.au


© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY

acknowledged as important indicators of the individual-organization relationship


(Bakker et al., 2011; Becker, Klein, & Meyer, 2009; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006).
Furthermore, engagement and commitment have been shown to be associated
with important attitudinal and performance outcomes such as turnover inten-
tion and actual turnover (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Meyer, Stanley, &
Parfyonova, 2012; Tett & Meyer, 2003).
Despite ongoing progress in understanding what influences employees’ psy-
chological experience of work, researchers have called for additional research
regarding the extent to which particular personality traits predict engagement and
commitment (Abbott, White, & Charles, 2005; Mäkikangas, Feldt, Kinnunen, &
Mauno, 2013; Young & Steelman, 2016). Although interactionst theory (Pervan,
1989; Terborg, 1981) and trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) suggest that
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

both person and environmental factors influence engagement and commitment,


‘theoretical discussions and empirical investigations have so far [only] emphasized
…. characteristics of the job’ (Inceoglu & Warr, 2011; p. 177).
In this study we set out, within the context of Job Demands-Resources (JD-
R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), to test whether personality traits influ-
ence employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions when
included in a model that also takes into account the influence of job resources
and personal resources. In JD-R research, personal resources (e.g. self-efficacy,
optimism) are differentiated from personality traits (e.g. conscientiousness, extra-
version) in that they are regarded as being more state-like, malleable and open
to development (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). Although Bakker,
Demerouti, and Sanz-Vergel (2014), in their review of JD-R research, subsumed
personal resources and personality factors under the general category of ‘individ-
ual factors’, self-efficacy and personality characteristics are generally recognized
as distinct constructs (Caprara, Alessandri, & Eisenberg, 2012).
There are a number of alternative explanations as to how individual factors
and job factors influence individual and organizational outcomes. Mäkikangas
et al. (2013), in a review of how individual differences and work characteristics
influence employee engagement, identified eight different configurations. The
‘null model’, for example, proposes that individual difference factors do not influ-
ence either employee experiences of work characteristics or work engagement.
The ‘differential exposure model’ proposes that individual factors directly influ-
ence the experience of job characteristics but not engagement. The ‘differential
exposure-reactivity model’ proposes that individual difference factors directly
influence job characteristics and moderate the relationship between work char-
acteristics and engagement. The ‘direct effect’ model proposes that personality
and job characteristics independently influence engagement, such that individual
differences influence engagement irrespective of perceived job characteristics, and
vice versa. Mäkikangas et al. reported that 64% of the studies reviewed supported
the ‘direct effects model’, whereas only 9% supported the differential exposure-re-
activity model where personality functions as a moderator. On the basis of such
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT   3

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)

Figure 1. Research model.


Note: X = facet of extraversion, C = facet of conscientiousness, E = facet of emotional stability.

literature, we examined the direct associations between job resources, personal-


ity and self-efficacy, and engagement and commitment. We also examined the
direct associations between work engagement and commitment and turnover
intentions, and the direct associations between commitment and turnover inten-
tions Beyond examining direct associations, we also examined the indirect effects
of job resources and personality through self-efficacy on engagement, affective
commitment and turnover intentions. The research model is shown in Figure 1.

Engagement and commitment


Engagement is most often defined within the academic domain as ‘… a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication,
and absorption’ (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74).
Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) proposes a
motivational pathway from job resources (e.g. autonomy, job feedback, supervisor
support) and personal resources (e.g. self-efficacy, optimism, resilience) to engage-
ment. In support of the theory, meta-analytic evidence has shown, for example,
that job autonomy, job feedback, supervisor support and self-efficacy are strongly
related to engagement, and that engagement is strongly associated with affective
commitment and turnover intention (Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010).
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) ‘three component model’ (TCM) is the most widely
cited and researched model of commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) conceptu-
alized commitment as consisting of affective, continuance and normative compo-
nents. Given ongoing debate concerning the construct validity of the continuance
and normative components (e.g. Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe, 2008), affective
4   S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY

commitment is widely regarded as the most useful index of employee psychologi-


cal attachment to their organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Affective commitment refers to an employee’s
emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization
(Meyer & Allen, 1991). Meta-analytic evidence has shown that job autonomy, job
feedback, supervisor support and self-efficacy are strongly related to commitment,
and that commitment is strongly associated with turnover (Meyer et al., 2002).
Researchers have called for research that further integrates engagement and
commitment as important indicators of employees’ psychological connection
to their work (Albrecht et al., 2015; Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Meyer, Gagné,
& Parfyonova, 2010; Newman & Harrison, 2008). Although research on com-
mitment and engagement has to a large extent progressed along independent
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

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).

Job resources, individual difference factors, engagement and


commitment
As previously noted, job autonomy, opportunities for development, job feedback,
skill utilization and social support have consistently been shown to be associated
with engagement and commitment (Bakker, van Veldhoven, & Xanthopoulou,
2010; Bakker et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011; Saks, 2006; Van den Broeck,
Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). It has been argued that job resources
have positive associations with engagement and commitment because they help
foster goal achievement and fulfill basic motivational needs for autonomy, social
connection, and competence (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Individual difference factors such as generalized self-efficacy, conscientious-
ness and positive affect have also been found to have direct associations with
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT   5

engagement and commitment (Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Judge,


Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Meyer et al., 2002). Halbesleben’s (2010)
meta-analysis, for example, showed self-efficacy has a strong association with
engagement. Furthermore, self-efficacy has been shown, in part, to mediate the
influence of job resources on engagement (e.g. Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti,
& Schaufeli, 2007, 2009). Such findings corroborate Gist and Mitchell’s (1992)
theoretical positioning of generalized self-efficacy as an important personal
resource that directly and indirectly influences motivational and performance
related outcomes.

Personality, engagement and commitment


Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

The personality dimensions of emotional stability (E), extraversion (X), agree-


ableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O) provide a
heavily researched and widely accepted taxonomy of personality. Although there
has been a significant amount of research focused on determining the association
between personality and performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991), as already
noted, there have been calls for more research on the influence that personality
has on employee engagement and organizational commitment (Inceoglu & Warr,
2011; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Young & Steelman, 2016).
With respect to conceptual links between personality factors and engagement
and commitment, Inceoglu and Warr (2011) and Kumar and Bakhshi (2010)
argued that conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability should have
the strongest links. Conscientiousness should be positively associated with engage-
ment and commitment ‘because conscientious individuals have a strong sense of
responsibility’ (Christian et al., 2011; p. 100) and are thus more likely to involve
themselves in their work roles and their organization. Extraversion should be
positively associated with engagement and commitment because individuals high
in positive affect should be ‘predisposed to experiencing activation, alertness, and
enthusiasm’ (Christian et al., 2011; p. 100), and more likely to develop an affinity
and identification with their organization (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren,
& de Chermont, 2003). Emotional stability should be positively associated with
engagement and commitment because less anxious or self-conscious employees
are less likely to perceive their work environment as threatening and taxing of
their emotional resources (Wildermuth, 2010). The conceptual links between
agreeableness, openness to experience and engagement and commitment are less
well established (Albrecht et al., 2015).
A limited but growing amount of research supports the conceptual linkages
between personality and engagement. Christian et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis, for
example, reported moderately high correlations between conscientiousness and
engagement (Mρ = .42), and extraversion and engagement (Mρ = .43). Inceoglu
and Warr (2011) reported moderately high correlations between job engagement
and emotional stability, extraversion and conscientiousness (r = .38, r = .33, and
6   S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY

r = .40, respectively). The correlations for agreeableness and openness to expe-


rience were more modest (r = .16 and .22, respectively). A limited amount of
research also suggests that conscientiousness and extraversion are associated with
affective commitment (Erdheim, Wang, & Zickar, 2006; Kumar & Bakhshi, 2010;
Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012). Erdheim, Wang and Zickar showed that extra-
version and conscientiousness had significant, albeit modest partial correlations
with affective commitment (r = .20, r = .18 respectively). Additionally, and beyond
any direct influence that emotional stability, conscientiousness and extraversion
might have on engagement and commitment, research suggests that such person-
ality traits also have indirect effects on attitudes through self-efficacy (Caprara,
Vecchione, Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011; Sánchez-Cardona et al.,
2012). Caprara et al. argued that ‘self-efficacy beliefs may mediate, at least in
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

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).

Broad versus narrow personality traits


A number of researchers (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 2012; Hough & Oswald, 2008;
Paunonen & Jackson, 2000) have suggested that lower-level facets may provide
more predictive power than the Five Factor Model (FFM) or Big 6 factors. Barrick
and Mount (2012), for instance, argued that ‘the amount of effort the employee
exerts may be predicted better by a lower-level facet such as Industriousness,
rather than the broader FFM trait of Conscientiousness’ (p. 229). In HEXACO
terms (Lee & Ashton, 2004), the ‘diligence’ facet of conscientiousness (e.g. ‘push-
ing hard to achieve a work or organizational goal’) may be more predictive of
engagement or commitment than the more broadly defined conscientiousness
factor or alternative conscientiousness facets such as ‘organization’ (e.g. ‘likely to
have a messy desk’), ‘perfectionism’ (e.g. ‘trying to be accurate at work’) and ‘pru-
dence’ (e.g. ‘being impulsive at work’). Consistent with the narrow trait approach,
Inceoglu and Warr (2011) found that social potency (a facet of extraversion) and
that the ‘vigorous’ and ‘achieving’ sub-facets of achievement orientation (a facet
of conscientiousness) were significantly associated with engagement. Overall,
however, there has only been a limited amount of research that has systemat-
ically investigated the personality facets that are most strongly associated with
engagement and commitment.
The present research, drawing from JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014)
aimed to identify the personality facets that are directly and indirectly associated
with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intention, while
also taking into account the influence of self-efficacy and job resources. As such
the research aimed to contribute new insights into the relative influence of a
range of individual difference factors and job factors on employees’ psychological
connection to their work.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT   7

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

All measures were drawn or adapted from previously published scales.

Individual difference factors


Emotional stability (E), extraversion (X) and conscientiousness (C) facets were
measured using the well-validated HEXACO-PI-R (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Lee &
Ashton, 2004). The four facets associated with each of the three higher order fac-
tors were measured with 8 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Lee and Ashton (2004) reported alpha reliabilities
ranging from .78 to .86 for the facets within the emotional stability, extraversion,
and conscientiousness factors.
Self-efficacy was measured with five items drawn from Luthans, Youssef, and
Avolio’s (2007) measure of Psychological Capital (PsyCap). Respondents were
asked to rate on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) how
confident they felt solving problems at work, or representing their work area in
meetings with management. Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2007) reported alpha relia-
bilities ranging from .75 to .85 across four samples.

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.

Affective commitment and turnover intention


Affective commitment was measured with four items developed by Allen and
Meyer (1990), rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). Albrecht (2012) reported an alpha reliability of .88 for a similarly con-
structed scale. Turnover intention was measured using three items adapted from
Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, and Cammann (1982) and Vigoda-Gadot and Kapun
(2005) on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Vigoda-Gadot and Kapun reported alpha reliabilities of .84 and .86 for a similarly
constructed scale.

Data analytic approach

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

Having established a theoretically defensible measurement model, SEM was


used to assess the proposed relationships among the constructs (see Figure 1).
Despite this model mostly yielding acceptable fit (χ2 = 1533.779; df = 705; χ2/
df  =  2.176; NFI  =  .912; TLI  =  .945, CFI  =  .950, RMSEA  =  .043 [.041-.046]),
eight of the nineteen proposed structural parameters were not significant. The
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT   11

Table 2. Scale items and CFA factor loadings (standardized).


Personality Standardized
facets   loadings
Liveliness (extraversion)  
1. Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than I usually am (R) .625
2. People often tell me I should try to cheer up (R) .746
3. On most days I feel cheerful and optimistic .786
Social boldness (extraversion)  
4. I rarely express my opinions in group meetings (R) .803
5. In large group discussions I would only make comments if someone asked .723
me directly (R)
6. When I am in a group of people, I am often the one who speaks on behalf of .538
the group
Diligence (conscientiousness)  
7. When working I often set ambitious goals for myself .718
8. I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal .773
9. I often achieve things by trying harder than other people do .677
Sentimentality (emotional stability)  
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

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

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and reliability for measured scales (N = 623).


    Scale range Mean SD α CR
Personality facets
 Liveliness (X) 1–7 3.91 .69 .74 .75
 Social boldness (X) 1–7 3.87 .69 .73 .74
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

  Diligence (C) 1–7 3.96 .63 .69 .70


 Sentimentality (E) 1–7 3.28 .75 .64 .69
Job resources
 Autonomy 1–7 5.86 1.31 .90 .90
  Job feedback 1–7 5.24 1.33 .86 .88
  Development opportunities 1–7 5.09 1.59 .93 .93
 Supervisor support 1–7 5.17 1.68 .94 .94
 Skill utilization 1–7 5.31 1.43 .83 .84
Self-efficacy 1–7 6.28 .91 .83 .84
Engagement 0–6 5.16 1.00 .91 .91
Affective commitment 1–7 4.74 1.68 .87 .88
Turnover intention 1–7 4.02 2.12 .93 .93
Note: X = extraversion facet, C = conscientiousness facet; E = emotional stability facet; SD = standard deviation;
α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability.

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

Table 4. Correlations among first order constructs included in the model.


Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Personality facets                          
1. Liveliness (X) –                        
2. Social Boldness (X) .57*** –                      
3. Diligence (C) .62*** .39*** –                    
4. Sentimentality (E) .01ns .12* −.01ns –                  
Job resources                          
5. Autonomy .14** .16*** .18*** .04ns –                
6. Supervisor Support .07ns .09ns .04ns .09 ns .50*** –              
7. Job Feedback .22*** .19*** .18*** .09 ns .62*** .61*** –            
8. Development Opportunities .20*** .13** .13** .12* .57*** .53*** .70*** –          
9. Skill Utilization .22*** .17*** .18*** .05 ns .62*** .46*** .63*** .76*** –        
                           
10. Self-efficacy .38*** .37*** .41*** −.04ns .52*** .26*** .37*** .32*** .39*** –      
11. Engagement .44*** .34*** .31*** .09ns .53*** .44*** .67*** .68*** .67*** .52*** –    
12. Commitment .18*** .14** .13** .17*** .58*** .48*** .61*** .63*** .60*** .32*** .67*** –  
13. Turnover Intention −.11* −.07ns −.04ns −.17*** −.34*** −.47*** −.45*** −.52*** −.45*** −.11* −.49*** −.54*** –
*
Significant at p < .05; **Significant at p < .01; ***Significant at p < .0001; nsNot significant.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 
 13
14   S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY

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

Figure 2. Respecified Model


Note: Standardized parameter estimates significant (* = .05, ** = .01), all other parameters significant at p < .001;
R2 = percent variance explained; all constructs are latent variables and items and errors not shown for ease of
representation; no errors were correlated in the modelling.

Beyond the significant direct associations, bootstrapping procedures in AMOS


showed that social boldness (β  =  .023, p  =  .003), sentimentality (β  =  −.012,
p  =  .006), and diligence (β  =  .029, p  =  .002) had significant indirect effects
through self-efficacy on engagement. Social boldness (β  =  .005, p  =  .005;
β = −.007, p = .002), sentimentality (β = −.002, p = .004; β = −.036, p = .012),
diligence (β = .006, p = .002; β = −.009, p = .001), and liveliness (β = .049, p = .004;
β = −.076, p = .001) had significant indirect effects on affective commitment and
turnover intentions (respectively). Furthermore, beyond the direct associations,
job resources had a significant indirect effect on engagement (β = .042, p = .002),
affective commitment (β = .142, p = .006) and turnover intention (β = −.456,
p = .001). Additionally, self-efficacy had a significant indirect effect on affective
commitment (β = .022, p = .004) and turnover intention (β = −.034, p = .002)
and engagement had a significant indirect effect on turnover intention through
affective commitment (β = −.079, p = .005). Overall, the final model explained
36% of the variance in self-efficacy, 69% of the variance in engagement, 60%
of the variance in affective commitment, and 33% of the variance in turnover
intention.

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

of employee work engagement. Previous researchers who have examined the


influence of both personality and job context factors on engagement (e.g. Kim,
Shin, & Swanger, 2009) have mostly looked at the influence of personality at the
factor rather than the more focused facet level of analysis. However, model fit
comparisons within the present data did not support higher order modeling of
personality factors. The results of the present research therefore make a contri-
bution to the factor-facet debate (Hough & Oswald, 2008; Paunonen & Jackson,
2000) and suggests that a more focused facet level of analysis may be more useful
in understanding and specifying the links between personality and engagement.
It is also noteworthy that social boldness, liveliness and diligence had significant
indirect effects on engagement through self-efficacy, thereby again supporting the
potential influence that personality facets can have on important motivational
and attitudinal outcomes.
Sentimentality was the only personality facet found to have a direct and sig-
nificant association with affective commitment. As such, the results showed that
employees who have a tendency to feel strong emotional bonds with others are
more likely to feel a strong sense of belonging and identity toward their organ-
ization. Although the effect was not strong, the present results extend the lim-
ited amount of research on personality and commitment that has shown modest
associations between personality factors and commitment (e.g. Erdheim et al.,
2006; Panaccio & Vandenberghe, 2012). Additionally, the personality facets of
sentimentality, social boldness, diligence and liveliness were shown to have sig-
nificant indirect effects on both affective commitment and turnover intention.
The proposed associations between personality facets and self-efficacy were
mostly supported. The re-specified model showed that social boldness, diligence
and sentimentality were significantly associated with self-efficacy. The results
therefore suggest that a general predisposition toward confidence, a strong work
ethic, and emotional connectivity will help employees feel self-efficacious at work.
Social boldness and diligence had stronger associations with self-efficacy than
sentimentality. Although previous research has shown that conscientiousness is
associated with self-efficacy at work (Christian et al., 2011; Del Líbano, Llorens,
16   S. L. ALBRECHT AND A. MARTY

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

Although this research offers important contributions to the understanding of the


associations between personality, self-efficacy, engagement, affective commitment
and turnover intention, there are a number of limitations that need to be acknowl-
edged. Although rigorous confirmatory and structural modeling techniques were
used, the cross-sectional data does not enable the determination of causal rela-
tions. Longitudinal analyses, preferably drawn over three time periods, would
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

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

level of analysis. Further research could also be conducted to integrate additional


constructs within an elaborated JD-R model. As previously noted, Albrecht et al.
(2015) proposed elaborating the JD-R to more explicitly acknowledge the influ-
ence of organizational context factors, dispositional factors, and psychological
mediating mechanisms on an extended range of outcomes. Future research could
therefore also include additional individual factors such as core self-evaluation
(Judge & Bono, 2001), positive affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), proactive
personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993) and PsyCap (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007),
and additional wellbeing, behavioral and performance related outcomes. Although
Mäkikangas et al. (2013) reported that the majority of studies support a direct
effects model rather than a model showing personality moderating the influence
of personality on outcomes, additional research could be conducted to determine
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

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

engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage. Journal


of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2, 7–35.
Albrecht, S. L., & Dineen, O. J. (2016). Organizational commitment and employee engagement:
10 key questions. In J. P. Meyer (Ed.), The handbook of employee commitment (pp. 70–89).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Albrecht, S. L., & Su, M. J. (2012). Job resources and employee engagement in a Chinese context:
The mediating role of job meaningfulness, felt obligation and positive mood. International
Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 4, 277–292.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1–18.
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the
HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,
150–166.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions
of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.
Bakker, A. B., Boyd, C. M., Dollard, M., Gillespie, N., Winefield, A. H., & Stough, C. (2010). The
role of personality in the job demands-resources model. Career Development International,
15, 622–636.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In P. Y. Chen, & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, volume III, work and wellbeing (pp.
37–64). New York, NY: Wiley Blackwell.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job
demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170–180.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The
JD-R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
1, 389–411.
Bakker, A. B., van Veldhoven, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond the demand-control
model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 3–16.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT   21

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

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of


Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.
Sánchez-Cardona, I., Rodriguez-Montalbán, R., Acevedo-Soto, E., Lugo, K. N., Torres-Oquendo,
F., & Toro-Alfonso, J. (2012). Self-efficacy and openness to experience as antecedent of
study engagement: An exploratory analysis. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46,
2163–2167.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing
clarity to the concept. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook
of essential theory and research (pp. 10–24). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.
Downloaded by [Gadjah Mada University] at 01:56 28 August 2017

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

Você também pode gostar