it’s more than saying yes” to your organization · getting engaged: it’s more than saying...
TRANSCRIPT
Getting Engaged:
It’s more than saying “Yes” to your Organization
How Work Engagement and its Influencers affect Work-Life Balance
and Job Satisfaction and
the Moderating role of Flexible Working
Author: Christina Wessels (363832)
Thesis Coach: Dr. Michaéla C. Schippers
Co-Reader: Dr. Peter J. van Baalen
Rotterdam, September 2012
Master Thesis
Msc. Organizational Change & Consulting
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Rotterdam School of Management
1
The author declares that the text and work presented in this Master thesis is original and that
no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating
this Master thesis.
The copyright of the Master thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for its
contents. RSM Erasmus University is only responsible for the educational coaching and
beyond that cannot be held responsible for the content.
1 Retrieved on August 1
st, 2012 from the World Wide Web: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-11-25/
Acknowledgements
The thesis you see in front of you represents the final academic contribution of my 4 years of
study at Maastricht University and Rotterdam School of Management. Clearly, accomplishing
this thesis would not have been possible without the following people, whom I owe many
many thanks.
First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my thesis coach Michaéla Schippers
who always supported me throughout each stage of my thesis. Thanks for your guidance,
feedback and sincerity and for not flinching from answering my gazillion questions (even on
Sunday evenings or on holiday). Special thanks go also to my co-reader Peter van Baalen for
his critical review, support and directions. I also have to thank Marcel van Oosterhout,
Dominique van der Meulen, Janieke Bouwman and all ‘fellow sufferers’ from the Erasmus @
Work team, who gave me tips, hints and recommendations as to improve my thesis.
Writing this thesis would also not have been possible without the support of the
telecommunications company I wrote this thesis together with. Thanks for the opportunity to
get to know your company and to be able to be part of it for six months. I owe special thanks
to Paul, Josee, Marie-Josee, Karin, Angeline, Hanneke, Maartje and Stephanie who always
supported me and made my days at the office.
Finally, I would like to thank my mum Petra and dad Rainer, my brother Tim, my boyfriend
Arne, Günter and all other family members and friends who took the load off me and always
encouraged and supported me.
Accomplishing this thesis was truly a learning experience for me and I hope you will enjoy
reading it.
Christina Wessels,
Neuss (Germany), August 2012
Executive Summary
Engaging employees to work has become one of the top priorities in today’s organizations.
Engaged employees make a difference for the organization because they truly enjoy what they
are doing, have high levels of energy, are deeply engrossed in their work and have difficulties
to detach themselves from work. High levels of work engagement have been shown to
positively influence organizational bottom line outcomes such as productivity, job satisfaction
and also yield higher financial returns and superior client satisfaction. Thus, engaged
employees are highly beneficial for the organization as they go the extra mile for the
company. Despite the great importance of engaging employees to work, it seems that ‘getting
engaged’ represents a challenging undertaking, as it can be observed that disengagement is on
the rise. Therefore, this thesis aims to gain deeper insights into antecedents, consequences and
moderators of work engagement.
The first aim of this study was to uncover further factors that have an effect on work
engagement. Placing work engagement in the context of organizational and individual drivers
reveals that only few studies to date have examined the influence of psychological
empowerment on work engagement. In face of this, the thesis at hand investigated the
influence of three of the four psychological empowerment dimensions namely competence,
self-determination and impact on work engagement. Additionally, interviews at the individual
level were conducted to gain further insights into the influencing factors of work engagement,
which are beyond one’s range of vision. A second aim was to explore the effect of work
engagement and psychological empowerment on outcome variables. Work-life balance and
job satisfaction were chosen as effect variables, because the former one lacks solid research
with respect to the relation between work engagement and psychological empowerment. The
latter one has proven in previous literature to constitute an important outcome of work
engagement and psychological empowerment but still needs more clarification as the relations
have shown to be ambiguous. A last aim of the thesis was to study the yet little researched
moderating role of flexible working. Specifically, the interactional effect of flexible working
with work engagement on the two effect variables was examined as well as the interaction
between flexible working and self-determination on work engagement, job satisfaction and
work-life balance was studied.
A partially mixed sequential dominant status design was adopted in which the results from a
preceding quantitative part build the empirical basis for a subsequent qualitative investigation.
Data was analyzed based on a sample of 292 respondents, which was already gathered in
2011 at the company under investigation, a large telecommunications company in the
Netherlands. Results of the quantitative analysis show that particularly the impact dimension
of psychological empowerment shows to be important for work engagement to be high. Thus,
those managing organizations should pay attention to ensure that employees are able to see
how they can make a difference in the organization and how they can influence work
outcomes. This finding extends prior research in the area of predictors of work engagement
and thus, should receive consideration in future research. Likewise, results from the ten
interviews conducted within the qualitative investigation uncovered an additional yet non-
considered factor, namely perceived organizational support, which fosters work engagement.
Organizational uncertainty was found to harm engagement levels and in line with previous
findings, social support represented a positive influencer of engagement. Additionally, this
thesis revealed that self-determination was negatively related to work engagement in the
quantitative investigation; however, interview responses showed that self-determination was
important for engagement to be high. Thus, future research is needed to discover clear
patterns; also for a possible relation between competence and work engagement, as results
could not support a significant relationship.
With regard to the outcome variables work-life balance and job satisfaction, results of the
thesis suggest that work engagement is of crucial importance for employee’s job satisfaction
and work-life balance. Also, the impact dimension of psychological empowerment showed to
have a positive significant relation with job satisfaction; however, none of the dimensions of
psychological empowerment were related to work-life balance. Importantly, this study
uncovered the moderating effect of flexible working on the relation between work
engagement and job satisfaction, but not for work-life balance. On top of that flexible
working also moderated the relationship between the two psychological empowerment
dimensions self-determination and competence and job satisfaction. Additionally, an
unexpected negative relation between the empowerment dimensions self-determination and
job satisfaction was found, which opens up possibilities for future research.
This thesis aspired to find ways of getting employees engaged and indeed has uncovered
additional factors, which appear to be important in the context of high work engagement.
However, this study also showed ambiguous and inconsistent findings, thus, more (research)
needs to be done to counteract disengagement after all.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 9
1.1 Research Questions and Objective 10
1.2 Contributions to Theory Management Practice 11
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses 12
2.1 Work Engagement 12
2.1.1 Definition and Measurements 13
2.1.2 Antecedents and Consequences 15
2.2 Empowerment 16
2.2.1 Types of Empowerment 16
2.2.2 Psychological Empowerment and Work Engagement 17
2.3 Work- Life Balance 18
2.3.1 Definition 19
2.3.2 Work-Life Balance Theories 19
2.3.3 Work Engagement and Work-Life Balance 20
2.3.4 Psychological Empowerment and Work-Life Balance 22
2.4 Job Satisfaction 23
2.4.1 Conceptualization 23
2.4.2 Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction 25
2.4.3 Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction 25
2.5 The Moderating Role of Flexible Working 27
2.5.1 Conceptualization of Flexible Working 27
2.5.2 Flextime Schemes 28
2.5.3 The Interaction of Flexible Working and Work Engagement 30
2.5.4 The Interaction of Flexible Working and Psychological Empowerment 32
2.6 Conceptual Model 36
3. Method 37
3.1 Quantitative Phase 37
3.1.1 Sample 37
3.1.2 Data Collection Procedure 38
3.1.3 Measures 38
3.1.3.1 Work Engagement 38
3.1.3.2 Flexible Working 39
3.1.3.3 Psychological Empowerment 39
3.1.3.4 Work-Life Balance 39
3.1.3.5 Job Satisfaction 40
3.1.3.6 Control Variables 40
3.2 Qualitative Phase 42
3.2.1 Procedure 42
4. Results 43
4.1 Quantitative Phase 43
4.1.1 Principal Component Factor Analysis 43
4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics 46
4.1.3 Multicollinearity 47
4.1.4 Hypotheses Testing 49
4.2 Qualitative Phase 58
5. Discussion 63
6. Conclusion 73
6.1 Theoretical Implications 74
6.2 Practical Implications 76
6.3 Limitations and Directions for Further Research 77
References 79
APPENDIX A: Interview Questions 92
APPENDIX B: KMO and Measure of Sampling Adequacy 94
APPENDIX C: Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor 98
APPENDIX D: Partial Correlations 100
APPENDIX E: Sobel Test 102
APPENDIX F: Bootstrapping Results 103
APPENDIX G: Regression Analyses 105
9
1. Introduction
“20 years ago, no one in this company talked about engagement much less has heard about
it. (…)Today, the situation is different. Now engagement is on everyone’s lips. Engagement
not only has become our internal group target for this year but we have also established an
extra ‘Engagement Practices’ team, which is especially devoted to engagement activities (…).
I think the concept as such sounds very promising for our company,(…) but becoming
engaged is often not an easy endeavor. I mean, we all want employees who are dedicated to
the work they do, but we all also have a life outside work (…). Engaging employees is also
especially difficult due to the inherent uncertainties everybody is facing since the last years
(…). I personally just hope that engagement will not just be another ‘In’- organizational
practices, we invest a lot of money and energy in, and which will not be sustainable after all
(…).”(XY Manager, telecommunications company under investigation)
The above quoted statement nicely exemplifies the present state of affairs within the
engagement arena. Engaging employees to work seems to be important but apparently,
organizations face shortcomings with regard to the realization process. Bakker and Leiter
(2010) argue that contemporary organizations are in the need of employees who are engaged,
because they are psychologically connected to their work, are willing and able to invest
themselves fully in their roles and are proactive and committed to high quality performance
standards. This is especially important in the present contemporary world of work, as the
move from a commodity based economy to a knowledge economy bears new challenges for
companies to be able to compete efficiently and effectively in the market place. With an
increasing number of organizational assets becoming intangible and associated jobs, which
demand greater human skills, companies are forced to devote efforts to recruit, retain and
engage employees (Konrad & Mangel, 2000). Work engagement within the academic
literature has most often been described in terms of a fulfilling, positive work-related
experience (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) and the scholarly community revealed that engaged
employees have higher levels of energy, are self-efficacious people who influence their own
work and go the extra mile for the company (Bakker, 2009; Towers Perrin, 2007). Not only
because of the latter reasons has the concept of engagement become a hot topic on the
agendas of many organizations but also due to its positive influence on organizational bottom
line outcomes such as job satisfaction, productivity, and lower turnover and absenteeism rates
(Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al., 2005). Even though a lot of research has been conducted
10
with regard to the predictors and consequences of work engagement (e.g. Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007; Bakker & Demerouti 2008; Hakanen et al., 2006 ), recent studies (Pech &
Slade, 2006; Richman, 2006) identified that employees are becoming less engaged and that
disengagement is on the rise. In face of the organizational importance of work engagement,
the increasing disengagement highlights the urgency to ‘engage oneself with work
engagement’ in order to gain deeper insights into antecedents, consequences and moderators
of work engagement.
1.1 Research Questions and Objective
Placing work engagement in the context of organizational and individual drivers reveals that
only a few studies (Kimura, 2011; Stander & Rothmann, 2010) to date particularly
investigated in how far work engagement is influenced by the four dimensions (meaning,
competence, impact, self-determination) of psychological empowerment. Psychological
empowerment defined as a set of internal psychological states has been identified as crucial in
terms of organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction or productivity and received
enormous attention among academics and practitioners within the last 20 years (Spreitzer,
2008). However, despite its importance, the relation between psychological empowerment
and work engagement has been limited to a small amount of studies. Therefore, the following
research question will be investigated:
“What is the effect of psychological empowerment on work engagement?”
On top of that research has shown that work engagement is positively related to
organizational bottom line outcomes such as job satisfaction or productivity (Harter et al.,
2002; Salanova et al., 2005) yet, little is known in how far work engagement influences work-
life balance, of which the latter has become a buzz word for many employees due to strain
from family and work. Thus, it should be of interest to know if work engagement can also
make a significant contribution to enable a superior work-life balance for employees. Even
though previous studies have proven the positive relation between work engagement and job
satisfaction (e.g. Amarakoon & Wickramasinghe, n.d.; Saks, 2006), the relation seems not be
that straightforward as some authors argue work engagement and job satisfaction to be almost
isomorphic constructs (e.g. Macey & Schneider, 2008). Thus, it is crucial to further explore
the nature of this relationship. Furthermore, according to Kular et al. (2008), recent research
studies on engagement neglected variables that affect work engagement as a whole such as
11
HR practices. In this context, particularly little is known in how far flexible working
especially influences the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction and also
work-life balance. This thesis follows the call from Kular et al. (2008) by especially
investigating the role of flexible work arrangements as a HR policy in relation to work
engagement and its influencing factors and outcomes. Taken together, the two additional
research questions help to shed light on the above mentioned intricacies:
“What is the effect of work engagement on work-life balance and job satisfaction?
“What is the role of flexible working in these relationships?
Sub questions the thesis tries to answer are:
1. Which other factors influence work engagement?
2. What is the relationship between psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and
work-life balance?
3. What is the role of flexible working in this relationship?
Thus, the objective of this research is threefold: Firstly, this thesis aims at gaining deeper
insights into the influencing factors of work engagement. Particularly the impact of
psychological empowerment on work engagement will be studied. Secondly, the relationship
between work engagement, job satisfaction and work-life balance will be examined as well as
the relation between psychological empowerment on the outcome variables. Thirdly, the role
of flexible working in these relationships will be investigated.
1.2 Contributions to Theory and Management Practice
The research to be carried out has both theoretical and managerial relevance. As
disengagement is on the rise, it should of scholarly interest to further uncover factors that lead
to an increase in work engagement as the current state of knowledge seems to be unsatisfying.
As only little research (Kimura, 2011; Stander & Rothmann, 2010) to date exists that has
examined in how far work engagement is influenced by the dimensions of psychological
empowerment, this research should extend and contribute to previous literature. Since
psychological empowerment has been identified as crucial in terms of organizational
outcomes, it is likely to be also of importance for work engagement. Furthermore, uncovering
additional factors that increase work engagement above and beyond existing ones should
12
make a significant contribution to the work engagement literature and possibly invite future
avenues for research. This is likewise true for the testing of a possible relation between work
engagement and work-life balance. In the context of aspiring to unravel supplemental factors
that increase work engagement, recent studies ignored to examine what according to
employees‘ perception can be done to decrease the barrier to engagement. This research gap
will be addressed in this thesis by conducting interviews at the individual level over and
above quantitative analysis. On top of that, especially investigating the moderating role of
flexible work arrangements beyond a simple linear relationship should offer valuable clues to
the full potential of flexible working. Addressing the existing gaps in the scientific literature,
thereby adds theoretical relevance to this thesis.
Gaining insights into the role of flexible working in the relationship between work
engagement and psychological empowerment on work-life balance and job satisfaction will
provide companies with knowledge on valuable factors that may either be within or beyond
their range of control. This knowledge will help companies to better manage work
engagement, work-life balance and job satisfaction while considering the effects of flexible
working. Beyond this, organizations will gain practical insights into the determinants of
engagement thereby enriching their knowledge how to increase work engagement. Moreover,
in face of the thesis being written together with a large telecommunications company, the
immediate urgency and practical importance of the topic to be investigated becomes obvious.
The company under investigation has demonstrated a keen interest in increasing work
engagement and into the role of flexible working, thus the results of this thesis will also be of
practical relevance for other industry-related companies.
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1 Work Engagement
The term engagement has developed in quite a sequential manner and began to appear within
the context of the employee work role in the business and psychology literature about 20
years ago. More recently, a lot of studies regarding engagement are also found within the
nursing area. The resulting research within the last 20 years of study on the topic of
engagement are fairly wide-ranging and four lines of research dominate in the engagement
arena, which all define and measure engagement in a different way. This represents a
13
challenge for those trying to manage engagement (Simpson, 2009). Confusion regarding the
management and understanding of engagement exists because scholarly connotations of
engagement also include constructs such as involvement, commitment or satisfaction.
2.1.1 Definition and Measurements
Following a review about engagement by Simpson (2009), the literature describing the term
engagement can be distinguished into four main streams. Among the first scholars researching
the notion of engagement was William Kahn 22 years ago, whose personal engagement study
represents the first stream of research in the engagement arena. According to him personal
engagement can be defined as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work
roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and
emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). In this respect, whereas the
cognitive element of work engagement embraces employees’ beliefs about their company,
managers and working environment, the physical aspect of work engagement concerns and
individual’s energy to fulfill its own role. As opposed to the cognitive and physical element,
the emotional aspect of engagement hinges at employees’ feelings about each of these factors
and their attitude, be it negative or positive, towards their managers. According to Kahn
(1990) employees are engaged when they are emotionally and cognitively connected to other
employees and are aware of what is expected of them. By means of a qualitative study, Kahn
investigated the work conditions for which people personally engage and disengage
themselves and found that the three psychological conditions, meaningfulness, safety and
availability have an influence on personal engagement and disengagement.
A second body of literature defines engagement within the context of burnout, which clearly
sets itself apart from the work of Kahn (1990). Seven years after Kahn’s publications,
Maslach & Leiter (1997) defined engagement as being the total opposite of burnout.
According to these authors, engagement and burnout can be understood as antipodes, with
burnout at the one end representing low energy, involvement and efficacy and engagement at
the other end standing for high levels of energy, high involvement and efficacy. The Malsach
burnout inventory (MBI) represents a measure for both burnout and engagement (Maslach et
al., 1997). Maslach et al.’s conceptualization resulted in much discussion about whether
engagement indeed represents the opposite of burnout. Some argue that the constructs are
obliquely related but not necessarily the opposite of each other as engagement seems to be
much more complex (e.g. Britt, Castro & Adler, 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Shirom, 2003).
14
Breaking free from the idea that engagement represents merely the antithesis of burnout
Schaufeli et al. (2002) argued that one needs to treat engagement and burnout as two
independent constructs, because an employee who has a low burnout score does not
necessarily have a high engagement score and vice versa. Based on their inherent criticism,
Schaufeli et al. (2002) developed the concept of work engagement to clearly set engagement
and burnout apart, thereby clearing the way for the third line of research. Schaufeli et al.
define work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. (…) Engagement refers to a more
persistent and pervasive affective cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object,
event, individual or behavior” (p. 74). In this context, whereas the concept of vigor can be
described as employees’ having high levels of energy and are willing to put effort into one’s
own work, dedication refers to employees’ feeling of “a sense of significance, enthusiasm,
inspiration, pride and challenge” (Schaufeli et al., p. 74). The notion of absorption can be best
described in terms of employees being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one’s work.
Thereby they have the feeling of time passing by quickly and employees are not able to
detach oneself from work. At the end of the working day, engaged employees do feel tired but
their tiredness is linked to positive achievements, thereby they experience their fatigue as
positive. Nonetheless, engaged employees are hard working people, however; as opposed to
workaholics, regard work as fun and not as an irresistible inner drive (Gorgievski, Bakker &
Schaufeli, 2010). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) incorporates the three
aspects of work engagement and is used as a widespread measurement tool.
The fourth line of literature is somewhat connected to Kahns’ personal engagement model,
but still sets itself apart. Harter et al. (2002, p. 269) describe employee engagement as an
‘‘individual’s involvement and satisfaction as well as enthusiasm for work’’ while individuals
are emotionally linked to others and cognitively vigilant. Clearly, Harter et al. (2002) directly
link engagement to job satisfaction and not treat them as separate conceptions. In Harter et
al.’s model, four antecedent constructs need to be present for engagement to take place:
Clarity of expectations and basic materials and equipment being provided, a feeling of
contribution to the organization, a feeling of a sense of belonging to something beyond
oneself, and a feeling that there are opportunities to discuss progress and growth.
Measurement of employee engagement centers on these antecedent elements by making use
of the Gallup Workplace Audit, which consists of 12 items that measure employee
15
perceptions of work characteristics denoted as “satisfaction-engagement” (Harter et al., p.
269).
Clearly, the four dominant literature streams are fairly distinct and each of the engagement
models is used for different purposes and has its allowance. Still, for the sake of this thesis,
the scale by Schaufeli et al. (2002) to measure work engagement is used as it gained wide
popularity and validity in the research arena (Simpson, 2009). One should note that
throughout the literature, the terms work engagement and employee engagement are
sometimes used interchangeably, which also contributes to the aforementioned confusion of
the concept (e.g. in Stander & Rothmann, 2010).
2.1.2 Antecedents and Consequences
Ever since its development, a considerable amount of research examining the antecedents and
consequences of work engagement has emerged. For example, as work engagement has been
described in terms of a fulfilling, positive work-related experience (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004) Sonnentag (2003) proposed work engagement to be positively related to health and
work affect. Saks (2006) argued that engagement is likely to result in positive work outcomes,
such as organizational commitment, service climate and customer loyalty (Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2004; Hakanen et al., 2006, Salanova et al., 2005). In the context of higher work
performance, Bakker and Demerouti (2008) advocate that at least four reasons contribute to
higher performance for engaged employees. According to these authors, engaged employees
as opposed to non-engaged ones exhibit positive emotions (joy, enthusiasm), have a better
health, generate their own personal and job resources and pass their engagement over to
others. Simpson (2009) in her review about engagement proposes that instead of individual
personal demographic factors, especially organizational factors were significant predictors of
work engagement. In this context, Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum (2006) found the
demographics of age, marital and parental status, number of children, level of education,
hours worked and part-time work had no significant impact on work engagement.
One of the most influential pieces of work in the area of work engagement has been the
development of the Job Demands-Resource Model (JD-R). Consolidating existing research on
the topic of engagement, Bakker and Demerouti (2008) proposed a model for work
engagement including predictors, outcomes and moderators of work engagement. With regard
to the drivers of work engagement, job resources such as social support or feedback and
16
personal resources like self-efficacy or resilience have been identified as positive antecedents
of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). However, the concept of psychological
empowerment as a possible driver of work engagement is missing in this model and on
account of this, a potential relation will be explored in the subsequent section.
2.2 Empowerment
Prior to 1990 the concept of empowerment was only accessible via research papers including
individual development, total quality control or participative management as a topic (Sullivan,
1994). However, ever since the 1990s, articles featuring employee empowerment have arisen.
Reasons for this increase in academic articles can be credited to its positive influence on work
outcomes (Spreitzer, 2008). Empirical research found evidence that empowerment predicts
job satisfaction, high levels of organizational commitment and productivity (e.g. Bordin,
Bartram & Casimir, 2007; Hakanen et al., 2006; Jun, Shaohan & Hojung, 2006; Koberg et al.,
1999; Laschinger et al., 2001; Salavona et al., 2005). Even though empowerment has been
identified with organizational bottom line outcomes, Honold (1997) identifies in her
empowerment review that the former construct can be considered as highly subjective. She
argues that in order for empowerment to bear fruits for an organization it must to be placed
into the context of each organization’s individual culture and specific needs.
2.2.1 Types of Empowerment
Within the last twenty year of organizational research, two types of empowerment emerged,
namely structural and psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 2008). Whereas structural
empowerment refers to a set of practices that provide employees with access to information,
support, resources and give them the opportunity to learn in the work environment (Kanter,
1993), psychological empowerment has a different underlying assumption. Psychological
empowerment places an individual’s psychological states into focus, which are important for
employees to experience control over their work (Spreitzer, 2008). The structural perspective
of empowerment has been the dominant and prevailing view in the empowerment arena until
Conger and Kanungo (1988) declared this perspective to be insufficient as it undermines the
importance of an individual’s self-efficacy, which is crucial for empowerment to take place.
Triggered by this thought, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) saw empowerment as an internal
process linked to intrinsic task motivation, which can be defined as a broader concept within a
set of four cognitive variables reflecting an employee’s orientation to his or her work role.
17
These four variables are meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. By meaning
the authors refer to how an employee’s own values, standards or ideals oppose towards a
value of a work goal or purpose at the working environment. The second construct,
competence, represents an individual’s belief in his or her capability to execute work
activities with skill, comparable to self-esteem or self-efficacy. Self-determination relates to
an individual’s sense of autonomy, as having the choice of initiating and performing a task
and includes individual’s sense of control regarding how to carry out own work. The last
dimension impact hinges at the feeling of employees as having influence over work outcomes
and the degree to which employees can make a difference. The four dimensions of
psychological empowerment have emerged as a popular way to measure psychological
empowerment and the validity of the dimensions has been demonstrated by scholarly
research, of who Spreitzer (1995) represents the pioneer. This thesis adopts the definition of
psychological empowerment given by Thomas and Velthouse (1990), however, of the four
dimensions, particularly three dimensions (competence, self-determination, impact) will be of
interest in this thesis.
2.2.2 Psychological Empowerment and Work Engagement
Next to having positive effects on job satisfaction, productivity and organizational
commitment, I theorize that psychological empowerment influences work engagement in a
positive way as well. Engaged employees regard themselves as being entirely capable of
fulfilling their job demands, thus they demonstrate high levels of self-efficacy (Llorens et al.,
2007). Results of Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter’s study (2001) affirmed self-efficacy and
engagement to be strongly related. Given that empowered employees highly believe in
themselves and the work they carry out, self-endorsed goals will increase work engagement as
they are internalized and autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Stander and Rothmann (2010)
specifically investigated the relationship between psychological empowerment and work
engagement and found evidence for a positive relationship between the two. The dimensions
of psychological empowerment, meaning, competence, impact and self-determination
predicted work engagement in a statistically and significant way. As psychological
empowerment can be considered as an “enabling process” an employee’s task initiation and
perseverance is increased (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). When an employee is confident about
his ability to do his or her job and believes that he or she has mastered the skills necessary for
the job (competence) the employee might be able to forget everything around him or her and
can be fully dedicated to work. In addition, employees who are able to decide on their own
18
how to execute a certain task (self-determination) and know exactly that they are able to make
a difference in their department (impact) will likely be of full energy and are enthusiastic
about what they are doing. Working autonomously and having the choice of initiating a task
(self-determination) might also possibly even lead to a sudden inspiration, as an employee has
the freedom for new ways of thinking and unexpectedly innovative ideas. Support for a direct
relationship between psychological empowerment and work engagement was also found in a
study conducted by Kimura (2011) revealing that psychological empowerment leads to an
increase in work engagement via a mediating effect of psychological empowerment on
structural empowerment and Person-Organization fit. Based on this reasoning I propose that:
Hypothesis 1a: The psychological empowerment dimension competence is positively related
to work engagement.
Hypothesis 1b: The psychological empowerment dimension self-determination is positively
related to work engagement.
Hypothesis 1c: The psychological empowerment dimension impact is positively related to
work engagement.
2.3 Work- Life Balance
The notion of work-life balance has gained highly in importance during recent years. In this
context, developments and changes at the work place such as advances in the information
technology and information overloads that require quick responses and changes at a fast pace
put increasing pressures on employees (Guest, 2002). Next to this, also developments and
changes in life outside work can be seen as source of a work-life imbalance. In particular,
transformations in the socio-economic environment and changes in technology opening
possibilities regarding where and when work is carried out cause an imbalance between work
and home responsibilities. Moreover, the shift away from the image of the “traditional family”
towards an increasing appearance of single parent families and the greater participation of
women in the labor force represent factors requesting a greater work-life balance among
employees (Guest, 2002).
19
2.3.1 Definition
The term work-life balance gives rise to certain intricacies and ambiguities. First of all, work-
life balance can be considered as a highly subjective concept. There is no “one size fits all”
approach regarding the best work-life balance, as each individual innates a different opinion
what represents the ‘best’ work-life balance for him or her. Greenblatt (2002, p. 179)
describes work-life balance as “the absence of unacceptable levels of conflict between work
and non-work demands” indicating that when demands from the work and non-work domains
are opposing, conflict may occur. This definition highlights yet another equivocality. Whereas
the meaning of work may be somewhat narrowed down to “an activity involving mental or
physical effort done in order to achieve a result” (Oxford dictionaries, 2012) e.g. to earn a
living, the term non-work demands in Greenblatt’s definition is quite broad and can mean
anything except work. Due to these deficiencies, some authors are in favor of using for
example the term work-family life balance, work-home life balance or negative job-to-home
spillover to narrow down the term ‘life’ (e.g. Galinsky, Bond & Friedman, 1993; Guest, 2002;
Hill et al., 2001; Maume & Houston, 2001). For the sake of this research, I adopt the
definition of Clark (2000, p. 751) who sees work-life balance as “satisfaction and good
functioning at work and home with a minimum of role conflict.” Minimum role conflict is key
in this definition for the thesis at hand.
2.3.2 Work-Life Balance Theories
While researching work-life balance, one comes across several theories which try to explain
the notion of the work-life relationship. Zedeck and Mosier (1990) advocate that there are five
main models on the individual level, which aid in understanding the issue of the work-life
relationship (for a detailed overview, please refer to Zedeck & Moiser, 1990). As a
hypothetical model, the segmentation approach theorizes that work and non-work are fairly
distinct domains, which do not have anything in common. However, no empirical support was
found for this model, as it solely represents a theoretical possibility. By far the most
influential and researched theory represents the spillover approach. As the name already
suggests, it proposes that work and non-work/home domains are interconnected in a sense that
both domains can have a positive or negative (emotional or behavioral) influence on the other,
despite the physically and temporal present boundaries. For instance, with regard to emotional
spillover, happiness or sadness at work lead to happiness or sadness at home. Complementary
to the spillover approach is the compensation approach of work-life balance, which postulates
that one environment has to rectify for what happens in the opponent domain. For example,
20
people who have an unsatisfying work life will try to engage in activities in their private life
that enrich their satisfaction. Instrumental theory posits that the two environments overlap in
such a way that actions in one environment help to render success in the other. For instance,
an instrumental worker might work hard for ten years to get a loan for a new house. The final
theory, the conflict model is based on the assumption that when in both environments
demands are high, decisions have to be made that can lead to conflicts and overloads.
In response to the conflict perspective, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) developed yet another
theory, which emphasizes and recognizes the positive effects of work to family role spillover.
Particularly, in their ‘Work-Family Enrichment’ (WFE) theory, Greenhaus and Powell (2006,
p. 72) define work-family enrichment as “the extent to which experiences in one role improve
the quality of life in the other role” whereby quality of life can be captured by high
performance and positive affect. They suggest that resources (i.e. skills and perspectives,
psychological and physical resources, social capital resources, flexibility and material
resources) built up in either role (work role or home role) promote positive affect and high
performance in the other role. This takes place by means of two mechanisms: Firstly, through
the so called instrumental path, resources generated in one role are directly transmitted to the
other role thereby fostering high performance in the other role. Secondly, via the affective
path (i.e. emotions and moods), a resource built up in one role can also generate positive
affect within the same role, which in turn, leads to positive affect and high performance in the
other role. As WFE can be considered as an extension of the spillover theory, particularly
stressing positive spillover, WFE will be of particular importance in the thesis at hand.
2.3.3 Work Engagement and Work-Life Balance
Research on the relation between work engagement and work-life balance is rather rare. Only
a few authors specifically studied a potential relationship among the variables. Within this
field of research, results point into a bi-directional relationship. Amarakoon and
Wickramasinghe (n.d.) found in their study about the impact of work-life balance on
employee engagement on Sri Lankan employees that work-life balance has a positive
influence on employee engagement. They argue that a proper balance between work and life
demands is prerequisite in order for employee engagement to be present because work-life
factors such as caring about employees, placing employees interests first and flexibility are
predictors of engagement. Next to having identified a relationship in the direction of work-life
balance – work engagement, Bakker, Albrecht & Leiter (2011) in their recent article
21
summarize research in the area of work engagement and post 10 key questions which should
build the basis for future research. Amongst others, they asked if engagement also has a
negative side pointing into the direction of over engagement. In this context, they made the
assumption that work engagement negatively influences work-life balance as people can
become too engaged. This implies that employees who are so engaged, take work home,
which distorts their work-life balance.
By far less research has been done on the positive effect of work engagement on work-life
balance (Kansas State University, 2009; Lewis, 2008). Drawing on findings from work-family
enrichment (WFE), a possible influence of work engagement on work-life balance can be
explained. As previously mentioned, enrichment from work to family takes place when
experiences at the work role advance the quality of family life, demonstrated by high
performance and positive affect. Within WFE, the instrumental path proposes that resources
built up in one role foster high performance in the other role. The affective path indicates that
resources accumulated in one role result in positive affect in that role, ultimately promoting
high performance and positive affect in the other role. Siu et al. (2010) argue that a role state
which features both high performance and positive affect should be the best factor in
predicting work-family enrichment. In this context the authors propose that especially work
engagement represents such a proximal factor. Judging from the affect perspective, Siu and
colleagues argue that people who are highly engaged “should coexist with positive affect and
cognition, as they feel vigorous and work on meaningful tasks (Siu et al., 2010, p. 471).
Moreover they reason that people high on work engagement are highly involved and
enthusiastic about their work and deeply engrossed, which contributes to a happy experience,
indentified by Seligman, Rashid and Parks (2006) as positive affect. From the performance
perspective Siu et al. advocate that people high on work engagement innate a strong identity
with their work and they regard their work as inspirational, meaningful and demanding, thus
they are inclined to apply knowledge and use resources and skills to a greater extent at work,
which is related to higher job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Consequently, work engagement can be regarded as very similar to positive affect and high
performance and hence, resources, skills and knowledge at work are transmitted and used in
the family environment through the experience of work engagement. Siu et al. (2010) argue
that because people high on work engagement regard their work as meaningful and strongly
identify with their job, they are more likely to demonstrate resources, knowledge and skills,
22
which in turn are more easily transmitted to the family domain. Moreover, based on the
intuition behind highly engaged employees, high energy levels at work and a positive mood
and favorable emotions spill over to the family environment, increasing performance and
positive affect and mood in the latter environment. Hence, the experience of high engagement
at work has a positive influence on the family domain, thereby reducing role conflict between
the two domains. On a similar note, a study conducted by Kansas State University (2009)
highly supports this line of reasoning. In line with spillover theory, the study showed that
when employees perceive higher levels of engagement at work, due to positive moods, they
are more likely to show increasing levels of work-family facilitation rather than experiencing
work-family conflict. Therefore I argue that work engagement is beneficial for work-life
balance and propose:
Hypothesis 2: Work engagement is positively related to work-life balance.
2.3.4 Psychological Empowerment and Work-Life Balance
Another area which lacks solid research represents the investigation of the possible influence
of psychological empowerment on work-life balance. As to my knowledge, only one author
specifically investigated this relationship. Akda (2012) did a small scale study (N=72) to test
whether psychological empowerment is related to work-life balance and in how far the two
constructs influence physical and mental well-being of the workforce. Results from the
multivariate regression analysis reveal that psychological empowerment and work-life
balance showed a significant relationship. With the aid of Hackman and Oldham’s job
characteristic model (1976), this influence can be explained. Kraimer et al. (1999) confirmed
in their study the discriminant and convergent validity of the four dimensional empowerment
construct and also found that the three constructs of Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristic
model (1976) are related to the four dimensions of psychological empowerment. Particularly,
the construct of job meaningfulness was positively associated with empowerment meaning;
task feedback was positively related to competence and impact and job autonomy showed a
positive relation to empowerment self-determination. As previously mentioned,
empowerment competence is related to self-efficacy, which should increase when receiving
task feedback (Gist, 1987, Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Next to improving competence levels, task
feedback is also argued to positively relate to impact. Hackman and Oldham (1976) argue that
task feedback has a positive relation with knowledge of the actual outcomes of certain
activities and without such knowledge individuals would not be able to have an impact or
23
influence in the organization. Hence, the three constructs of the job characteristic model play
a crucial role in psychological empowerment.
Next to being vital for psychological empowerment, a study conducted by Bhargava and
Baral (2009) about the antecedents and consequences of work-family enrichment found that
the three constructs of the job characteristic model were also positively related to work-family
enrichment. This suggests that greater autonomy levels, job meaningfulness and task feedback
enable a more positive WFE experience. For example, employees who have more freedom at
work display higher levels of WFE since this increase in autonomy enables employees to
decide when and how work activities will be carried out. Since the job characteristic model
and the dimensions of psychological empowerment are obviously related, and the job
characteristic model has shown to be beneficial for WFE, I expect that the three dimensions of
psychological empowerment should reduce work-family conflict as well thereby providing a
better work-life balance. Therefore I argue:
Hypothesis 3a: The psychological empowerment dimension competence is positively related
to work-life balance.
Hypothesis 3b: The psychological empowerment dimension self-determination is positively
related to work-life balance.
Hypothesis 3c: The psychological empowerment dimension impact is positively related to
work-life balance.
2.4 Job Satisfaction
2.4.1 Conceptualization
The concept of job satisfaction and how to increase it has received a considerable amount of
attention during the last decade in organizational research and represents the most commonly
researched dependent variable within the area of industrial organizational psychology and
occupational health. It was also found that over 12.000 studies related to job satisfaction were
published by the 1990s (Kinicki et al., 2002). Not least because research has found out that
dissatisfied employees work detrimentally towards the organizational goals and they are more
24
likely to leave their jobs (Robbins & Judge, 2007). Yet, being satisfied with one’s job seems
to be a complex interplay of various factors, of which not all lie within a manager’s control
(Aziri, 2011). Theories on job satisfaction emerged to surface within the last 50 years (for a
comprehensive overview please refer to Aziri, 2011) and throughout organizational research,
the relationship between job satisfaction and many variables has been investigated. Sengin
(2003) and Hinshaw and Atwood (1984) discovered that demographic variables (e.g.
education, experience), organizational factors (e.g. degree of professionalization), and job
characteristics (e.g. level of autonomy, type of task) have a strong influence on job
satisfaction. Robbins and Judge (2007) noted that enjoying the work itself is always the facet
that is most strongly correlated with high levels of job satisfaction. On top of that, they argue
that jobs that offer trainings, independence and variety also satisfy employees the most and
pay only influences job satisfaction to a certain degree. Next to this, one’s own personality
also plays a large role in determining job satisfaction. The big five personality traits have
shown to have an influence on job satisfaction (e.g. Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002) and it was
found that people who are intrinsically negative are less satisfied with their jobs than those
that have a positive personality (Robbins & Judge, 2007).
With respect to consequences of job satisfaction, research revealed that being satisfied with
one’s job has a positive influence on productivity, commitment and customer satisfaction and
has detrimental effects on employee turnover and absenteeism (Robbins & Judge, 2007).
Despite having uncovered positive influencers of job satisfaction, managing job satisfaction
appears to be difficult as there are no hard and fast rules for it. What might be satisfying for
one employee is just not enough for the other employee to be satisfied. Thus, being satisfied
with one’s job represents a highly subjective attitude, which presents those managing
organizations with a challenge. Just as managing job satisfaction issues a challenge to leaders,
defining job satisfaction also implies ambiguities. Even though finding a universal definition
of job satisfaction seems to be impossible as all authors place different emphases, all
definitions (for an overview please refer to Aziri, 2011) share a common theme. It appears
that job satisfaction always represents something personal to the employee. In line with this,
the thesis adopts the definition of job satisfaction as “having positive feelings about one’s job
resulting from an evaluation of the characteristics” (Robbins & Judge, 2007, p. 79). Hence,
job satisfaction determines the degree of how much employees enjoy their jobs.
25
2.4.2 Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction
Some authors argue (e.g. Harter et al., 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008) that work
engagement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and involvement are overlapping,
almost isomorphic constructs. For instance, Macey and Schneider (2008) proposed that when
satisfaction is determined via feelings of high energy, enthusiasm and other affects,
satisfaction equals engagement. In contrast, other studies opposed (e.g. Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004) that engagement, satisfaction and involvement are conceptually distinct concepts. In
fact, ample amount of scholarly research specifically examined the positive impact of
engagement on satisfaction, thereby treating them as two distinct conceptions. Evidence
suggests that highly engaged employees are more satisfied with their work. For example, Saks
(2006) investigated in his study the antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
Next to organizational commitment and organizational citizenship to be positively influenced
by work engagement, the author found engagement to have a positive effect on job
satisfaction. Amarakoon and Wickramasinghe (n.d.) and Kular et al. (2008) support previous
findings revealing that by increasing employee engagement, higher levels of organizational
outcomes and individual outcomes such as job satisfaction will be achieved. Engagement as
an affective, cognitive state, as identified by Schaufeli et al. (2002), increases job satisfaction
as emotions or affect as such are connected to an individual’s satisfaction, and the affirmation
and inspiration employees receive from their work increase the sense of belonging to the
organization (Towers Perrin, 2007). Highly engaged individuals should be more satisfied with
their job because they greatly enjoy what they are doing and are enthusiastic about their job.
About 60 years ago, Brayfield and Rothe (1951) already acknowledged that job satisfaction
can be derived from an individual’s attitude towards work such as having a strong sense of
purpose and inspiration (Pajak & Blase, 1989). Engaged employees are so involved, dedicated
and invigorated that time passes by quickly and they almost forget everything around them,
which should make a significant contribution to their job satisfaction level. Based on this
reasoning I propose that:
Hypothesis 4: Work engagement is positively related to job satisfaction.
2.4.3 Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
Spreitzer (2008) in her review about research on empowerment identifies that across a large
number of studies, psychological empowerment has consistently been related to higher levels
of job satisfaction (e.g. Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004; Sparrowe, 1994). According to
26
Hackman & Oldham’s job characteristic model (1980), critical psychological states such as
experienced meaningfulness, knowledge of results and feelings of responsibility and influence
should generate higher job satisfaction. Scholarly research has also examined the role of each
dimension of psychological empowerment and its relation to job satisfaction; however it
seems that for some dimensions, a consistent link has not been found yet. Spreitzer et al.
(1997) reported that particularly meaning and to a smaller extent competence result in higher
levels of job satisfaction for subordinates. In contrast, Carless (2004) showed that competence
was negatively related to job satisfaction and even some other authors did not find a
relationship between competence and job satisfaction (e.g. Siegall & Gardner, 2000; Thomas
& Tymon, 1994). Ambiguous findings regarding the influence of impact on job satisfaction
are also prevalent. Whereas Thomas and Tymon (1994) in their study reported a positive link
between impact and job satisfaction, in Spreitzer et al.‘s (1997) investigation the proposed
influence of impact on job satisfaction could not be supported. With regard to the self-
determination-job satisfaction relationship, Thomas & Tymon (1994) did find a positive
relation between the two constructs and Parker (1993) and Spector (1986) suggested that job
satisfaction and autonomy and perceived control are positively related. In contrast, Dickson
and Lorenz (2009) in their study about psychological empowerment and job satisfaction of
temporary and part-time nonstandard workers could not support a positive relation between
self-determination and job satisfaction.
Such conflicting findings form a basis to propose the following: I argue that the three
dimensions of psychological empowerment represent a psychological need, and if this need is
met, higher job satisfaction is likely to occur (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Paker, 1993). If
people have a great amount of self-determination and choice, they are able to initiate tasks,
and have greater autonomy to execute them. Thereby, there is room to generate own ideas and
implement them. As such self-determination is judged as being key to intrinsic motivation,
which, in turn, is important for job satisfaction to occur (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Increased levels
of autonomy should lead employees to experience intrinsic rewards from work and thereby
generate greater job satisfaction (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Ashforth (1989, 1990)
revealed that when employees actually lack opportunities to make an impact in the company,
they show decreasing satisfaction levels. Thus, when employees perceive they can make an
impact in the organization, they feel more motivated as they experience that their work has
high significance for the organization. Thereby, they see how their own work can influence
the company and it is expected that they exhibit greater job satisfaction levels. In a similar
27
vein, people who regard themselves as competent know that their skills and abilities are just
right to perform the job and have the self-esteem to do so. Based on this line of reasoning I
argue:
Hypothesis 5a: The psychological empowerment dimension competence is positively related
to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5b: The psychological empowerment dimension self-determination is positively
related to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5c: The psychological empowerment dimension impact is positively related to job
satisfaction.
2.5 The Moderating Role of Flexible Working
2.5.1 Conceptualization of Flexible Working
Flexibility as an organizational practice has gained increasingly in importance over the years
and has recently become a buzzword in many organizations. Yet, the term flexibility as such
is quite broad as it encompasses different types of strategies in the context of functional,
contractual, financial, geographical, numerical and working time and place flexibility (Lewis,
2003). This research is particularly interested in the latter type of flexibility, namely flexible
work arrangements or also often referred to “new ways of working” (NWW). The new ways
of working share three common characteristics: Firstly, it gives employees more freedom in
deciding when they work, thus the timing of work has become more flexible (Baarne,
Houtkamp & Knotter, 2010). Secondly, it is up to the employee’s discretion to choose the
place for work, be it at home, on the go, in the office or somewhere else (Kelliher &
Anderson, 2008). Thirdly, the new ways of working is enabled though new media technology
facilitating easier communication (Baarne, Houtkamp & Knotter, 2010).
Over the years, a sizeable body of research has evolved investigating its causes, antecedents
and outcomes. The reasons behind the rise of flexible working are ample, pointing at changes
in the socio-economic environment (Hochschild, 1997). The increasing participation of
women in the labor force and the resulting two-income households as well as greater
28
expectations towards a work-life balance compelled organizations to break with their standard
8am-5pm work day. This shift increased employees’ demands towards more flexible working
as the increasing demands of both work and home due to the shifting environmental landscape
have been making employees especially more sensitive towards a better work-life balance
(Pierce et al., 1989). In this context, flexible working is mainly seen as a tool to minimize
family-work conflict (e.g. Hill et al., 2001, Grover & Crooker, 1995; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998,
1999). Next to shifting demands on the employee’s side, the reasons on the employer’s side
seem to be less obvious at first sight. However, one of the core motives for employers seeking
greater flexibility points into the direction of competition. Flexibility is needed to conform
more rapidly to the turbulent and competitive changing international landscape; it also keeps
costs down and increases the attractiveness as an employer for future employees (Dalton &
Mesch, 1990; Krausz, Sagie & Bidermann, 2000; Treu, 1992). Additionally, a lot of research
also considers flexible working as a productivity and efficiency measure (e.g. Dalton &
Mesch, 1990). In this respect, many diverse positive organizational outcomes have been found
in the literature, of which positive effects on productivity, increasing employee performance,
and greater job satisfaction are at the core (e.g. Baltes et al., 1999; de Lay, 1995; Hunton &
Norman, 2010; Pratt, 1999; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000; Pierce et al., 1989; Ronen, 1981).
Despite the fact that there seems to be a clear distinction between the benefits of flexible
working for both employees and employers, the issue of “who benefits the most” has
particularly been subject of much deliberations (e.g. Hill, et al., 2001; Raabe, 1996; Shreibl &
Dex, 1998).
2.5.2 Flextime Schemes
Over the years a variety of options appeared how to create one’s day in a flexible way.
Common alternatives of flexible work arrangements involve flextime working, a compressed
work week, job sharing, flexplace, or working half-time. Of particular importance in this
thesis are flextime and flexplace.
Flextime working entails greater freedom for employees to choose the time when to begin and
when to leave work. Working under a flextime scheme has been firstly introduced in a
German company in the 1960s and ever since has become an appealing alternative to the
standard work day. Although in the last 20 years the growth rate has decreased as a variety of
other flexible working programs have become available, it still accounts for one of the most
popular alternative work arrangement. Its attractiveness stems from the fact that each
29
employee has the control to modify own working hours customized to personal needs (Baltes
et al., 1999). Considering each employee’s freedom to tailor work hours in accordance with
personal demands, thereby they are better able to seek out time spans in which they are most
productive (Pierce & Newstrom, 1980). In the face of the above mentioned advantages the
scheme brings along, there are some downsides noteworthy to mention. Its major drawback is
its scope of application meaning that it is not eligible for every organization. For jobs
requiring high client interactions such as in retail stores, receptionists, sales personnel and
similar work environments where employees must be at work at fixed times, this might not be
a viable option. As it also becomes more difficult to schedule meetings with clients or
perform teamwork, oftentimes organizations set one day in the week in which all employees
must be present, which is reserved for the above mentioned activities (Nollen, 1981). Besides,
inadvertent negative side effects such as additional implementation costs, coverage and
interface problems, control issues and a growing necessity for planning have also been found
(Coltrin & Barendse, 1981; Nollen, 1981). Although flextime comprises a great extent of
freedom and control for employees, this does not imply that workers can come and leave
work whenever it suits them best. In a flextime scheme there are a certain number of key
elements which serve as a guideline for the employee. During the so called “flexible
hours/periods” each employee can decide when to come to work and when to leave, however,
during the “core hours/period” set by the organization, all employees must be physically
present (Ridgley et al., 2005).
Flexplace or also known as teleworking or the virtual office implies that employee’s working
obligations can be fulfilled not only from the central office, but also from home and anywhere
else with a laptop. Due to the emergence of the satellite internet networks and its increased
affordability, a professional can work anywhere with a laptop and mobile phone given a
satisfactory working environment. The benefits of the concept are striking considering that
employees are not dependent on external conditions like commuter traffic or weather
conditions anymore (Hill et al., 1998). Another crucial benefit are the savings which can be
utilized by reducing office space for companies through methods like office sharing or
abandoning offices entirely (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998). Moreover, flexplace also partly
includes the aforementioned concept of flextime as the employee has the discretion to choose
the working hours of the day when working from a remote location. However, it seems that
flexplace is also not suitable for every organization as it mostly applies to routine
information-handling tasks, mobile activities as well as professional and other knowledge-
30
related tasks (Robbins & Judge, 2007). Even though the advantages the concept brings along
are quite striking, there are some drawbacks as well. It appears that managers have less direct
oversight over employees and thus, are not able to observe the immediate input, which
triggers employees to work harder when working outside of the office. Also, working from a
remote location cannot deliver the crucial benefits of face-to-face communication and
personal interaction (Callentine, 1995). Moreover, the concept employed in a too narrowly
focused way might estrange employees from the organization as it does not respond to
people’s social needs. With regard to work-life balance, conflicting views in the literature
emerged. One stream of literature indicates that teleworking is positively related to work life
balance as teleworkers have the freedom to choose when and where they will carry out their
work (Madsen, 2003; Perrons, 2003). In contrast, the negativist stream sees the integration of
home and work as a potential thread as this leads to blurring boundaries and therefore to role
overload and stress (e.g. Duxbury, Higgins & Thomas, 1996; Harpaz, 2002).
2.5.3 The Interaction of Flexible Working and Work Engagement
An investigation by Richman et al. (2008) in which the authors tested the relationship of
perceived flexibility, supportive work life policies, and the use of formal flexible
arrangements and occasional flexibility to work engagement and expected retention, found
evidence for a positive influence of flexible working on work engagement. A recent study
conducted by ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012) examined particularly in how far the new ways of
working foster work engagement. The results of their diary study indicated that flexible
working did have a positive influence on work engagement due to several reasons. Partly, the
influence of flexible working on work engagement can be attributed to a more efficient and
effective communication between employees, which leads to reduced levels of exhaustion.
Recalling that exhaustion represents the opposite of engagement, this relationship becomes
obvious. Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012) indicate that exhaustion was decreased due to for
example reduced enormous face-to-face interruptions when working from home and being
able to make work-related phone calls when travelling. Moreover, the authors argue that
based on permanent connectivity due to the usage of mobile technology, employees are more
easily reachable via phone or email when working within the new world of work design.
Increased availability fosters a high-pace work process, which generates more engagement
(Rennecker & Godwin, 2005). Grover and Crooker (1995) also confirmed this positive
relationship. Clearly, working flexibly makes a significant contribution to an employee’s
31
engagement level and thus, I anticipate flexible working to change the relationship between
work engagement and work-life balance and job satisfaction.
Especially, I assume flexible working to make a difference in work-life balance regardless of
employee’s engagement levels. As previously noted, by means of flexible working
employee’s exhaustion levels are decreased due to reduced face-to-face interruptions when
working from home and because employees are able to make work-related phone calls when
travelling. This should provide both low and high engaged employees with more energy,
should stimulate their dedication to work and ought to increase concentration levels. Even
though highly engaged employees already experience high levels of energy, flexible working
represents yet another mechanisms, which allows them to schedule own work according to
personal needs, which in turn, saves time and energy (Kelliher & Anderson, 2008). In this
respect, time and energy savings due to writing emails and making phone calls on the go can
be used to more easily fulfill family obligations. This is equally true for low engaged
employees but importantly, low engaged employees may experience this increase in energy as
something extraordinary, which they rarely ever experienced. Clearly, since flexible working
can be regarded as a way to decrease exhaustion and increase engagement levels for high and
low engaged employees, this experience of engagement at work should have a positive
influence on the family domain due to the positive spillover of high performance and
favorable emotions and moods via work engagement. Thus, role conflict between the two
domains should be minimized. Through engagement, the positive experiences in the work role
transfer to the family domain and advance the quality of life; in that way achieving a greater
work-life balance. Therefore I predict that work-life balance will be greater for highly and low
engaged employees only when they have a high level of flexible working. When either high
or low engaged employees do not enjoy a high level of flexible working, work-life balance
will be in turn lower. I suggest that:
Proposition 6a: There is an interaction between flexible working and work engagement such
that a high level of work engagement and a high level of flexible working lead to a higher
work-life balance than a low level of flexible working. A high level of flexible working and a
low level of work engagement lead to a higher work-life balance than a low level of flexible
working.
32
In a similar vein, I expect flexible working to change the relationship between work
engagement and job satisfaction. Because flexible working allows low and highly engaged
employees to have more energy and enables them to show higher concentration levels owing
to minimized interruptions, this should have an impact on their job satisfaction levels. Highly
engaged employees may experience an increase in energy and enthusiasm because, for
example, making phone calls while travelling should result in time and energy savings and
being able to coordinate tasks by emails results in greater effectiveness and efficiency. These
outcomes can be regarded as highly beneficial and thus should increase their positive feelings
about their job. Even though these benefits should equally hold for low engaged employees,
flexible working as such represents a practice that should lead to an unprecedented increase in
energy levels for low engaged employees. This never before seen energy should result in
positive emotions and consequently should make them happier about their job. Also, the
increased freedom to determine how, when and where to carry out work should increase work
enthusiasm for both high and low engaged employees. Indeed, scholarly research has shown
that engaged employees are more satisfied with their job (e.g. Saks, 2006) as they greatly
enjoy what they are doing and are enthusiastic about their job. Therefore it is reasonable to
expect that flexible working modifies the relationship between work engagement and job
satisfaction because it appears that flexible working is beneficial for work engagement and
thereby boosts job satisfaction. I assume that job satisfaction will be higher when employees
are highly engaged and also exhibit a high level of flexible working. When employees show
low engagement levels, I expect that for individuals, who are high on flexible working, job
satisfaction will be greater than for those, who show a low level of flexible working. Hence, I
propose:
Hypothesis 6b: There is an interaction between flexible working and work engagement such
that a high level of work engagement and a high level of flexible working lead to a higher job
satisfaction than a low level of flexible working. A high level of flexible working and a low
level of work engagement lead to a higher job satisfaction than a low level of flexible
working.
2.5.4 The Interaction of Flexible Working and Psychological Empowerment
Working under a flextime scheme can be considered as an empowering human resource
practice that increases employee’s freedom how to schedule their own working hours. A
survey conducted by Menon (1995) in which he studied the concept of empowerment
33
revealed, amongst others, that greater job autonomy leads to greater empowerment.
According to Kanter (1993) a work environment that provides access to information,
resources, the opportunity to learn and develop and support can be considered as empowering.
Furthermore, employees are stimulated by managers to have the freedom to perform on their
own expertise and judgment. Kanter (1993) labels these empowering work conditions as
structural empowerment, which influences psychological empowerment. As such, Kanter
argues that psychological empowerment represents a reaction of employees to structural
empowerment (Laschinger et al., 2004). Hence, flexible working as such can be considered a
HR practices that gives employees greater freedom, as employees are able to decide where
and when work will be carried out. Clearly, flexible work arrangements represent a way to
increase psychological empowerment, particularly the empowerment dimension self-
determination. As previously discussed, self-determination has been associated with the job
characteristic job autonomy and flexible working enriches an employee’s job autonomy
thereby increasing levels of self-determination. Therefore, I expect flexible working to change
the form of the relationship only for the empowerment dimensions self-determination and the
outcome variables job satisfaction and work-life balance, and work engagement, but not for
the empowerment dimensions impact and competence. Even though I do not expect a relation
between flexible working and the other two dimensions of psychological empowerment, for
the sake of completeness and consideration, the interaction between flexible working and
competence and impact will still be controlled for in the analyses as well.
I assume flexible working to particularly make a difference in job satisfaction for those people
who have low levels of self-determination. People with low self-determination levels do not
perceive a sense of choice in instigating and coordinating one’s own actions. They have less
autonomy with respect to making decisions about their work methods (Bell & Staw, 1989).
Thus, flexible working should provide them with the necessary autonomy in making decisions
about their own work processes, timing and location of work and therefore, they should more
positively evaluate the characteristics of their job, which leads to increasingly positive
feelings about their work. Consequently, people with low levels of self-determination and
high levels of flexible working are expected to display greater job satisfaction levels than
those people, who are low on both, flexible working and self-determination. But still, I also
expect that for people who perceive a great amount of self-determination, flexible working
makes a difference in their level of job satisfaction. Even though they already have the choice
of initiating task and perceive great autonomy, flexible working may increase their job
34
satisfaction levels due to other positive outcomes associated with the practice, such as
increased time and place flexibility. Thus, flexible working provides highly self-determined
employees with yet another type of autonomy related to a more efficient and effective use of
working hours and location choice. Hence, I propose:
Hypothesis 6c: There is an interaction between the psychological empowerment dimension
self-determination and flexible working such that a low level of self-determination and a high
level of flexible working lead to a higher job satisfaction than a low level of flexible working.
A high level of self-determination and a high level of flexible working lead to a higher job
satisfaction than a low level of flexible working.
For work-life balance, I expect a similar relationship. I anticipate that for people who are high
or low on self-determination, a high level of flexible working makes a difference in their
work-life balance level. Evidence suggests that people achieve greater work-life balance by
means of flexible working (e.g. Hill et al., 2001). Previous research has demonstrated that
flexible working positively influences work-life balance, as people are better able to handle
obligations from home and work. This should hold true for both high and low self-determined
employees. Flexible working should provide employees who show low self-determination
levels with the necessary autonomy in making decisions about their own work processes and
therefore they are ought to be able to better decide where and when work will be carried out,
in accordance to work and home responsibilities. This should generate a greater work-life
balance for them. Despite the fact that individuals high on self-determination work already
autonomous, flexible working yet increases their decision making power with regard to
choosing the location of work and the timing. Thereby they are better able to combine work
and family demands. Thus, for employees with a high or low level of self-determination, a
high level of flexible working should make a difference in their work-life balance. Hence, I
suggest:
Hypothesis 6d: There is an interaction between the psychological empowerment dimension
self-determination and flexible working such that a low level of self-determination and a high
level of flexible working lead to a higher work-life balance than a low level of flexible
working. A high level of self-determination and a high level of flexible working lead to a
higher work-life balance than a low level of flexible working.
35
Based on the aforementioned argumentation, I also expect flexible working to make a
difference in engagement levels for people who are low and high on self-determination. As
flexible working increases individual’s autonomy levels and enables them to initiate tasks and
regulate own work activities, employees low on self-determination are more able to decide on
their own how to execute a certain task and will likely show higher energy levels and will be
more enthusiastic about what they are doing, thereby increasing engagement levels. Since
their own decision making power as to determining the timing and place of work is also
increased, it is conceivable to believe that low self-determined people are willing to put more
effort into one’s work as they see that the company enables them to work autonomously and it
is up to the employee’s discretion to use this autonomy efficiently. The employee might
experience this increase in freedom as an incentive to work harder and to put more effort into
one’s work as they do not want to forgo this opportunity. The latter argument should equally
be true for employees high on self-determination. Even though people high on self-
determination already have a great sense of autonomy and are able to initiate tasks, the
practice of flexible working demonstrates yet another type of autonomy as previously
explained. Particularly, for people who are already high on self-determination, working
flexible can be considered as a practice that increases their decision making power concerning
the choice of the location of work and the timing. In this context, being able to create one’s
day flexibly (considered as an autonomy giving practice) should result in more enthusiasm
because low and highly self-determined employees are able to cater their work day according
to personal needs. Hence, I propose:
Proposition 6e: There is an interaction between the psychological empowerment dimension
self-determination and flexible working such that a low level of self-determination and a high
level of flexible working result in a higher level of work engagement than a low level of
flexible working. A high level of self-determination and a high level of flexible working lead to
a higher level of work engagement than a low level flexible working.
If the moderating effect of flexible working on self-determination leads to an increase in work
engagement and work engagement affects work-life balance and job satisfaction, then work
engagement should act as a mediator between self-determination and job satisfaction and
work-life balance. Evidence suggests that work engagement mediates the relationship
between job autonomy and work-family enrichment (Siu et al., 2010). Employees with high
levels of autonomy possess skill discretion and have the chance to be creative and innovative
36
at work, which in turn facilitates engagement. Work engagement in turn is likely to influence
the home domain in a positive way thereby increasing work-family enrichment and reducing
conflict (Bakker & Geurts, 2004). Similarly, Bakker and Demerouti (2008) reported that work
engagement functions as a mediator between job resources (e.g. autonomy or social support)
and performance such as job satisfaction. Hence, I propose:
Hypothesis 7a: Work engagement mediates the relationship between the interactional effect of
flexible working and self-determination on work-life balance.
Hypothesis 7b: Work engagement mediates the relationship between the interactional effect of
flexible working and self-determination on job satisfaction.
2.6 Conceptual Model
Following the foregoing discussion, the proposed relationships are demonstrated in figure 1.
That is, (1) psychological empowerment positively influences work engagement, job
satisfaction and work-life balance (2) in this process, flexible working interacts with self-
determination and functions as a moderator (3) work engagement positively influences job
satisfaction and work-life balance (4) in this process, flexible working interacts with work
engagement and functions as a moderator (5) work engagement works as a mediator between
the interactional effect of flexible working and self-determination on job satisfaction and
work-life balance.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model
Control Variables: Gender, Age, Education, Employment
Psychological
Empowerment
- Impact
Psychological
Empowerment
- Self-determination
Psychological
Empowerment
- Competence
Work Engagement
Flexible Working
Flexible Working
Work-Life Balance
Job Satisfaction
37
3. Method
A partially mixed sequential dominant status design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009) was used
in which the results from a preceding quantitative part build the empirical basis for a
subsequent qualitative investigation. The rationale for conducting mixed research points into
the direction of complementarity (Onwuegbuzie & Combs, 2010). Qualitative research is used
to elaborate, illustrate, enhance and clarify findings from the quantitative investigation.
Within the partially mixed sequential dominant status design the overall study is primarily
quantitative in nature but is followed by a qualitative phase (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009;
Morse, 2003), which is devoted to focus on the individual employee to get deeper insights
into “How’s” “Why’s.” Despite the predominance of the quantitative part, findings from both
phases are carefully integrated after the respective analyses, leading to a partially mixed
design.
3.1 Quantitative Phase
3.1.1 Sample
This Master thesis has been carried out in cooperation with a large Telecommunications
company in the Netherlands. In 2010 the company under investigation introduced the concept
of new ways of working throughout its departments. Data was originally planned to be
gathered among all 674 employees from the 10 departments within the organization. From the
674 employees working at the office a total of 292 respondents filled out the survey,
corresponding to a response rate of 43, 26%. The highest response rate of 61% was found for
the Service Department; the lowest for the BETE department (Company Test environment)
with 18%. From the 292 respondents, 216 are male, representing 74% of the surveyed
workforce, and 76 are female (26%). This highly unequal allocation is not uncommon for the
organization at hand as 80% of the total workforce is male and only 20% is female. This is
particularly attributable to the technical orientation of the company. In total, 52% of the male
respondents are within the age group of 31-45 years, 41% are between 42-62 years and only
7% are below the age of 31. A different age distribution can be found among the female
respondents. 58% of the women belong to the age category 31-45 years, 25% of the female
respondents are between 42-62 years and 17% are below 31 years.
38
3.1.2 Data Collection Procedure
The research has been executed within the broader research frame of Erasmus @ Work, a
collaborative research program between the Rotterdam School of Management and a diverse
range of firms whose aim is to gain insights into the key issues for the design and the
implementation of new ways of working. Data used for this research was already gathered
within an earlier project of Erasmus @ Work in 2011 at the company under study. Data was
collected by means of an online questionnaire, which was distributed by the staff from the HR
department. The survey was developed to measure employee’s opinion on and experience
with new ways of working after the first year of its introduction. The online survey was
available over a period of two and a half weeks at one point in time. From the original
questionnaire used for the company’s purposes only the questions regarding psychological
empowerment, flexible working, work engagement, work-life balance, job satisfaction, age,
gender, education and employment were used. Thus, the existing dataset was used to analyze
the research questions.
3.1.3 Measures
Except for the control variables, all questions in the questionnaire were measured by means of
a 5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Three out of the five
control variables, age, employment 1 and 2, were measured on a ratio scale, meaning that
respondents needed to fill in the answer in a prescribed box. For gender (measured on a
nominal scale) and education (measured on an ordinal scale) a selection box was used, in
which respondents had to tick the right answer.
3.1.3.1 Work Engagement
In the existing framework of Erasmus @ Work, the three constructs of work engagement,
vigor, dedication and absorption were measured using the scale developed by Schaufeli et al.
(2002). The original Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) consists of 24 items. As
researchers attempt to incorporate as less items as possible, Schaufeli et al. (2006) developed
a shortened version of the UWES consisting only of three items per construct. Due to the very
same reason, the questionnaire developed for the company under investigation used an even
shorter version with two items per construct. Based on the results from the factor analysis
(please see results section) one scale for work engagement was used in this thesis, which
proves to be reliable (84). Example items are as follows: “At my work, I feel bursting with
39
energy”, “I am very enthusiastic about my job”, “When I am working, I forget everything else
around me.”
3.1.3.2 Flexible Working
Flexible working was measured using a combination of three items of Hill et al. (2001) and
one item developed by the Erasmus @ Work research team. However, as opposed to Hill et
al.’s use of questions, statements have been used and the scales have been adjusted
accordingly. The flexibility measurement scale has been tested and validated several times
throughout research being done within Erasmus @ Work. Example items are as follows: “I
have much flexibility to determine where I work” and “I have much flexibility to determine
when I work (e.g. hours or times of the day).” The item developed by the Erasmus @ work
research team “I have much flexibility to determine the way in which I carry out my work”
seems to be a logical extension to the three existing items. The overall scale resulted in a
Cronbach’s Alpha value of .78.
3.1.3.3 Psychological Empowerment
Psychological empowerment was measured by using three of the four subscales from the
psychological empowerment measure of Spreitzer (1995). Due to simplicity reasons, the
meaning dimension has been left out of the questionnaire. Whereas Spreitzer (1995) uses
three items per scale to measure the underlying constructs, the distributed questionnaire at the
company made use of a shortened version of two items per scale. The dimension of
competence was measured by the two items: “I am confident about my ability to do my job”
and “I have mastered the skills necessary for my job.” The Cronbach’s Alpha of competence
is .79. Self-determination was measured via the two items: “I have significant autonomy in
determining how I do my job” and “I can decide on my own how to go about doing my
work” The two items used for impact were: “My impact on what happens in my
department is large” and “I have a great deal of control over what happens in my
department” (.85).
3.1.3.4 Work-Life Balance
Next to assessing flexibility via an adjusted measure developed by Hill et al. (2001), the same
is true for the construct of work-life balance. Erasmus @ Work made use of a modified
version of Hill et al.’s questions to measure work-life balance. Particularly, instead of using
40
questions, statements were utilized. Two examples of the four items are: “At home I have
sufficient time outside of work to find a proper balance between my work and my family and
private life” and “I am able to find a proper balance between the demands of my work and my
family and private life.” The Cronbach’s Alpha of work-life balance is .86.
3.1.3.5 Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured by using the survey instruments developed by Jun, Shaohan &
Hojung (2006). Example items are as follows: “If a friend is looking for a job, I would
recommend [this organization] to him or her” and “It gives me personal satisfaction when I
carry out my work well.” The Cronbach’s Alpha of job satisfaction is .73.
3.1.3.6 Control Variables
I took into account some background characteristics as control variables namely age, gender,
education, employment 1 and 2. For gender a dummy variable was created, coded 0 for male
and 1 for female, thus male served as the base level. Gender was chosen as a control variable
since this variable has been shown to influence work engagement, job satisfaction and work-
life balance. Schaufeli et al. (2006) argue that particularly gender differences regarding work
engagement were quite weak and highly controversy on a cross-country basis. Whereas
studies conducted in Australia, Canada and France did not find any differences between
gender, Norwegian, Finnish, German and Belgian samples did find a difference. In these
studies, men achieved slightly higher scores on the three dimensions of work engagement
than women. In contrast, Spanish, South African and Dutch samples revealed that women
scored higher on work engagement. As the research at hand has been carried out within the
Netherlands and the survey was distributed among Dutch employees, it is reasonable to
assume that the same finding of women scoring slightly higher on work engagement is
equally true in the present study. A sizeable body of literature has emerged indicating that
women’s self-reported job satisfaction level is higher than that one of men (e.g. Clark, 1997,
Dex, 1998). Studies of for example Frone and Rice (1987), Lambert, Hogan and Barton
(2004) and Cinamon and Rich (2005) predicted that women have greater work-family
conflicts due to their inherent greater home responsibilities. Therefore it is reasonable to
assume that also in the present study, men exhibit a greater work-life balance and women will
be more satisfied with their job.
41
Age was chosen as a control variable because it is conceivable to believe that age has an
influence on work engagement, job satisfaction and work-life balance. Schaufeli et al. (2006)
identified a weak relationship between age and engagement. The authors uncovered that work
engagement does slightly rise with age, even though weakly. Hence, one can assume that
people who are older are slightly more engaged. Karatepe & Tekinkus (2006) also found that
older people are more satisfied with their job than younger people and perceive a greater
work-life balance due to having grown up children and less familial obligations (Lambert,
Hogan & Barton, 2004).
The level of education was coded as a dummy as well (0=lower education, 1=higher
education). A higher educational level is represented by people who achieved at least a
Bachelor’s degree within their academic education. It can be assumed that people who have a
higher level of education are more engaged as their higher education gives them more
freedom and more responsibilities with respect to their position. Schaufeli et al. (2006) also
demonstrated that managers have higher vigor, dedication and absorption scores than blue-
collar workers. As it is true for most organizations in the Western world, nowadays holding
the position of a manager is associated with at least having a bachelor’s degree and obtaining
a Master’s degree is key to climb the career path. Consequently, one can assume that
managers have higher education levels than blue collar workers and therefore the former
group is more engaged. A study conducted by Kinnunen & Mauno (1998) also revealed that
education has a positive relationship with work-family conflict, stating that a higher level of
education leads to greater work-life conflict due to greater responsibilities at work. Based on
this line of argumentation it is conceivable that people with higher education indeed
experience a lower work-life balance in the present study. Moreover, a higher level of
education is also expected to lead to greater job satisfaction, which was identified in previous
studies as well (e.g. Wright, 1993).
Furthermore, I assume the level of employment to make a difference for engagement as well.
Employment was measured via two set of dummies, one dummy for working full-time/part-
time (0<38 (part-time), 1=> 38 (full-time)) and one for working overtime (0<38 (no
overtime), 1=> 38 (overtime). Before creating the second dummy I selected cases to only
include those employees who work at least 38 hours. A recent study conducted by McCall
(2009) revealed that particularly people working full-time are more engaged than part-time
employees, which according to him, can be attributed to ‘pay and benefits.’ Several studies
42
also compared job satisfaction across full-time and part-time employees leading to
controversial findings. For example, whereas Fenton O’Creevy (1995), Fields and Thacker
(1991) and Wotruba (1990) found that part-time employees are more satisfied than full-time
employees, Hall and Gordon (1973) and Miller and Terborg (1979) reported the exact reverse
that full-time employees show greater job satisfaction. Other studies (e.g. Krausz, 2000;
Steffy & Jones, 1990; Vecchio, 1984) even advocated part-time and full-time employees to be
equally satisfied with their jobs. A more recent study by McCall (2009) found that part-time
employees are more satisfied with their job than full-time employees and that the former
employees have a greater work-life balance than full-time workers. Based on previous
findings it is interesting to investigate this issue in the study at hand. Out of personal interest,
a link between working overtime and work engagement, job satisfaction and work-life
balance was investigated. It would be appealing to see if there also exist variations in the level
of engagement, work-life balance and job satisfaction depending on working more hours than
contractually agreed upon.
3.2 Qualitative Phase
3.2.1 Procedure
Based on the outcomes from the quantitative investigation, the qualitative phase followed suit
to particular shed light on the issue how one can increase work engagement. Staff from the
HR department provided a list with 20 potential male and female participants who worked for
different departments, showed diverging educational backgrounds and functions and were
either full or part-time employed. A generic email was sent to 20 possible interviewees, which
described the purpose behind the study, its importance for the organization and a kind request
to participate. In total 10 employees agreed to be interviewed and each individual interview
had a duration of max. 45 minutes. At the beginning of the interviews, participants were
informed about the results of the quantitative investigation and details regarding the interview
process and the concept of work engagement were discussed. The interviewees had to answer
semi-structured questions related to increasing engagement such as “How much impact do
you perceive in the organization/department?” or “What do you consider important for high
engagement levels?” (For an overview of the questionnaire please refer to appendix A). Every
time an ambiguous comment was given participants were asked to provide further
explanations. On special request from the company under investigation, other questions
43
related to flexible working were also included into the questionnaire, which are not of
relevance for the thesis. For each interview a detailed protocol was written summarizing the
main statements of the participants. A comparison of all interview transcripts was used to
identify common themes and to classify statements. Ultimately, results from the qualitative
investigation were used to enhance and illustrate quantitative findings and to point to possible
contradictions.
4. Results
4.1 Quantitative Phase
4.1.1 Principal Component Factor Analysis
Principal component factor analysis is used to decide whether the data at hand suits the
underlying constructs, thereby ascertaining their validity. In this thesis, principal component
factor analysis was performed for two variables, psychological empowerment and work
engagement. However, before conducting principal component factor analysis, one needs to
establish first if this method is allowed given the available data set. According to Hair et al.
(2010) one requirement for the appropriateness of factor analysis is to have a sample size of at
least 50. As my total sample consists of 292 respondents, this criterion is met. Another
requirement for the appropriateness of factor analysis is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy (MSA). It represents the ratio of the squared correlation
between variables to the squared partial correlations to variables. According to this criterion,
the value of each variable and the total value of all variables must be higher than 0.5. For the
two variables, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy proves to result in total values that are
higher than 0.5. For the construct psychological empowerment, a KMO of 0.68 is attained,
which can be considered as mediocre and the construct of work engagement has the highest
KMO of 0.86, being identified as great. Next to the overall values being higher than 0.5, all
items also display a value greater than 0.5, which can be seen in the Anti-image correlations
(please refer to appendix B). Another requirement for the appropriateness of factor analysis
constitutes that an ample amount of correlations between the variables exists. This is
measured via a statistically significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which tests if the
correlation matrix is an identity matrix. For the two variables at hand this criterion is met as
the Barlett value proves to be significant (please see appendix B). Hence, all the criteria are
44
met and therefore factor analysis is appropriate. It is also important to decide on the method to
use for factor analysis. In this case, principal component factor analysis seems to be most
appropriate here. To extract the right amount of factors, I set 3 as the default option for work
engagement and psychological empowerment underlying the number of subscales as this is
what I expect to get. Furthermore, in order to improve interpretability of the resulting factors
and to reduce the number of items that load highly on each factor, varimax rotation is used
(Wang et al., 2005). Keeping in mind that factor loadings of 0.35 or greater seem appropriate
for a sample size between 250 and 300 (Hair et al., 2010), the matrices show that all variables
load on their respective components and only factor loadings of above 0.35 are considered
(please see table 1a and 1b for factor loadings). According to Comrey and Lee (1992) while
factor loadings below 0.32 can be regarded as poor, factor loadings above, which show a
value of at least 0.55, can be considered as good. Excellent factor loadings need to result in a
value of 0.70 or higher. For psychological empowerment, three factors were extracted. When
assessing the factor loadings, as can be seen in table 1a, it becomes obvious that all items load
cleanly on their respective components.
.
Psychological empowerment Item
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
1. My impact on what happens in my
department is large
.91 .12 .18
2. I have a great degree of control over
what happens in my department
.91 .16 .16
3. I have mastered the skills necessary
for my job
.11 .88 .17
4. I am confident about my ability to do
my job
.16 .88 .18
5. I can decide on my own how to go
about doing work
.16 .10 .91
6. I have significant autonomy in
determining how I do my job
.19 .28 .85
Explained Variance 29.02% 28.00% 27.84%
Table 1a. Loadings of the items for psychological empowerment
45
The rotated component matrix reveals that psychological empowerment indeed consists of
three subscales. The two items “My impact on what happens in my department is large” and
“I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department” load highly on factor 1
with values of .91 for both, representing the subscale “impact.” The subscale “competence”
can be attributed to factor 2, as the two items “I have mastered the skills necessary for my
job” and “I am confident about my ability to do my job” load highly (both .88) on factor 2.
Finally, factor 3 represents “self-determination” as the two items “I can decide on my own
how to go about doing my work” and “I have significant autonomy in determining how to do
my job” show high values of .91 and .85 respectively. For work engagement, three factors
were extracted. The rotated component matrix reveals that work engagement consists of three
subscales; however, factor loadings indicate that there is an unequal distribution of items per
factor (please see table 1b). This reveals that factors are not loaded in a perfectly satisfying
way. Four items load highly on factor one, namely, “I am very enthusiastic about my job”,
“My job inspires me”, “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” and “When I get up in the
morning, I feel like going to work” with excellent values of .85, .84, .80 and .78. Factor 2 has
one item which loads excellent with a value of .97: “When I am working, I forget everything
else around me” which represents one of the absorption items. “I feel happy when I am
working intensely” loads excellent on factor three with a value of .95, which also corresponds
to the absorption subscale.
Engagement item
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
1. I am very enthusiastic about my job
.85 .17 .14
2. My job inspires me
.84 .19 .23
3. When I get up in the morning, I feel
like going to work
.80 .20
4. At work I feel bursting with energy
.78 .23 .16
5. When I am working, I forget
everything else around me
.18 .97 .14
6. I feel happy when I am working
intensively
.28 .15 .95
Explained Variance 46.49% 17.83% 17.59%
Table 1b. Loadings of the items for work engagement
46
As opposed to what Schaufeli et al. (2002) suggested, principal component factor analysis did
not result in a three clear factor solution. At present, there is general much debate about
whether work engagement is a three-factor construct or whether a two or even a one-factor
structure might be more appropriate (e.g. Shirom 2003, Wefald & Downey, 2009). Hallberg
and Schaufeli (2006) acknowledged that the total engagement score (i.e. one factor structure)
can also be considered as plausible due to the high correlations the authors found among the
three items. In light of the current findings, using an overall scale for work engagement seems
to be most suitable for the present research, which is in line with previous findings (e.g. Britt
et al., 2007; Sonnentag, 2003). But still, an investigation of the questionnaire helps to shed
light on the reason behind this particular finding. Notably, whereas the original Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES) consists of 17 items (short version 9 items) measured on a 7 point
likert scale, the questionnaire in this thesis used an adapted version of only 6 items measured
on a 5 point likert scale to assess work engagement. Thus, the use of a modified version could
account for the different factor structure. As noted above, results of the reliability analysis
show that the construct has a good overall reliability.
4.1.2 Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables used in the
thesis. As expected all of the three dimensions of psychological empowerment are positively
and highly significantly correlated to job satisfaction (p<.01) and work-life balance (p<.05).
Work engagement and the three dimensions of psychological empowerment also show a weak
correlation (r>.3, p<.01), which is consistent with the findings of Stander and Rothmann
(2010). Interestingly, work engagement shows a comparably large significant correlation with
job satisfaction (r=.62, p<.01), which is in line with previous findings (e.g. Wefald &
Downey, 2009). Work engagement and work-life balance also appear to be positively
correlated (r =.29, p<.01). Gender (male is the base level) shows a small positive relation with
job satisfaction (r=.12, p<.05), which means that women are more satisfied with their job than
men, which is supported by previous research (e.g. Clark, 1997). Education (lower education
is the base level) shows a small negative relationship with work-life balance (r=-.14, p<.05)
indicating that people with lower education have a greater work-life balance, as it was
expected and validated in previous studies (e.g Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998). Besides, none of
the other control variables showed any significant relationship with work engagement or the
outcome variables.
47
4.1.3 Multicollinearity
Multicollinearity refers to the “extent to which a variable can be explained by the other
variables in the analysis” (Hair et al., 2010, p. 2). To check for the presence of
multicollinearity, one has to investigate the correlations between all the independent variables
in the analysis. A first examination of the correlation table sheds light on this issue. If the
correlation table reveals bivariate correlations of 0.90 or higher, this is first sign of great
collinearity. Multivariate correlations, which cause multicollienarity, can only be assessed by
looking at the tolerance values and/or Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) (Hair et al., 2010).
According van Dalen & de Leede (2000), multicollinearity is present if the tolerance values
are below 0.2 and/or if the VIF is above 5. Examining the correlation table reveals that
collinearity is not a problem for the data at hand as no correlations are above the threshold of
0.9. Additionally, the lowest tolerance value of 0.23 (VIF of 4,38) is still above the required
threshold of 0.2 (VIF of 5), therefore multicollinearity does not constitute a problem for the
present data. For an overview please refer to appendix C.
48
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and correlations
Note: N = 292.
For gender, 0 = male, 1 = female;; for education, 0 = lower education, 1 = higher education; for employment 1, 0<38 (part time), 1=> 38 (full time); for employment 2, 0<38
(no overtime), 1=> 38 (overtime). *
p < .05 **
p < .01 (two-tailed).
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Gender 0.26 0.44 -
2. Age 0.53 0.50 -.17**
-
3. Education 0.73 0.44 -.14**
-.12*
-
4. Employment 1 0.81 0.39 -.46**
.15*
.12*
-
5. Employment 2 0.06 0.23 -.02 -.18 .18 .35**
-
6. Competence 4.2 0.58 -.06 -.09 .04 .06 -.11 -
7. Self-determination 4.1 0.67 -.11 -.05 .20**
.03 .08 .41**
-
8. Impact 3.20 0.86 -.15*
.06 .01 .09 .22 .32**
.39**
-
9. Flexible working 3.9 0.63 -.12*
.11 .14*
.02 .14 .14*
.50**
.32**
-
10.Work-life balance 3.60 0.78 .05 -.03 -.14* -.05 .10 .19
** .15
* .14
* .24**
-
11. Job Satisfaction 3.67 0.61 .12* -.04 .03 -.05 .04 .25
** .23
** .32
** .26**
.27**
-
12. Work Engagement 3.61 0.60 -.05 .94 .11 .11 .21 .38**
.32**
.39** .31
** .29
** .62
** -
49
4.1.4 Hypotheses Testing
Prior to analyses, I mean centered all continuous independent variables (Aiken & West,
1991). In order to test the hypothesized propositions, three regressions were run to examine
the suggested effects and to see which model adds unique variance by testing the hypotheses
in one model. Table 3 reports the series of regressions and appendix G provides a detailed
overview of the regressions at hand. In each regression, I entered the control variables in a
first step, the main effects of impact, competence and self-determination in a second step, in a
third step, flexible working was entered as a moderator to be able to test and enter the two-
way interactions with impact, competence and self-determination in the forth step. In the two
meditational models, work engagement was entered in a fifth step and its two-way interaction
with flexible working in a 6th
and final step.
As can be taken from the results, for the regression model with work engagement as the
dependent variable, Model 1 does not prove to be significant (F=.92, p>.10) and out of the six
control variables, employment 2 (working overtime) showed a marginally significant
relationship with work engagement (β=.29, p<.10). The outcomes of model 2 indicate that
adding the main effects of competence, self-determination and impact results in a substantial
increase in explained variance of 38% (R2=.38, F(8,44)=3.30, p<.01), of which 29% are
particularly explained by the main effects (∆R2=.29, ∆F(3,44)=6.72, p<.01). It is found that
from the three dimensions of psychological empowerment, impact and self-determination
show a significant relationship with work engagement (β=.57, p<.01; β=-.32, p<.05). The
addition of flexible working in the third model does not yield any improvements in variance
and turns out to be non significant (β=-.01, ns). In contrast, including the interaction effects in
model 4 increases explained variance to 46% (R2=.46, F(12,40)=2.82, p<.01), however, the
9% of additional variance explained by the interaction effects proves to be not significant
(∆R2=.09, ∆F(3,40)=2.05, ns), thereby rejecting hypothesis 6e, which suggested a
moderation effect of flexible working between self-determination and work engagement. In
face of this, model 2 generates the greatest predictive ability and will be used for
interpretation purposes.
50
Hypotheses 1a-c suggested that the three dimensions of psychological empowerment
competence, self-determination and impact are positively related to work engagement,
however, only impact (β=.57, p<.01) shows a significant positive relation with work
engagement, leading to support for hypothesis 1c. For self-determination results show a
significant effect, however in the opposite direction as hypothesized. Instead of a predicted
positive relation, self-determination is negatively related to work engagement (β=-.32, p<.05),
thereby rejecting hypothesis 1b. This result comes as a surprise, especially because the
correlations (please see table 2) revealed a positive correlation between self-determination and
work engagement. To shed further light on this issue, I looked at the partial correlations
(please refer to appendix D) to see where the problem stems form. The partial correlation
table shows that when controlling for employment 2 (working overtime hours) the
relationship between work engagement and self-determination turns out to be negative. For
the competence dimension of psychological empowerment, the results suggest a non-
significant trend in the predicted direction (β=.00, p>.10). Thus, hypothesis 1a is also
rejected.
For the regression model with work-life balance as the dependent variable, results reveal that
model 1 consisting of the six control variables does not prove to be significant (F=1.94,
p>.10). Adding the main effects of competence, self-determination and impact in model 2
leads to an increase in explained variance from 17 % to 34% (R2=.34 F (8,44)=2.88, p<.05),
of which 17% of the variance in work-life balance are accounted for by the main effects
(∆R2=.17, ∆F(3,44)=3.85, p<.05). Even though entering the three main effects results in
greater predictive ability, none of the main effects show a statistically significant relationship.
Hence, model 2 only has little explanatory power as taking into account adjusted R2 reveals
(R2 adj.=.22). Model 3 does not improve the predictive ability substantially (R2=.41,
F(9,43)= 3.27, p<.01) and flexible working proves to be significant (β=.28, p<.05); however,
does not highly contribute to the predictive power of the model (∆R2=.06, ∆F(1,43)=4.54,
p<.05). Model 4 results in overall significance (F=2.60, p<.05), however, none of the main
effects and none of the interaction effects are significant at this stage. Thus, adding the
interaction effects does not increase the predictive power of the dependent variable work-life
balance (∆R2=.03, ∆F(3,40)=.75, ns). Model 5 shows that adding work engagement increases
51
the exploratory power of work-life balance to 54% (R2=.54, F (13,39)=3.53, p<.01) of which
engagement explains 10% of variance (∆R2=.10, ∆F(1,39)=8.72, p<.01). As adding the
interaction term flexible working and engagement into model 6 does not prove to be
significant (∆R2=.02, ∆F(1,38)=2.10, p>.10), the exploratory power of model 5 is greatest
and will be used for interpretation purposes. Since model 6 turned out to be non-significant,
hypothesis 6a is rejected, which predicted an interaction between flexible working and work
engagement on work-life balance.
The results of model 5 show that work engagement has a highly significant relationship with
work-life balance (β=.44, p<.01), which leads to a support of Hypothesis 2 suggesting a
positive relationship between work engagement and work-life balance. Even though not
directly hypothesized but assumed, from the control variables employment 1 shows a
significant relationship with work-life balance suggesting that people who work fulltime
experience a lower work-life balance than people who work part-time (β=-.38, p<.05). In
model 5 the control variable education becomes also marginally significant (β=-.26, p<.10)
and results also propose a significant lower work-life balance for women than for men (β=-
.38, p<.05). Hypotheses 3a-c predicted a positive relation between each of the three
dimensions of psychological empowerment and work-life balance. However, none of the
hypotheses can be supported, as the results in model 5 indicate a non-significant trend in the
predicted direction for competence (β=.11, ns) and self-determination (β=.24, ns) but not for
impact (β=-.08, ns). Thus, hypotheses 3a-3c are rejected. Next to the main effects resulting
in non-significance, the hypothesized interaction effect between flexible working and self-
determination also shows to be non-significant (β=.26, ns), thereby rejecting hypothesis 6d.
In model 5, flexible working becomes marginally significant (β=.24, p<.10). In contrast to
Hypothesis 7a, the outcomes also did not result in a mediating effect of work engagement. In
order for engagement to function as a mediator between the interaction effects of flexible
working and the self-determination dimension of psychological empowerment on work-life
balance, one of the prerequisites is to validate a significant interaction effect (Baron & Kenny,
1986). However, the preceding analysis revealed that the interaction effect of flexible working
and self-determination was not significant, thus, a possible mediation cannot be observed and
Hypothesis 7a is rejected.
52
Work-life balance Satisfaction Engagement
Independent Variable 1M2 M3M4M5M6M1M2M3M4M5M6M1 M2 M3 M4
Step 1: Control Variables
Gender -.34* -.18 -.26+ -.31+ -.38* -.38* .06 .17 .12 .13 .06 .05 .14 .22 .22 .16
Age -.05 .03 .06 .02 -.00 .06 .07 .00 .03 .01 -.01 -.11 .19 .13 .13 .05
Education -.13 -.12 -.18 -.17 -.26+ -.28* .04 .09 .05 .11 .02 .06 .09 .14 .14 .21
Employment 1 -.38* -.27+ -.32* -.34* -.38* -.41** -.11 .10 .07 .06 .01 .07 -.07 .14 .13 .11
Employment 2 .27+ .19 .20 .17 .16 .19 .10 -.10 -.10 -.05 -.06 -.12 .29+ .09 .09 .03
Step 2: Main effects
Competence .25 .19 .10 .11 .08 .05 .01 .14 .15 .19 .00 .00 -.03
Self-determination .05 .02 .15 .24 .26 -.22 -.24 -.43* -.35* -.38* -.32* -.32* -.20
Impact .25 .21 .14 -.08 -.05 .57** .55** .57** .36* .32* .57** .57** .50**
Step 3: Moderator
Flexible working .28* .21 .24+ .30* .16 .27+ .30* .21 -.01 -.07
Step 4: Two-way interactions
Competence x flexible working -.20 -.19 -.19 .58** .59** .58** -.02
Self-determination x flexible working .28 .26 .42+ -.48* -.50* -.76** .04
Impact x flexible working -.07 .08 -.07 -.30* -.16 .08 -.33*
Step 5: Mediation
Engagement .44** .47** .42** .36*
Step 6: Two-way interaction
Engagement x flexible working .33 -.53*
R2 .17 .34 .41 .44 .54 .57 .02 .29 .31 .46 .55 .61 .09 .38 .38 .46
R2adj .08 .22 .28 .27 .39 .40 -.08 .17 .17 .29 .40 .47 -.01 .26 .24 .30
∆R2 .17 .17 .06 .03 .10 .02 .02 .27 .02 .14 .09 .06 .09 .29 .00 .09
F for ∆R2 1.94 3.85* 4.54* .75 8.72** 2.10 .21 5.66** 1.29 3.50* 8.14** 6.21* .92 6.72** .00 2.05
F 1.94 2.88* 3.27** 2.60* 3.53** 3.52** .21 2.29* 2.19* 2.81** 3.68** 4.31** .92 3.30** 2.87* 2.82**
Note: N = 292, values in table are standardized coefficients. +p ≤ .10
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01 (two-tailed).
Table 3. Results of the Hierarchical Regression Analysis
53
For the regression model with job satisfaction as the dependent variable, Model 1 does not prove
to be significant (F=.21, p>.10). Adding the main effects of competence, self-determination and
impact in model 2 leads to an increase in explained variance from 2% to 29% (R2=.29
F(8,44)=2.29, p<.05), of which 27% of the variance in job satisfaction are accounted for by the
main effects (∆R2=.27, ∆F(3,44)=5.66, p<.01). Even though entering the three main effects
results in greater predictive ability, from the main effects only impact shows a highly significant
positive relationship with job satisfaction (β= .57, p<.01). Hence, model 2 only has little
explanatory power as taking into account the adjusted R2 reveals (R2 adj.=.17). Model 3 does not
improve the predictive ability substantially (R2=.31, F(9,43)= 2.19, p<.05) as the variable
flexible working turns out to be not significant (β=.16, ns). In contrast, model 4 adds largely to
the explanatory power of job satisfaction as entering the interaction effects increases explained
variance to 46% (R2=.46 F(12,40)=2.81, p<.01), of which 14% of the variance in job satisfaction
are accounted for by the interaction effects (∆R2=.14, ∆F(3,40)= 3.50, p<.05). It is found that all
interaction terms significantly predict job satisfaction: competence and flexible working (β=.58,
p<.01); impact and flexible working (β=-.30, p<.05); and self-determination and flexible working
(β=-.48, p<.05). In model 4, the control variables remain insignificant and the main effect of
impact stays significant (β=.57, p<.01) and a suppressed negative effect of self-determination can
be observed (increase in beta from -.24, ns to -.43, p<.05). A suppression effect occurs when the
degree of the effect of a variable is increased when an additional variable is included into the
regression (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). When adding the interaction effects in step 4, the negative
effect of self-determination was enlarged and became significant. Thus, it appears that self-
determination has a detrimental effect on job satisfaction. Moreover, the effect of flexible
working becomes marginally significant (β=.27, p<.10).
Model 5 increases explained variance to 55% (R2=.55, F(13,39)= 3.68, p<.01), of which 9% of
the variance in job satisfaction is explained by work engagement (∆R2=.09, ∆F(1,39)=8.14,
p<.01). Results suggest that work engagement shows a highly significant relationship with job
satisfaction (β=.42, p< .01). In model 5, the main effect of impact stays significant (β=.36, p<.05)
as well as self-determination (β=-.35, p<.05). Flexible working also remains significant (β=.30,
p<.05). Furthermore, the interaction terms competence and flexible working and self-
determination and flexible working remain significant (β=.59, p<.01; β=-.50, p<.05); the
interaction term impact and flexible working becomes insignificant.
54
Model 6 actually shows the greatest explorative power as adding the interaction effect increases
explained variance to 61% (R2=.61, F(14,38)=4.31, p<.01), of which in particular the interaction
effect accounts for 6% over and above of engagement (∆R2=.06, ∆F(1,38)= 6.21, p<.05). Thus,
model 6 will be used for interpretation purposes. In contrast to hypothesis 5b, which predicted a
positive relation between self-determination and job satisfaction, results indicate a significant
relationship, however in the opposite direction than initially expected (β=-.38, p<.05). This
suggests that people who show self-determination have a lower level of job satisfaction.
Therefore hypothesis 5b cannot be supported. As this result also comes as a surprise,
(especially because the correlations (please see table 2) predicted a positive correlation between
self-determination and job satisfaction), I looked at the partial correlations (please refer to
appendix D) to see where the problem stems from. The partial correlations table reveals that
when controlling for flexible working, impact and competence, self-determination becomes
negatively correlated with job satisfaction. When only controlling for impact, competence or
flexible working alone, self-determination remains positively significantly correlated to job
satisfaction, however, taking together the three variables let self-determination become negative.
Hypothesis 5c can be supported as results confirm the suggested positive relation between
impact and job satisfaction (β=.33, p<.05). Hypothesis 5a cannot be supported as the results
reveal a non-significant trend in the predicted direction for competence and job satisfaction
(β=.19, ns). In line with hypothesis 4, there is a significant, positive relationship between work
engagement and job satisfaction (β=.36, p<.05). Thus, people who report higher levels of work
engagement are also adjudged to have a higher job satisfaction. Hypothesis 6b predicted an
interaction between work engagement and flexible working, such that a high level of work
engagement with a high level of flexible working should lead to a higher job satisfaction than a
low level of flexible working. Also, a high level of flexible working with a low level of work
engagement should lead to a higher job satisfaction than a low level of flexible working. The
results show that this interaction term is significant (β=-.53, p<.05). The effect is shown in figure
2.
55
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
Low Work engagement High Work engagement
Jo
b s
ati
sfa
ctio
nLow Flexible working
High Flexible working
Figure 2. The interaction between work engagement and flexible working on job satisfaction
It appears that people who are high on flexible working and low on work engagement perceive a
greater job satisfaction than people who are low on flexible working. However, as opposed to
expectations, it seems that people, who are high on work engagement and low on flexible
working, perceive a higher job satisfaction than people who have a high level of flexible working.
This suggests that a high level of flexible working particularly influences people who innate a
low level of work engagement. Thus, hypothesis 6b is confirmed, but the shape of the
interaction is slightly different from what I expected. As expected (hypothesis 6c) a moderation
of flexible working on the relationship between self-determination and job satisfaction can be
found (β=-.76, p<.01) and thus, hypothesis 6c can be supported. As can be observed in figure 3,
the shape of the interaction is also slightly different to what I initially expected. In accordance to
predictions, it appears that people who are low on self-determination have a greater job
satisfaction when they have high level of flexible working than when having a low level of
flexible working. In contrast to what was initially assumed, for people who are high on self-
determination, a low level of flexible working results in greater job satisfaction than a high level
of flexible working.
56
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
Low Self-determination High Self-determination
Job
Sati
sfact
ion
Low Flexible working
High Flexible working
Figure 3. The interaction between self-determination and flexible working on job satisfaction
Interestingly, even though not hypothesized, a significant interaction is also observed between
flexible working and competence (β=.58, p<.01). Figure 4 suggests that people who regard
themselves as highly competent are more satisfied with their job when they have a high level of
flexible working than when having a low level of flexible working. People who think they are not
that competent have a greater job satisfaction when they have a low level of flexible working.
Overall, job satisfaction is highest when people think they are competent and engage in flexible
working.
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
6
Low Competence High Competence
Jo
b S
ati
sfa
ctio
n
Low Flexible working
High Flexible working
Figure 4. The interaction between competence and flexible working on job satisfaction
57
Hypothesis 7b suggested that work engagement mediates the relationship between the
interactional effect of flexible working and self-determination on job satisfaction. According to
Baron and Kenny (1986) this represents an example of a mediated moderation and four steps
should be followed to test for a significant mediated moderation. The first prerequisite is to
validate a significant interaction effect of flexible working and the dimension of self-
determination on job satisfaction. The preceding analysis revealed that the interaction effect of
flexible working and self-determination is significant for job satisfaction, also for competence
and flexible working and impact and flexible working on job satisfaction. Second, the interaction
effect of flexible working and self-determination on engagement should be significant. The
preceding analysis with work engagement as the dependent variable showed however, that the
interaction effect proved to be insignificant (β=.04, ns). Yet, it was shown before that the
interaction effect of flexible working and impact on work engagement proved to be significant
(β=-.33, p<.01). Therefore, even though not originally hypothesized, in the subsequent analysis, a
possible mediation will be further tested, but for the interaction of flexible working and impact.
As a third requirement, the unique association of the mediator (i.e. work engagement) with the
outcome variable (i.e. job satisfaction) should be demonstrated. This significant relation was
already confirmed earlier. Finally, the last step requires a regression with the initial variable, the
mediator variable and the outcome variable. The regression coefficient for the initial variable
should become insignificant in order for the mediating variable to be a significant mediator.
In line with this, hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the β’s of the interaction between
impact and flexible working declined and became non-significant when work engagement was
added to the equation (change in β from -.30, p<.05 to -.16, ns). However, one needs to examine
if the decrease in Beta can be considered as significantly large. In order to test this, first of all, a
Sobel test was performed (please refer to appendix E). I entered the corresponding t-test statistics
in the Sobel test calculator. The corresponding p value shows a value of .66 (p<.10), thus, the
decrease is only marginally significant. In order to examine the mediation hypothesis in more
detail, I also employed the Bootstrapping approach (for an overview of the exact results from
Bootstrapping pleaser see appendix F). This approach involves computing confidence intervals
around the product term and is regarded as being superior over the Sobel test. For mediation to
occur and to consider the indirect effect as significant, zero needs to fall outside of the 95%
confidence Interval. I thereby followed the approach suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to
58
test for the indirect effect. In line with the results of the Sobel test the p value obtained from the
bootstrapping approach results in a value of .99 (p<.10) which is only slightly marginally
significant. Taking into account the Bootstrapping results for the indirect effect reveals that zero
falls within the 95% Confidence Interval. Hence, the indirect effect can be regarded as not
significant and the decrease is only marginally significant, therefore work engagement does not
represent a mediator between the interaction effect impact and flexible working on job
satisfaction. Thus, hypothesis 7b is rejected.
4.2 Qualitative Phase
The qualitative part is especially devoted to the question how one can increase work engagement.
Table 4 gives an overview of the factors identified, which are considered to be important for
engagement and respective example statements from the respondents are given. Self-
determination is defined here according to Thomas and Velthouse (1990) as an individual’s sense
of autonomy, having the choice of initiating and performing a task. All respondents agree that
their company enables them to have freedom to execute certain tasks: “I have all the freedom I
want, of course within the boundaries of my work, and this freedom helps me to be more
enthusiastic”, “I think being able to perform my job autonomously is great for me. For example,
in my last job, I didn’t have a lot of freedom so I was less enthusiastic about my job and working
there. And actually, I was not even willing to work as hard as I do here, because there was no
room for my own ideas.” One respondent said that she goes the extra mile “because she [I] can
create her [my] own responsibilities within the freedom she [I] has.” Even though all respondents
agreed upon having a great amount of freedom, which definitely boosts their engagement levels,
half of the respondents also acknowledged that working autonomously is not right for everyone:
“The degree of freedom depends on each individual, not every individual is suited to work
autonomously. (…) I think, it is dangerous to say that giving employees more freedom leads to
higher engagement automatically; it depends on the individual, task and job” , “Freedom is not
good for everyone, some even do not want to have freedom, they hate it; for example, one of my
employees in my department comes to the office every day and he sits there from 8 to 5 and types
in numbers. At the end of the day, he sees his results and he is happy about it. He likes being told
what to do and his job does not really allow him to initiate tasks. But that’s ok for him” ,“I think
59
for people with lower education who often do routinized tasks, their freedom is not that great but
it is also not that important.”
The degree of impact, defined as employees having influence over work outcomes and the degree
to which employees can make a difference (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) is also seen to be crucial
for high engagement levels. “Having influence over work outcomes and having an impact is
absolutely important for each individual to be engaged. (…) No matter in which role you are in or
which task your are doing, you need to know why you are doing certain things, you need to know
why and for what” , “Yes, I think to be able to see how you as an employee can make an impact
in the department is really important for engagement. You need to know why you should put a lot
of effort into your work.” However, according to the majority of the respondents, having an
impact in the organization or department “is often not that straight”, or “is not always visible“
and for some “it is hard to say how much impact [I] they have” and “they [I] know their [my]
impact in the department, but not for the whole organization.” Two respondents argue that “in
order for people to perceive an impact, managers need to tell and show people that they have an
impact by repetition, repetition, repetition” , “You need to show your employees the facts, not
only telling but also showing, they have to see it themselves how their work contributed.”
Being highly competent, which is an individual’s belief in his or her capability to execute work
activities with skill (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) has also been identified as an important factor
for being engaged, however, less often and distinct. “For low competence people this [high
engagement] might not be the case, how should it?”, “Actually, if you don’t know what you are
capable of, how can you ever put a lot of effort into what you are doing? (…) Every individual
needs to know what he or she can do, what he or she is able to do, otherwise everything is
hopeless.”
Another factor, which influences employee’s engagement levels, represents the perceived
organizational support (POS) from the company. Perceived organizational support can be defined
as “employees perception concerning the extent to which the organization values their
contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 507). Thus, a social
supporting organizational environment is an environment in which employees are able to
socialize in and which invests in the employees, apart from business related activities, such as
60
trainings, or coaching. “Actually, [company name] has become less social and more business
like, for example, in the past, we always had office parties on Fridays with everybody, now this
has stopped. Now and then we do go out for a beer or something, but the large scale of these
events has definitely gone. I think back then, engagement levels were much higher, because you
also were able to have a drink with your manager, which shows the human side of each other”,”I
think there is a need for making the company more social again. (…) They [the upper
management] should show more often that each employee’s input is valuable, they should be
more thankful. Of course, we get weekly or monthly emails, but I think this is not enough. Not
only telling, but also showing. I think this is highly important for being enthusiastic. (…) If I see
they care about us, I am willing to work more hours.” Some respondents recognize that the
company has recently shown efforts that point into the direction of a more supporting social
environment. “I think small things are really important to increase overall engagement levels. For
example the free ice-cream treat three weeks ago was just great. Everyone was standing outside
and we felt that the company cares. When I got back to my office, I actually felt more energetic,
because I knew the company appreciates my work”, “Every month we now have a [name of day]
day, where employees have the chance to get massages for free, do fun (sport) activities together
and stuff like that. I think this is really nice; everything which is good for my well-being is also
good for my engagement.“
Next to a supporting social organization, organizational uncertainty related to restructuring and
downsizing and social support from colleagues are also factors influencing engagement.
Organizational uncertainty can be defined as a psychological state of doubt about what current
events mean or what future events are likely to occur (Milliken, 1987). Some respondents
admitted that during the last 12 years, the company has gone through many downsizing efforts,
which has been creating a lot of uncertainty within the company. “Reorganization has become a
buzz word in the organization, which clearly doesn’t help to increase engagement. (…) In fact, all
this uncertainty is bad for engagement. Well, there isn’t much you can do about it, especially in
these tough economic times, but still it is really bad”, “Honestly, I am sick and tired of changing
jobs, departments and roles all the time. What are these guys thinking? That this makes me more
enthusiastic about what I am doing and the company? Certainly not!”
61
Social support has been defined in the literature as support from managers and colleagues (van
Veldhoven & Meijman, 1994). Almost all of the respondents also conceded that “due to flexible
working, they [I] don’t see their [my] colleagues that often anymore. They [I] think personal
contact is really important for them [me] to be enthusiastic.” Another respondent acknowledged:
“I once had a new colleague who was from India. He didn’t know anybody in the organization. I
just told me that he can always call me, whenever he needed. And he did. He told me that this
was really important for him. I just figured that having the feeling that you always can call
somebody is important for engagement.”
Factors Description Statement Examples
Self-
determination/
Individual’s sense of
autonomy, having the
choice of initiating and
performing a task Thomas
and Velthouse (1990).
“Within the boundaries of my work, I
have great freedom, which definitely
makes me more enthusiastic about what I
am doing.”
“It is dangerous to say that giving
employees more freedom leads to higher
engagement automatically; it depends on
the individual, the task and the job.”
Impact Employees have influence
over work outcomes and
the degree to which
employees can make a
difference Thomas and
Velthouse (1990).
“(…) Impact is highly important for
people, they need to know ‘what is in
for me.’ They need to know why and
for what they are doing certain
things.”
“Well, my impact is not always visible,
since I have a supporting job, but you
know, I know my input.”
Competence Individual’s belief in his
or her capability to
execute work activities
with skill, comparable to
self-esteem or self-
efficacy Thomas and
Velthouse (1990).
“For low competence people this[high
engagement] might not be the case, how
should it?”
“If you don’t know what you are capable
of, how can you ever put a lot of effort
into what you are doing? Every individual
needs to know what he or she can do,
what he or she is able to do, otherwise
everything is hopeless.”
Table 4. Description of Factors that influence engagement
62
Perceived
Organizational
Support
Employees perception
concerning the extent to
which the organization
values their contributions
and cares about their well-
being Eisenberger et al.
(1986)
“(…)has become less social and more
business like, e.g. in the past, we always
had office parties on Fridays with
everybody, now this has stopped.”
“I think small events such as the ice-
cream treat three weeks ago or the (…)
days are really helping, just small, fun
things increase engagement.”
Organizational
Uncertainty
Psychological state of
doubt about what current
events mean or what
future events are likely to
occur (Milliken, 1987)
“Reorganization has become a buzz word
in the organization, which clearly doesn’t
help to increase engagement. In fact, all
this uncertainty is bad for engagement.
Well there isn’t much you can do about it,
especially in these tough economic
times.”
“(…)What are these guys thinking? That
this [reorganization]makes me
enthusiastic about what I am doing and
the company? Certainly not.”
Social Support Support from managers
and colleagues (van
Veldhoven & Meijman,
1994)
“Due to flexible working, I don’t see my
colleagues anymore that often. I think
personal contact is really important for
me to be enthusiastic.“
“(…) I just figured if you can always call
someone is important for engagement”
63
5. Discussion
The main purpose of this research was to gain deeper insights into antecedents, consequences and
moderators of work engagement. Particularly, I examined (1) which factors influence work
engagement with special emphasis on psychological empowerment (2) if work engagement and
also psychological empowerment positively relate to job satisfaction and work-life balance (3)
the role of flexible working in these relationships.
The results from the quantitative investigation suggest that particularly impact positively
influences work engagement, which is in line with Stander and Rothmann (2010). This suggests
that when employees know that they are able to make a difference in their department and see
that they have an influence over work outcomes, they will likely be full of energy and are
enthusiastic about what they are doing. In contrast to earlier findings from Stander and Rothmann
(2010) no evidence was found for a positive relation between competence and work engagement
and findings also diverge in terms of self-determination and work engagement. In this respect,
results from the quantitative analysis disclosed a negative relation between self-determination and
work engagement, which is particularly surprising. This finding is also striking because results
from the correlation pointed into a positive direction. The same phenomena can be observed for
self-determination and job satisfaction and therefore, the negative influence of self-determination
deserves special attention as it suggests a specific pattern at the company under investigation. The
negative influence of self-determination on work engagement would imply that when employees
have great autonomy how to go about their work, they will be less enthusiastic about their job
and have less energy at work. Intuitively, one might expect the total opposite; still, a more
detailed elaboration about this particular issue may shed light on this finding. An in depth
examination of this will follow suit when also discussing the negative relation between self-
determination and job satisfaction some lines below.
In line with Koyuncu, Burke and Fiksenbaum (2006), the demographic factors of gender, age,
education or employment showed to have no significant relationship with work engagement
which adverts to a universal applicability of the concept.
64
Results from the qualitative analysis underscore the relevance of all three dimensions to be
crucial for work engagement. Respondents indicated that it is of utmost importance to be able to
see how one’s own work influences work outcomes and to make a difference in the organization.
However, interviewees also admitted that this is not always possible as having and seeing one’s
impact is not a straight forward relationship. This implies that employees who do not have the
ability to either make an influence or to see their effect in the department work detrimentally
towards their engagement levels. Thus, impact can be identified as one important starting point as
to counteract disengagement. Further, respondents also regarded self-determination as vital for
work engagement, which implies that increasing autonomy levels should be highly beneficial in
terms of engagement. This particular positive influence of self-determination on work
engagement stands in stark contrast to the outcomes from the quantitative investigation and thus,
the relationship seems to be more complex than originally thought. Still, respondents also
acknowledged that having a great degree of freedom is not favorable for everyone as it highly
depends on each individual’s personality, task or job. This can be considered as a central insight
into the determining factor of self-determination. In order for the construct to benefit engagement
and to be valuable for organizations, background characteristics must be taken into account as it
seems that self-determination is not an all embracing “one size fits all” concept. As opposed to
the outcomes of the quantitative investigation, interviewees also affirmed a positive influence of
competence on engagement levels. Respondents consider self-efficacy and knowing what one is
capable of as a prerequisite for employees to be engaged. They argue that only when individuals
are aware of their own skills and capabilities they are able to put effort into a certain task.
On top of that, perceived organizational support defined as “employee’s perception concerning
the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”
was uncovered as an additional factor vital for engagement (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 507).
According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), employees regard their organization as a place to fulfill
their socioemotional needs, like wages and benefits but also respect and caring. When employees
perceive such organizational support it is likely that employee’s felt obligation towards helping
the company to meet its targets increases, as well as their affective commitment. This implies that
when employees perceive the organizational support as high, employees’ needs for affiliation,
esteem and approval will be more likely to be met and thus, higher engagement will be the
outcome. Next to perceived organizational support, social support from colleagues and managers
65
also represents an important determinant of work engagement. This suggests that people who
experience that they can rely on their colleagues and managers and are aware of their guidance
are more likely to show high engagement levels at work. Additionally, organizational uncertainty
has been unraveled as a harmful factor implying that if employees are in doubt about what
current events mean or what future events are likely to occur in the organization, they feel less
engaged (Milliken, 1987).
Results from the current study extend the current state of knowledge with respect to the work
engagement – work-life balance relationship. In contrast to an assumption made by Bakker,
Albrecht & Leiter (2011), who suggested the potential possibility of a negative relation between
work engagement and work-life balance, present quantitative findings provide support for a
positive influence of work engagement on work-life balance. This implies that people who are
highly engaged experience a greater work-life balance. As previously mentioned, drawing on
work-family enrichment theory, it seems possible that employees who are highly engaged show
increasing levels of positive moods, favorable emotions and higher performance at work. This
beneficial state spills over to the family environment, which consequently should increase
performance and positive affect and mood in the family role. For example, it was shown in
previous studies that high engagement levels at work are positively related job performance
(Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010). Achieving a higher performance positively influences one’s
self-esteem (Bandura, 1997), and thus, through the experience of work engagement, performance
at the family role should be improved. This could imply that an individual’s performance at the
parenting role is increased thereby reducing feelings of being a bad mother or father because of
dual role obligations. Hence, the experience of high engagement at work has a positive influence
on the family domain, thereby reducing role conflict between the two domains, leading to the
experience of a greater work-life balance. This finding is consistent with those of Lewis (2008),
who found work engagement to be a crucial factor to positively enrich the family environment,
and with a study conducted by Kansas State University (2009) who showed that when employees
perceive higher levels of engagement at work due to positive moods they are more likely to show
increasing levels of work-family facilitation.
Contrary to expectations, psychological empowerment did not show a positive relation to work-
life balance, which differs from the results by Akda (2012). Thus, it seems that psychological
66
empowerment does not represent an important factor for increasing work-life balance.
Interestingly, gender, the level of education and employment do have an influence on work-life
balance. Corroborating previous literature (e.g. Lambert, Hogan & Barton, 2004), results support
the notion that women experience a lower work-life balance than men. Several factors come into
play of which for example greater home responsibilities could be one reason why women
experience an imbalance. Even though role models and parenting practices have dramatically
changed in the last 50 years, still, in most dual income families women are allocated more
responsibilities with respect to household duties. Thus, gender differences regarding work-family
role expectations and their ascribed meaning and importance are still salient (Hochschild, 1997).
A recent study be Glavin, Schiemann & Reid (2011) also revealed that women experience more
stress and guilt than men when they have to fulfill work obligations such as phone calls or emails
outside of normal working hours. This can be partly credited to the fact that women are afraid of
failing to meet role expectations, both at home and at work. Women are also more prone to
experience higher levels of guilt while working (outside of normal office hours) because
motherhood for most women is regarded as a highly fulfilling and rewarding identity (Doucet,
2006).
Also, results revealed that people with higher education and full-time workers experience greater
work life conflict, thereby confirming studies by Kinnunen & Mauno (1998) and McCall (2009).
Possibly, people who show higher education levels hold a position inside the company, which
demands more or greater responsibilities from them, which ultimately calls their work-life
balance into question. However, this relation was found to be only marginally significant. Thus,
this result should be interpreted with caution as future research is needed to confirm this finding.
With respect to employment, even though the benefits of working part-time have been much
discussed within scholarly research for women, the advantages from working part-time for work-
life balance can be extended to every employee regardless of gender. It is likely that people who
work part-time experience less work-family conflict as they can use the additional time they have
to easily fulfill family obligations and do not feel overwhelming pressures from both domains
(Warren, 2004). Hence, role conflicts should be reduced to a minimal level as both domains do
not interfere extensively with each other.
67
The present study also produced results that corroborate the findings of a great deal of previous
work regarding the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction. Consistent with
e.g. Saks (2006), Maslach et al. (2001) or Kular et al. (2008), results have shown that people who
are highly engaged experience a greater job satisfaction. The observed increase in satisfaction
levels could be attributed to employee’s positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind (Schaufeli
et al., 2002), which creates favorable emotions and makes them enthusiastic about what they are
doing. Also, because employees are so involved and dedicated to their work, they almost forget
everything around them and have the feeling that time passes by quickly. This experience is
likely to result in positive affect and makes people more satisfied.
As previously mentioned, a highly interesting and unexpected finding is that self-determination is
negatively related to job satisfaction, which is in total contradiction to study outcomes from e.g.
Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and Tymon (1994), Parker (1993) and Spreitzer et al.
(1997). Even though this particular finding is in line with Dickson and Lorenz (2009) it proves to
be difficult to compare the results. Dickson and Lorenz (2009) specifically studied the relation
between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction among undergraduate students holding
a part-time or temporary job. The authors explain their negative finding on the basis of the nature
of a temporary (student) job. Work as such is primarily seen as way to pay bills, as most of the
student jobs were not in the student’s field of study and thus, the authors argue that students did
not expect to have high levels of self-determination. Consequently, the negative relation between
self-determination and job satisfaction in the study at hand is rather unique and since it has not
been found elsewhere, the result deserves special attention; yet needs to be interpreted with
caution due to possibly context specific circumstances. Drawing on findings from the qualitative
investigation should help to shed light on the negative relation between self-determination and
work engagement and job satisfaction. Interview responses indicated that having great autonomy
levels at work is a promising job feature but might not suit every individual, task or job. In
particular, this would suggest that not all individuals appreciate having high levels of freedom,
because they are unaware of how to cope with the given autonomy and possibly even feel
overwhelmed by it. Those individuals rather prefer to have direction by managers. Consequently,
rather than being happy about their ability to make decisions on their own, high levels of
autonomy result in employee dissatisfaction at work, which could have caused self-determination
and job satisfaction to be negatively related. The same argument may also hold for the negative
68
relation between self-determination and work engagement. Instead of being enthusiastic about
having great autonomy levels, perceived freedom works detrimentally towards one’s willingness
to put high levels of efforts into one’s work due to the inability to handle autonomy. This might
have caused the negative influence of self-determination on work engagement.
An alternative explanation can be derived from an investigation done by Wang and Lee (2009) in
which the authors showed that the dimensions of psychological empowerment interact with each
other and due the complicated interplay, job satisfaction levels can be low. Firstly, resting upon
Warr’s (1987) vitamin model of job characteristics and mental health the authors acknowledge
that autonomy levels can be either too low or too high. Specifically, they argue that when
autonomy levels are too low, individuals experience little freedom and are so restricted so that
they feel imprisoned. On the other side, when autonomy levels are too high, individuals may
experience no direction or have too much responsibility, which causes them to feel overwhelmed
and it leads to role stress. Hence, it is possible to believe that when employees experience an
either too low or too high level of autonomy, job dissatisfaction or disengagement is likely to
occur, explaining the particular finding of negative job satisfaction and work engagement in the
present study. Secondly, Wang and Lee (2009) advocated that the extent to which job autonomy
leads to job satisfaction depends also on the interaction with the other dimensions of
psychological empowerment. In particular, their results revealed that the relationship between
self-determination and job satisfaction equals zero when impact and competence are high or low
at the same time. The relation between self-determination and job satisfaction will be positive
when one of the other two dimensions is high and the other low. However, when competence and
impact are both high or low at the same time, self-determination is negatively related to job
satisfaction. Thus, the dimensions are regarded as “as motivators, stressors, enablers (…)” which
suggests in the present study that there could be the possibility that impact and competence were
either both high or low (Wang & Lee, 2009, p. 290). This may have caused self-determination to
be negatively related to job satisfaction.
The result that the impact dimension of psychological empowerment shows a positive relation
with job satisfaction differs from Spreitzer et al. (1997) but is consistent with what Thomas and
Tymon (1994) found. It implies that employees who see that they can make a difference in the
organization and are able to influence work outcomes are more satisfied with their work. In light
69
of the positive relation between impact and work engagement, it seems that especially the impact
dimension of psychological empowerment holds a key role for outcomes variables. Still, future
research is needed to explore this relationship in more detail as findings throughout the literature
point into diverging directions. Consistent with the findings of some published studies (e.g.
Thomas & Tymon, 1994; Siegall & Gardner, 2000), the competence dimension of psychological
empowerment showed to have no effect on job satisfaction, which is however contrary to what
Spreitzer et al. (1997) found. Thus, it seems to be yet unclear in how far competence influences
job satisfaction and thereby this outcome contributes to the ongoing debate regarding the
ambiguous relationship between competence and job satisfaction.
Importantly, the study also showed the moderating effect of flexible working on the relationship
between self-determination and job satisfaction. It was found that people who are low on self-
determination have a greater job satisfaction when they have a high level of flexible working than
when having a low level of flexible working. However, for people who are already high on self-
determination, a low level of flexible working results in greater job satisfaction than a high level
of flexible working, which is quite surprising and against expectations. The results suggest that
flexible working particularly boosts job satisfaction for those individuals who innate a low level
of self-determination. It seems possible for people, who experience little freedom in their work
and who are not able to execute and initiate tasks, that making use of flexible working represents
an opportunity to increase their autonomy at work. Previous studies have shown the positive
effect of autonomy on job satisfaction (e.g. Allen et al., 2003). The experienced increase in
autonomy through flexible working could make individuals more satisfied with their job.
Needless to say, other positive side effects such as the most cited benefit of being able to handle
home and work responsibilities more easily also come into play. But still, flexible working seems
to be key in helping people who work non-autonomous to increase job satisfaction.
However, for employees whose autonomy level is already high, a high level of flexible working
does not improve their job satisfaction level; rather it appears that they are most satisfied when
they have a lower level of flexible working. This implies that people who work already highly
autonomous do not benefit from flexible working in terms of job satisfaction. Since I was
particularly surprised by this outcome, this result deserves special attention. A recent academic
paper by van Baalen (2012) in which he discusses the risks associated with teleworking might
70
help to shed light on this issue. Based on the results of scholarly research, van Baalen (2012)
identified a number of risks of which one is particularly associated with autonomy. Recalling that
people high on self-determination are already working autonomous in such a way that they are
able to make own decisions about their work and it is up to their discretion to schedule work and
allocate time, flexible working might actually have detrimental effects on their autonomy levels.
In fact, drawing on findings from Tietze and Musson (2002), Dimitrova (2003) and Halford
(2005), van Baalen called into question the perceived increase in autonomy individuals gain from
the teleworking practice. In this respect, it was shown that teleworkers internalize “the clock-time
discipline when working at home like starting on time and wearing particular clothes” (p. 10) and
aligned working hours to the ones of clients and colleagues. Clearly, this can be regarded as a
limitation to the employee’s autonomy. On top of that, when working from home, especially
women felt increasing pressure to work harder than men and they had the feeling to show others
that they are actually working when being at home. Respondent’s statements from the interviews
also prove this point. Some of them acknowledged that “you always have the feeling to work
harder from home because you are not physically present and no one sees your accomplishment;
managers don’t see people and probably ask themselves, what are the employees doing at home.”
Taken together these findings would suggest that highly autonomous people feel actually
constrained in their freedom by working from home. Therefore, they experience less autonomy
with flexible working and are less satisfied with their job.
A similar effect can also be observed for the moderating role of flexible working on the
relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction. Results indicated that people who
show low engagement levels perceive a greater job satisfaction when they have a high level of
flexible working than when having a low level of flexible working. However, it seems that people
who are high on work engagement and low on flexible working perceive a higher job satisfaction
than people who have a high level of flexible working. This suggests that flexible working is
crucial for increasing job satisfaction for those people who have a low level of work engagement
but not for people who are already highly engaged. This is particularly surprising since one might
intuitively expect that a person who is highly engaged and works highly flexible should show the
greatest job satisfaction. In fact, it seems that flexible working does not increase satisfaction for
highly engaged people. It is conceivable that for people who show low engagement levels job
satisfaction goes up because of a more efficient and effective communication between employees
71
due to flexible working. A more efficient and effective communication should in turn lead to
reduced levels of exhaustion and increased engagement and thus, to an increase in job satisfaction
(ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). In the face of permanent connectivity due to the usage of mobile
technology, employees are more easily reachable via phone or email when working within the
new world of work design. Increased availability fosters a high-pace work process which
generates more engagement and should increase job satisfaction levels (Rennecker & Godwin,
2005). For highly engaged employees, the effect of flexible working is different. It might be
plausible that when highly engaged employees make use of flexible working, they are
continuously available and this availability results in greater tiredness as this represents a highly
energy consuming activity. Thereby, they actually experience a decline in engagement and are
less satisfied with their job. Alternatively, as it was suggested by ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012)
making use of flexible work arrangements lead to increasing levels of interruptions due to
teleconferences, phone calls and incoming emails, which distract an employee from work and
cost energy. While energy levels go down, it might be supposable that also job satisfaction is
decreasing. Consequently, it appears that the relationship between flexible working and work
engagement is highly complex.
Apart from the above hypothesized moderation effects, an unexpected moderation effect of
flexible working on the relationship between competence and job satisfaction was found as well.
Surprisingly, it appears here that a high level of flexible working increases job satisfaction for
people who regard themselves as highly competent but not for those, who are not competent. In
fact, for those people who have low competence levels, job satisfaction is highest when they have
a low level of flexible working. It is particular difficult to explain this finding but it might be that
flexible working can be considered as a trust giving organizational practice, which influences
individual’s self-esteem. A statement from a respondent of the interviews confirms this
assumption: “If I am able to engage in flexible working, I really feel that my employer puts trust
in me. I think this gives me a good feeling, because I know that my employer thinks that I can
handle it [the practice of flexible working]. (…) Of course, this makes me proud and I do not
want to abuse this trust.” Results of the UK flexible working survey 2003 disclosed that flexible
working has a positive impact on employee’s self-esteem (Johnson Controls, 2003). Thus, it is
conceivable that people who regard themselves as highly competent (i.e. that they have high
levels of self-esteem and believe in themselves) feel vindicated in their self-esteem by means of
72
flexible working. It is likely that flexible working increases employee’s efficacy because
individuals experience that their organization puts trust into them concerning the practice of
working flexibly and autonomously and it shows that the company believes in the
employees’integrity that they will not abuse it. Thus, the organization believes in the employee
that he or she is able to work flexibly and is able to handle the associated challenges. This trust
giving practice is experienced as highly beneficial for one’ self-esteem and consequently results
in higher job satisfaction levels.
However, for people whose self-esteem level is low a priori, flexible working might also be
experienced as a trust-giving practice but does not necessarily lead to higher self-esteem and job
satisfaction. Possibly, people who do not believe in themselves and the abilities to perform their
job a priori, will not see an increase in self-esteem by means of flexible working because they do
not experience flexible working as tool to increase self-esteem. Accordingly, job satisfaction is
also not increased. Other factors are needed first to increase their self-esteem before they can
experience the practice of flexible working as beneficial for their competence levels.
Finally, it was shown that work engagement did not mediate the relationships between self-
determination and job satisfaction (and work-life balance). Thus, work engagement does not play
an important role in governing these relationships as self-determination proves to have direct
effects on work-life balance independent of work engagement.
73
6. Conclusion
As engaging employees to work has received much attention from academics and organizations,
but disengagement is on the rise, gaining deeper insights into antecedents, consequences and
moderators of work engagement is increasingly important. In face of this, the present research
tried to answer the following research questions:
“What is the effect of psychological empowerment on work engagement?”
“What is the effect of work engagement on work-life balance and job satisfaction?”
“What is the role of flexible working in these relationships?”
Results from the partially mixed sequential dominant status design reveal that factors beneficial
for work engagement are highly equivocal. In mutual consent, results from both the quantitative
and qualitative investigation disclosed that particularly the impact dimension of psychological
empowerment is crucial for work engagement to be high. However, consistent findings regarding
a positive relation between self-determination and work engagement and competence and work
engagement were not found. Whereas quantitative outcomes unveiled a negative influence of
self-determination on work engagement, qualitative outcomes showed that self-determination is
important for work engagement. Moreover, the quantitative study did not find support for a
statistically significant relation between competence and work engagement, however; results of
the qualitative investigation considered competence as an important perquisite for engagement.
Additionally, the qualitative investigation also uncovered supplemental factors that influence
work engagement. Perceived organizational support and social support were discovered as factors
that foster work engagement and organizational uncertainty was shown to harm engagement
levels. This study has also shown that work engagement is of crucial importance for employee’s
job satisfaction and work-life balance. Importantly, this study aspired to illuminate the
moderating effect of flexible working and indeed flexible working functioned as a moderator
between work engagement and job satisfaction, but not for work-life balance. On top of that
flexible working also moderated the relationship between the two psychological empowerment
dimensions self-determination and competence and job satisfaction. Additionally, an unexpected
negative relation between the empowerment dimension self-determination and job satisfaction
74
was found, which points into the direction of a specific pattern of the company under
investigation as self-determination was also negatively related to work-engagement.
6.1 Theoretical Implications
This study has made several important contributions to the work engagement and the new ways
of working literature.
Firstly, this study confirms existing literature in terms of the positive influence of work
engagement on job satisfaction and extends prior research regarding the positive relation between
work engagement and work-life balance. However, the comparably high correlation between
work engagement and job satisfaction in the present study gives reason to contribute to the debate
whether engagement and satisfaction are overlapping constructs. To date, the literature on
engagement faces intricacies regarding how to differentiate engagement from obliquely similar
concepts such as satisfaction, commitment, involvement or the personality trait
conscientiousness. Scholarly research has clearly examined the link between engagement and job
satisfaction and some authors found engagement and job satisfaction to be overlapping constructs
(e.g. Harter et al., 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008). For instance, Macey and Schneider (2008)
proposed that when satisfaction is determined via feelings of high energy, enthusiasm and other
affects, satisfaction equals engagement. However, other studies clearly demonstrated the distinct
separation of the two concepts (e.g. Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Wefald and Downey
(2009) proposed that the results from scholarly work might be diverging due to cultural
differences. The authors argue that whereas the originators of the Utrecht work engagement scale
Schaufeli and colleagues primarily conduced research within the borders of Europe (e.g. in Spain,
Portugal, the Netherlands) other authors such as Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) did
investigations in the United States, who found high correlations between job satisfaction and
work engagement.
However, results from this research cannot confirm Wefald and Downey’s assumption as also in
the Dutch context engagement and job satisfaction are found to be comparably highly correlated.
Thus, the relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction remains in a vague state.
Beyond and above the current state of knowledge, this study also unveiled the positive effect of
75
work engagement on work-life balance, which has been rarely researched. Highly engaged
employees experienced a greater work-life balance, which makes an additional contribution to the
positive outcomes of work engagement.
Secondly, this research helped to gain deeper insights into the predictors of work engagement.
Combining results from the quantitative and qualitative investigation show that the three
dimensions of psychological empowerment play an important role for engagement, which has not
been that clearly investigated yet. On the one hand, this finding confirms some of the predictors
of the current model of work engagement (Job Demands-Resource Model) developed by Bakker
and Demerouti (2008) as self-determination can be associated with the job resource autonomy
and competence with the personal resources self-efficacy. However, especially the link between
self-determination and work engagement does not seem to be that straightforward as results from
the quantitative study revealed a negative influence and qualitative results showed a positive
impact on work engagement. On the other hand, the positive influence of impact on work
engagements extends the current state of knowledge in terms of antecedents of work engagement.
Moreover, results from the qualitative investigation also propose to extend the drivers job
resources as to include perceived organizational support as another important predictor of work
engagement. Additionally, organizational uncertainty has also been identified as one factor that
inhibits engagement.
Thirdly, this research adds to the understanding of the full potential of flexible working in
illuminating the moderating role of the concept, which is above and beyond the most researched
direct influence of flexible working. It was shown that flexible working altered the relationship
between self-determination, competence and job satisfaction and between work engagement and
job satisfaction, which underscores the importance of the concept for job satisfaction. Lastly, the
study contributes to the understanding of the positive influence of impact on job satisfaction and
makes a significant and unique contribution about the reverse effect of self-determination on job
satisfaction. In this context, this investigation revealed a positive correlation between job
satisfaction and self-determination and work engagement and self-determination but a negative
relation between them in the regression analyses. Thus, these outcomes seem to be unique and are
worth further investigating regarding the possible reason(s) why these relations turned out to be
negative.
76
Over and above, this research also contributes to the ongoing debate of the construct
dimensionality of work engagement as principal component factor analysis did not result in a
distinct three-factor solution.
6.2 Practical Implications
The outcomes of this research have also significant implications for practitioners. As this study
has shown that engaged employees are more satisfied with their job and experience a greater
work-life balance, increasing engagement levels among employees should receive high priority
from those managing organizations. In this context, attention should be paid to the dimensions of
psychological empowerment. Especially impact appeared to be important in the context of work
engagement. It is recommendable that managers should engage in mechanisms, which make
employees feel that they have an impact in the organization or department, such as telling and
showing how they have an influence. Since the relationship between self-determination and work
engagement is not that straight forward, caution is needed with regard to managerial
interventions. Thus, managers should make sure that employees enjoy great autonomy levels,
however by always paying attention to and considering each individual’s suitability and
willingness as well as appropriateness of the task or job at hand. It also appeared that perceived
organizational support has a major influence on employee’s engagement levels. Thus,
organizations are advised to show that they value employee’s contributions and care about their
well-being by making significant investments, which go beyond training activities or coaching.
Additionally, the study has shown that organizational uncertainty harms engagement levels of
employees. As such, uncertainty results from a missing understanding about a situation (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1996) and a simple lack of (quality) information (Berger & Calabrese, 1975;
Putnam & Sorenson, 1982). Keeping that in mind, managers are advised to reduce organizational
uncertainty to a minimum level by means of proper communication and two-way interactions
with employees. Social support from colleagues and managers was also seen as an important
factor to increase engagement in which managers should attend to.
Having indentified the moderating role of flexible working should also be of special interest for
those, designing HR policies. Mangers can increase job satisfaction for those employees, whose
job or whose personality does not allow for great autonomy in the job, by letting them make use
77
of the practice of flexible working. However, they should be aware of those employees, who
already have significant autonomy on the job, because providing them with the possibility to
work flexible has a detrimental effect on their job satisfaction level. Equally, job satisfaction
levels can also be increased for individuals who do not show high engagement levels through the
practice of flexible working. Additionally, being aware of that full-time workers and women
perceive a lower work-life balance than their counterparts should make organizations more
sensitive towards creating a better organizational environment, which absorbs the negative effects
of the work-life conflict.
6.3 Limitations and Directions for Further Research
The study has been subject to a number of limitations that are worth mentioning. First of all,
contextual factors must be taken into consideration. With regard to the quantitative analysis, even
though the sample of 292 respondents was heterogeneous, the majority of the participants proved
to be males, which possibly created biases regarding the outcomes. Furthermore, the
generalizability of the results is somewhat limited as data has been collected within a single
country, industry and company, which might have had an effect on the outcomes. On top of that,
data has only been collected at one point in time and the design of the study did not allow testing
for the directionality of the results. Especially, the bidirectional relationship between work
engagement and work-life balance has been demonstrated in previous studies as well. Therefore,
future research is needed that replicates the current study in different companies, industries and
countries to validate the results at hand and to increase its generalizability. It is also advisable to
have a better mix of female and male respondents to avoid gender biases and to be more
longitudinal in nature. Another limitation points into the direction of the usage of only three
dimensions of psychological empowerment. Previous research has advocated that only the four
dimensions together represent the ‘gestalt’ of psychological empowerment and all dimensions are
needed for the psychological empowerment construct (Spreitzer, 2008). Hence, this research
might have been incomplete with respect to the fourth dimension meaning and therefore it is
difficult to draw generalizations from the empowerment construct. Consequently, future research
is needed that replicates the study with the original four dimensions construct of empowerment.
Additionally, the study at hand made use of a one factor solution of work engagement, thereby
not measuring effects separately for each dimension of work engagement. In this respect, another
78
avenue for future research lies within the replication of the study by means of using a three factor
solution for work engagement.
Also, the finding of the negative relationship between self-determination and job satisfaction and
work engagement should be verified in other studies with a different sample. Possibly, these
results are highly context specific, as other studies have confirmed a positive relation between
self-determination, work engagement and job satisfaction. This also seems to be important since
findings from the quantitative investigation differed from the qualitative results, thus there is a
need to find a consensus regarding the relationship between self-determination and work
engagement and job satisfaction. In this context, also the assumptions derived from Wang and
Lee’s (2009) study regarding the interactions of the empowerment dimensions should be
validated in the context of the present study. Future research is also needed to shed more light on
the general relationship between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction, as findings so
far seem not to be satisfying. In this respect, the fact that self-determination and work
engagement and job satisfaction were positively related in the correlation table but negatively
related in the regression analysis can be considered as unique and also deserves more elaboration
in future studies. Another avenue for future research lies within relationship between work
engagement and work-life balance. This study constitutes one of the few that particularly
investigated this relation. Hence, future research is advised to confirm the positive influence of
work engagement on work-life balance in a different setting.
With regard to the qualitative investigation, the sheer number of interviews conducted represents
a limitation towards the generalizability of the statements. Furthermore, the interviews have also
been subject to interviewer bias and corresponding interpretations were highly subjective. In
addition, the same contextual constraints as identified for the quantitative investigation with
respect to a single country, company and industry apply to the qualitative part as well. In order to
derive more valuable and broader conclusions, future research is directed to increase the number
of interviews across a wider range of companies, industries and countries to increase the
generalizability of the statements. In this context, the suggested factors as to increase engagement
such as perceived organizational support should receive more attention in scholarly research as a
possible predictor for work engagement as well. In order to validate this as another influencing
factor, future research is directed to statistically test this influence.
79
References
Aiken, J. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
New York: Sage.
Akda, B. (2012). Impact of Empowerment on Work-Life Balance and Employee Well-Being.
Yeditepe University. Paper presented at Cambridge Conference on Business and
Economics.
Allen, D. G., Renn, R. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The impact of telecommuting design on
social systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 22, 125-164.
Amarakoon, A. & Wickramasinghe, V. (n.d.). Impact of work-life balance on employee
engagement. An empirical study on Sri Lankan Employees. Paper presented at the
International Research Conference on Management and Finance 2009, University of
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Ashforth, B. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207-242.
Ashforth, B. (1990). The organizationally Induced helplessness syndrome: A preliminary model.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 7, 30-36.
Aziri, B. (2011). Job Satisfaction: A Literature Review. Management Research and Practice,
3(4), 77-86.
Baarne, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld [Unraveling
new ways of working]. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum/Stichting
Management Studies.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and
compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work related
criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 496−513.
Bakker, A. B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), The peak performing organization (pp. 50–72). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International, 13(3), 209-223.
80
Bakker, A. B., & Geurts, S. (2004). Toward a dual-process model of work-home interference.
Work & Occupations, 31, 345-366.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
research. New York: Psychology Press.
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.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator variable distinction in Social
Psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. New York:
Guilford.
Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture. In M. B. Arthur, D. T.
Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory: 232-251. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:
Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication
Research, 1(2), 99-112.
Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and Consequences of Work-family Enrichment
among Indian Managers. Psychological Studies, 54, 213-225.
Bordin, C., Bartram T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The antecedents and consequences of
psychological empowerment among Singaporean IT employees. Management
Research News, 30(1), 34-46.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35(5), 305-311.
Britt, T. W., Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (2005). Self engagement, stressors, and health:
A longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1475-1486.
Britt, T. W., Dickinson, J. M., Greene, T. M., & McKibben, E. (2007). Self-engagement at
work. In C. L. Cooper & D. Nelson (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior (pp. 143-
158). Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage.
Callentine, L.U. (1995). The ecology of the mobile workplace: Influence of household
composition and home workspace on satisfaction, stress, and effectiveness.
Unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
81
Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between
psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4),
405-406.
Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2005). Work-family conflict among female teachers. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 365-378.
Clark, A. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction and Gender: Why Are Women So Happy at Work?
Labour Economics, 4, 341-372.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.
Human Relations, 53, 747-770.
Coltrin, S. A., & Barendse, B. D. (1981). Is your organization a good candidate for flextime?
Personnel Journal, 60, 712-715.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. 2nd
edition, London:
Routledge.
Coveyduck, D. H. (1997). Investigation of selected factors on job satisfaction among
telecommuters. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee
attendance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370-387.
Davenport, T., & Pearlson, K. (1998). Two Cheers for the Virtual Office. Sloan Management
Review, 39, 51-65.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). The support of autonomy and control of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work
engagement and job performance. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work
engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York: Psychology
Press.
De Lay, N. L. (1995). The effects of telecommuting and gender on work-family conflict and
satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago.
Dex, S. (1998). Women's Attitudes Towards Work. London: Macmillan.
82
Dickson, K. E., & Lorenz, A. (2009). Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction of
Temporary and Part-time Nonstandard Workers: A Preliminary Investigation. Journal
of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10, 166-191.
Dimitrova, D. (2003). Controlling teleworkers: Supervision and flexibility revisited. New
Technology, Work and Employment, 18(3), 181-195.
Doucet, A. (2006). Do Men Mother? Fathering, Care and Domestic Responsibility. Toronto,
Canada:University of Toronto Press.
Duxbury, L. E., Higgins, C. A., & Thomas, D. R. (1996). Work and Family Environments and
the Adoption of Computer-Supported Supplemental Work-at-Home. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 49(1), 1-23.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Fenton O’Creevy, M. (1995). Moderators of differences in job satisfaction between full-time
and part-time female employees: A research note. Human Resource Management
Journal, 5(5), 75-82.
Fields, M. W., & Thacker, J. W. (1991). Job-related attitudes of part-time and full-
timeworkers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6(2), 17-20.
Frone, M. R., & Rice, R. W. (1987). Work-family conflict: The effect of job and family
involvement. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 45-53.
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T. & Friedman, D.F. (1993). The Changing Workforce: Highlights of
the National Study. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human
resource management. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Glavin, P., Schieman, S., & Reid, S. (2011). Boundary-Spanning Work Demands and Their
Consequences for Guilt and Psychological Distress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 54(1), 45-57.
Gorgievski, M., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Work engagement and workaholism:
Comparing the self-employed and salaried employees. Journal of Positive Psychology,
5, 83-96.
Greenblatt, E. (2002). Work-life balance: Wisdom or whining. Organisational Dynamics, 31,
177-193.
83
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-
family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72-92.
Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource
policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of
parents and nonparents. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 271-288.
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the Study of Work-life balance. Social Science Information,
41, 255-279.
Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hair, J.F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis.
Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513.
Hall, D. T., & Gordon, F. E. (1973). Career choices of married women: Effects on conflict
,role behavior, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 42–48.
Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management.
New Technology, Work and Employment, 20(1), 19-33.
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.
Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting. Work Study, 51(2), 74-
80.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes T. L. (2002). Business‐Unit‐Level Relationship
Between Employee Satisfaction, Work engagement and Business Outcomes: A
Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on
aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 667-683.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week:
The positive influence of perceived job flexibility and work and family life balance.
Family Relations, 50, 49-58.
Hinshaw A., & Atwood, J. (1984). Nursing staff turnover, stress and satisfaction: models,
measures, and management. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 1, 133-155.
84
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work.
New York: Metropolitan Books.
Honold, L. (1997). A review of the literature on employee empowerment. Empowerment in
Organisations, 5, 202-212.
Hunton, J. E., & Norman C. S. (2010). The Impact of Alternative Telework Arrangements on
Organizational Commitment: Insights from a Longitudinal Experiment. Journal of
Information Systems, 24(1), 67.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K (2002). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Job
Satisfaction: A Meta Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.
Johnson Controls, (2003). The UK Flexible Working Survey 2003. Retrieved on July 28th
, 2012
from the World Wide Web: http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/content/dam
/WWW/jci/be/global_workplace_innovation/survey_pdfs/Flexible_Working_Survey_200
3.pdf
Jun, M., Shaohan C., & Hojung S. (2006). TQM practice in maquiladora: Antecedents of
employee satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 791-
812.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of work engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kansas State University (2009). Employees who are engaged in their work have happier home
life. Science Daily. Retrieved on June 1st, 2012, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824115911.htm
Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and Women of the Corporation, 2nd edn. New York: Basic Books.
Karatepe, O. M., & Tekinkus, M. (2006).The effects of work family conflict, emotional
exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front line employees.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24(3), 173-193.
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2008). For better or for worse? Analysis of how flexible
working practices influence employees perceptions of job quality. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 419-431.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002). Assessing
the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87, 14-32.
Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict
among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157-177.
85
Kimura, T. (2011). Empowerment, P-O Fit, and Work Engagement. A Mediated Moderation
Model. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 38,
44-58.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes
of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group and
Organization Management, 34(1), 71-91.
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work–life programs on firm productivity.
Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1225–1237.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work–family conflict policies and the job-life satisfaction
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work–family policy and productivity
gap: A literature review. Community, Work and Family, 2(1), 7-32.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R. J., & Fiksenbaum, L. (2006). Work engagement among women
managers and professionals in a Turkish bank: Potential antecedents and
consequences. Equal Opportunities International, 25, 299-310.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., & Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a
multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 59,127-142.
Krausz, M., Sagie, A., & Biderman, Y. (2000). Actual and preferred work scheduling
control as determinants of job related attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 1-
11.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: A
literature review. Kingston University, Kingston Business School.
Lambert, G. E., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2004). The Nature of Work-Family Conflict
among Correctional Staff: An Exploratory Examination. Criminal Justice Review, 29,
145-172.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan J., & Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace empowerment,
organizational trust on staff nurses' work satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Health Care Management Review, 26, 7-23.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of
the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 25, 527-545.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs.
Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43, 265-275.
86
Lewis, S. (2003). Flexible work arrangements: Implementation, Outcomes and Management.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18, 1-28.
Lewis, S., Brookes, M., Mark, A., & Etherington, D. (2008). Work engagement, work-family
enrichment and gender: A positive approach to quality of working life. Working Paper.
London: Middlesex University Business School.
Llorens, S., Salanova, M., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral
of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior,
23, 825-841.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
Madsen, S. R. (2003). Running head: Teleworking Benefits and Challenges. Journal of
Business for Entrepreneurs, 4, 138-151.
McCall, M. (2009). Drilling down into employee engagement. Stakeholdermagazine, 6(1).
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The Truth about Burnout. Jossey- Bass, San Francisco.
Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397-422.
Maume, D. J., & Houston, P. (2001). Job segregation and gender differences in workfamily
spillover among white-collar workers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22,
171-89.
Menon, S. T. (1995). Employee Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and Construct
Validation. McGill University, Vancouver.
Miller, H. E., & Terborg, J. R. (1979). Job attitudes of full- and part-time employees. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 64, 380-386.
Milliken, F. J. (1987). Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect,
and response uncertainty. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 133-143.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nollen, S. D. (1981). The compressed workweek: Is it worth the effort? Industrial Engineer,
13, 58-64.
87
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed
methods research: A synthesis. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (3rd ed., pp. 397-430). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Oxford Dicionaries, (2012). Definition of work. Retrieved on February 23, 2012 from the World
Wide Web: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/work
Pajak, E., & Blase, J. J. (1989). The impact of teachers' personal lives on professional role
enactment: A qualitative analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2),
283-310.
Parker, L. (1993). When to fix it and when to leave: Relationships among perceived control,
self-efficacy, dissent, and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 949-959.
Pech, R., & Slade, B. (2006). Employee disengagement: Is there evidence of a growing
problem? New York: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Perrons, D. (2003). The New Economy and the Work-life balance: Conceptual Explorations
and a Case Study of New Media. Gender, Work and Organization, 10, 65-93.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and
perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1107-
1117.
Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1980). Toward a conceptual clarification of employee
responses to flexible working hours: A work adjustment approach. Journal of
Management, 6, 117-134.
Pierce, J. L., Newstrom, J. W., Dunham, R. B., & Barber, A. E. (1989). Alternative work
schedules. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Pratt, J. H. (1999). 1999 telework America national telework survey: Cost/benefits of
teleworking to manage work/life responsibilities: The International Telework
Association & Council.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40, 879-891.
Putnam, L. L., & Sorenson, R. L. (1982). Equivocal messages in organizations. Human
Communication Research, 8(2), 114-132.
Raabe, P. (1996). Constructing pluralistic work and career arrangements. In S. Lewis, & J.
Lewis (eds), The Work–Family Challenge. Rethinking Employment. London: Sage.
88
Rennecker, J., & Godwin, L. (2005). Delays and interruptions: A self-perpetuating paradox of
communication technology use. Information and Organization, 15, 247-266.
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?
Workspan, 49, 36-39.
Richman, A., Civian, J., Shannon L., Hill E. J., & Brennan, R. (2008). The relationship of
perceived flexibility, supportive work–life policies, and use of formal flexible
arrangements and occasional flexibility to employee engagement and expected
retention. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 183-197.
Ridgley, C., Scott, J., Hunt, A., & Harp, C. (2005). Flextime- A guide to good practice. The
FEO Project. Staffordshire University Stoke-on-Trent.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education Inc.
Ronen, S. (1981). Flexible working hours. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of Work engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21, 600-619.
Salanova, M., Agut S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking Organizational Resources and Work
Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service
Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level:
A multiple– level model of empowerment, performance and satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(3), 332-349.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The Measurement of Work
Engagement with a Short Questionnaire. A Cross-National Study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of happiness studies, 3, 71-92.
Schreibl, F., & Dex, S. (1998). Should we have more family friendly policies? European
Management Journal, 16(5), 586–599.
89
Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychology. American
Psychologists, 61, 774−788.
Sengin, K. K. (2003). Work-related attributes of RN job satisfaction in acute care hospitals.
Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(6), 317-320.
Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic
Communication Management, 9(3), 26-29.
Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive
affect in organizations. In D. Ganster & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Research in organizational
stress and well-being (Vol. 3, pp. 135–165). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment.
Personnel Review, 29(6), 703-722.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work. A review of the literature. International Journal
of Nursing Studies, 46, 1112-1124.
Siu, O., Lu, J., Brough, P., Lu, C., Bakker, A. B., Kalliath, T., O’Driscoll, M., Phillips, D. R.,
Chen, W., Lo, D., Sit, C., & Shi, K. (2010). Role resources and work-family
enrichment: The role of work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior,77, 470-
480.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the
interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518-528.
Sparrowe, R. T. (1994). Empowerment in the hospitality industry: An exploration of
antecedents and outcomes. Hospitality Research Journal, 17(3), 51-73.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking Stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on
empowerment at work. In C. Cooper and J. Barling (eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior. (p. 54-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the
relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and
strain. Journal of Management, 23, 679-704.
90
Stander, M. W., & Rothmann S. (2010). Psychological empowerment, job insecurity and Work
engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SATydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde,36, 1-
8.
Steffy, B. D., & Jones, J. W. (1990). Differences between full-time and part-time employees in
perceived role strain and work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,
321-329.
Sullivan, K. D. (1994). Empowerment and control: A new management paradigm.
Educational Leadership, Seattle University, Seattle, WA.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of
working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24, 113-120.
Thomas, K., & Tymon, W. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role
of intrinsic motivation and personal interaction. Journal of Management Systems, 6(3),
39-54.
Thomas, K. & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment. Academy of
Management Review, 15, 666-681.
Tietze, S., & Musson, G. (2002). When ‘Work’ Meets ‘Home.’ Time & Society, 11(2-3), 315-
334.
Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study (2007). Retrieved on February 15, 2012 from the World
Wide Web: www.towersperrin.com/gws.
Treu, T. (1992). Labour flexibility in Europe. International Labour Review, 131(4), 497-512.
van Baalen, P. (2012). Risk Junctions. Reflexive Modernization and the Hybrid Workspace.
Paper submitted to the 7th Organization Studies Workshop. Organizations as Spaces
of Work.
van Dalen, J., & de Leede, E. (2000). Statistisch Onderzoek met SPSS for Windows, Utrecht:
Lemma.
van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. F. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting
met een vragenlijst: De Vragenlijst Beleving en Beoordeling van de Arbeid [The
measurement of psychosocial strain at work: the questionnaire experience and
evaluation of work]. Amsterdam: NIA.
Vecchio, R. P. (1984). Demographic and attitudinal differences between part-time and full-
time employees. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 213-218.
91
Wang, G., & Lee, P. D. (2009). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: An analysis
of interactive effects. Group & Organization Management, 34, 271-296.
Wang, H., Liu, Q., & Tu, Y. (2005). Interpretation of partial least-squares regression models
with VARIMAX rotation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 207-219.
Warren, T. (2004). Working part-time: achieving a successful work–life balance. British Journal
of Sociology, 55, 99-122.
Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation
with satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91-111.
Wotruba, T. R. (1990). Full-time versus part-time salespeople: Individual attitudes,
organizational commitment, and work attitudes. Journal of Retailing, 60, 62-80.
Wright, K. (1993). Prison Environment and Behavioral Outcomes. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 20, 93-113.
Zedeck, S., & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the Family and Employing Organization.
American Psychologist, 45, 240-251.
92
APPENDIX A: Interview Questions
Introduction:
Master student did an investigation regarding work engagement and flexible working
Explanation of thesis
Based on results would like to get deeper insights
Explanation of work engagement concept
1. Engagement in relation to three psychological empowerment dimensions
Self-determination: (Explanation of concept):
In general, how much freedom/choice do you have in initiating and performing a task?
Do you think having great levels of freedom is beneficial for engagement?
(If you do not perceive great freedom), what should be done to have more freedom?
In general, how can one increase self-determination?
Impact: (Explanation of concept):
How much impact do you perceive? / Do you think that you can make a difference in the
department/organization?
Do you think impact is important for being engaged?
Do you think having greater influence over work outcomes would make you more
engaged? To what extent?
What can be done to increase impact?
Competence: (Explanation of concept):
Do you consider being competent and having high levels of self-esteem important for
engagement?
93
General questions regarding Engagement:
What do you consider important for high engagement levels?
What, according to you, should be done to increase engagement levels at the company?
Is there anything that works against engagement?
2. General questions about Flexible working:
Introduction: Explanation of the concept of flexible working
Do you make use of flexible working?
What are your general feelings about flexible working?
What is good about and what is bad about it?
Do you experience any changes at the company due to the concept?
Do you have suggestions for improvement?
94
APPENDIX B: KMO and Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Psychological Empowerment
Table B.1. KMO and Barlett’s Test
Table B.2.Measure of Sampling Adequacy
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of
Sampling Adequacy.
,678
Bartlett's
Test of
Sphericity
Approx.
Chi-
Square
696,841
df 15
Sig. ,000
Anti-image Matrices
I am
confident
about my
ability to
do my job
I have
mastered
the skills
necessary
for my job
I have
significant
autonomy
in
determining
how I do
my job
I can
decide on
my own
how to
go about
doing my
work
My impact
on what
happens in
my
department
is large
I have a
great deal
of control
over what
happens in
my
department
Anti-image
Covariance
I am confident
about my
ability to do
my job
,529 -,312 -,107 ,044 -,031 -,015
I have
mastered the
skills
necessary for
my job
-,312 ,558 -,027 -,039 ,014 -,035
I have
significant
autonomy in
determining
how I do my
job
-,107 -,027 ,453 -,300 -,030 -,020
I can decide
on my own
how to go
about doing
my work
,044 -,039 -,300 ,514 -,027 -,018
95
My impact on
what happens
in my
department is
large
-,031 ,014 -,030 -,027 ,443 -,304
I have a great
deal of control
over what
happens in my
department
-,015 -,035 -,020 -,018 -,304 ,442
Anti-image
Correlation
I am confident
about my
ability to do
my job
,686a -,574 -,219 ,084 -,063 -,031
I have
mastered the
skills
necessary for
my job
-,574 ,696a -,055 -,072 ,028 -,070
I have
significant
autonomy in
determining
how I do my
job
-,219 -,055 ,704a -,622 -,066 -,045
I can decide
on my own
how to go
about doing
my work
,084 -,072 -,622 ,675a -,057 -,038
My impact on
what happens
in my
department is
large
-,063 ,028 -,066 -,057 ,654a -,687
I have a great
deal of control
over what
happens in my
department
-,031 -,070 -,045 -,038 -,687 ,658a
a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)
96
Work Engagement
Table B.3 KMO and Barlett’s Test
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of
Sampling Adequacy.
,856
Bartlett's
Test of
Sphericity
Approx.
Chi-
Square
733,186
df 15
Sig. ,000
Table B.4. Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Anti-image Matrices
At my
work, I
feel
bursting
with
energy
When I
get up in
the
morning,
I feel
like
going to
work
I am very
enthusiastic
about my
job
My job
inspires
me
When I
am
working, I
forget
everything
else
around me
I feel
happy
when I
am
working
intensely
Anti-image
Covariance
At my
work, I feel
bursting
with
energy
,498 -,111 -,047 -,128 -,079 -,048
When I get
up in the
morning, I
feel like
going to
work
-,111 ,549 -,118 -,059 ,033 -,074
I am very
enthusiastic
about my
job
-,047 -,118 ,376 -,181 -,042 -,011
My job
inspires me
-,128 -,059 -,181 ,333 -,035 -,081
When I am
working, I
forget
everything
else around
me
-,079 ,033 -,042 -,035 ,826 -,137
97
I feel
happy
when I am
working
intensely
-,048 -,074 -,011 -,081 -,137 ,728
Anti-image
Correlation
At my
work, I feel
bursting
with
energy
,887a -,212 -,108 -,315 -,124 -,080
When I get
up in the
morning, I
feel like
going to
work
-,212 ,894a -,260 -,137 ,049 -,118
I am very
enthusiastic
about my
job
-,108 -,260 ,820a -,512 -,075 -,021
My job
inspires me
-,315 -,137 -,512 ,806a -,066 -,164
When I am
working, I
forget
everything
else around
me
-,124 ,049 -,075 -,066 ,894a -,177
I feel
happy
when I am
working
intensely
-,080 -,118 -,021 -,164 -,177 ,911a
a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)
98
APPENDIX C: Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor
Table C. 1. Work-life balance and job satisfaction
Variable
Tolerance
Variance Inflation Factor
Gender .53 1.89
Age .61 1.64
Education .69 1.46
Employment 1 .56 1.80
Employment 2 .54 1.87
Competence .45 2.20
Self-determination .43 2.31
Impact .46 2.17
Flexible working .57 1.75
Competence x Flexible
Working
.30 3.38
Self-determination x
Flexible Working
.24 4.12
Impact x Flexible
Working
.39 2.56
Engagement .53 1.90
Engagement x Flexible
Working
.23 4.38
Dependent Variables: Job Satisfaction and Work-life balance
99
Table C. 2. Work Engagement
Variable
Tolerance
Variance Inflation Factor
Gender .54 1.84
Age .68 1.47
Education .74 1.35
Employment 1 .58 1.73
Employment 2 .56 1.80
Competence .46 2.17
Self-determination .45 2.22
Impact .59 1.68
Flexible working .63 1.60
Competence x Flexible
Working
.30 3.37
Self-determination x
Flexible Working
.33 3.01
Impact x Flexible
Working
.71 1.40
Dependent Variables: Work Engagement
100
APPENDIX D: Partial Correlations
Table D.1. Partial Correlations Job Satisfaction
Correlations
Control Variables
Job
Satisfaction Self-determination Competence Impact
Flexible
working
-none-a Job Satisfaction Correlation 1,000 ,232 ,252 ,321 ,255
Significance
(2-tailed)
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
df 0 290 290 290 290
Self-
determination
Correlation ,232 1,000 ,414 ,392 ,498
Significance
(2-tailed)
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
df 290 0 290 290 290
Competence Correlation ,252 ,414 1,000 ,323 ,140
Significance
(2-tailed)
,000 ,000 ,000 ,016
df 290 290 0 290 290
Impact Correlation ,321 ,392 ,323 1,000 ,315
Significance
(2-tailed)
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
df 290 290 290 0 290
Flexibleworking Correlation ,255 ,498 ,140 ,315 1,000
Significance
(2-tailed)
,000 ,000 ,016 ,000
df 290 290 290 290 0
Competence &
Impact & Flexibleworking
Job Satisfaction Correlation 1,000 -,001
Significance
(2-tailed)
,990
df 0 287
Self-
determination
Correlation -,001 1,000
Significance
(2-tailed)
,990
df 287 0
101
Table C.2. Partial Correlations Work Engagement
Correlations
Control Variables
Work
Engagement Self-determination Dummy_Employment2
-none-a Work Engagement Correlation 1,000 -,175 ,205
Significance
(2-tailed)
,211 ,141
df 0 51 51
Self-determination Correlation -,175 1,000 ,083
Significance
(2-tailed)
,211 ,556
df 51 0 51
Dummy_Employment2 Correlation ,205 ,083 1,000
Significance
(2-tailed)
,141 ,556
df 51 51 0
Dummy_Employment2 Work Engagement Correlation 1,000 -,196
Significance
(2-tailed)
,163
df 0 50
Self-determination Correlation -,196 1,000
Significance (2-tailed)
,163
df 50 0
102
APPENDIX E: Sobel Test
Note: a, b, and c' are path coefficients.
Figure E.1. Mediation2
Table E.1. Sobel Test2
Input
Test Statistic
P-Value
ta -2.401 Sobel Test: 1.841 0.066
tb 2.853
Note: ta and tb are the t-test statistics for the difference between the a and b coefficients and zero.
2 Based on Preacher, K.J., & Leonardelli, G.J. (2012). Calculation for the Sobel Test. An interactive calculation tool
for mediation tests. Retrieved, July 29th
, 2012 from the World Wide Web: http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm
Independent
Variable:
Flexible Working x
Impact
Mediator:
Work Engagement
Dependent
Variable:
Job Satisfaction
a= -.39 b= .36
c‘= -.30
103
APPENDIX F: Bootstrapping Results
Run MATRIX procedure:
*****************************************************************
Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation
Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University
http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/ahayes/
For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic
and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects
in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
*****************************************************************
Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:
DV = Satisfac
IV = cImpactX
MEDS = cEngagem
Sample size
292
IV to Mediators (a paths)
Coeff se t p
cEngagem -,0991 ,0597 -1,6602 ,0980
Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)
Coeff se t p
cEngagem ,6219 ,0470 13,2422 ,0000
Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)
Coeff se t p
cImpactX -,1252 ,0604 -2,0730 ,0391
Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)
Coeff se t p
cImpactX -,0636 ,0480 -1,3259 ,1859
Model Summary for DV Model
R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p
,3867 ,3825 91,1187 2,0000 289,0000 ,0000
104
******************************************************************
NORMAL THEORY TESTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)
Effect se Z p
TOTAL -,0616 ,0373 -1,6502 ,0989
cEngagem -,0616 ,0373 -1,6502 ,0989
*****************************************************************
BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)
Data Boot Bias SE
TOTAL -,0616 -,0604 ,0013 ,0594
cEngagem -,0616 -,0604 ,0013 ,0594
Bias Corrected and Accelerated Confidence Intervals
Lower Upper
TOTAL -,1751 ,0645
cEngagem -,1751 ,0645
Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals
Lower Upper
TOTAL -,1678 ,0680
cEngagem -,1678 ,0680
Percentile Confidence Intervals
Lower Upper
TOTAL -,1765 ,0609
cEngagem -,1765 ,0609
*****************************************************************
Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:
95
Number of Bootstrap Resamples:
1000
********************************* NOTES
**********************************
------ END MATRIX -----
105
APPENDIX G: Regression Analyses
Table G. 1. Hierarchical Regression with the dependent variable job satisfaction
ANOVA
Model
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression ,254 5 ,051 ,206 ,958
Residual 11,569 47 ,246
Total 11,823 52
2 Regression 3,474 8 ,434 2,288 ,038
Residual 8,349 44 ,190
Total 11,823 52
3 Regression 3,718 9 ,413 2,191 ,042
Residual 8,105 43 ,188
Total 11,823 52
4 Regression 5,403 12 ,450 2,805 ,007
Residual 6,420 40 ,161
Total 11,823 52
5 Regression 6,511 13 ,501 3,677 ,001
Residual 5,312 39 ,136
Total 11,823 52
6 Regression 7,257 14 ,518 4,314 ,000
Residual 4,566 38 ,120
Total 11,823 52
Model Summary
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R
Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R
Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 0,146 ,021 -,083 ,49614 ,021 ,206 5 47 ,958
2 0,542 ,294 ,165 ,43561 ,272 5,656 3 44 ,002
3 0,561 ,314 ,171 ,43417 ,021 1,294 1 43 ,262
4 0,676 ,457 ,294 ,40064 ,143 3,499 3 40 ,024
5 0,742 ,551 ,401 ,36907 ,094 8,137 1 39 ,007
6 0,783 ,614 ,472 ,34665 ,063 6,208 1 38 ,017 1,784
106
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3,411 ,610 5,591 ,000
Age ,005 ,013 ,066 ,399 ,692 ,750 1,333
Dummy_Gender_Female ,057 ,181 ,055 ,314 ,755 ,676 1,479
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,043 ,155 ,044 ,279 ,781 ,844 1,185
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,150 ,233 -,114 -,644 ,523 ,667 1,498
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,199 ,338 ,098 ,590 ,558 ,762 1,312
2 (Constant) 3,522 ,539 6,530 ,000
Age ,001 ,011 ,011 ,077 ,939 ,743 1,346
Dummy_Gender_Female ,174 ,168 ,169 1,036 ,306 ,603 1,659
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,084 ,138 ,086 ,610 ,545 ,815 1,227
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime ,126 ,216 ,096 ,584 ,562 ,597 1,676
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime -,212 ,327 -,104 -,649 ,520 ,627 1,594
cCompetence ,042 ,152 ,047 ,275 ,785 ,555 1,800
cImpact ,350 ,096 ,566 3,655 ,001 ,668 1,496
cSelfdetermination -,192 ,129 -,224 -
1,487
,144 ,710 1,408
3 (Constant) 3,507 ,538 6,523 ,000
Age ,002 ,011 ,033 ,222 ,825 ,731 1,368
Dummy_Gender_Female ,125 ,173 ,122 ,726 ,472 ,566 1,766
107
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,054 ,140 ,054 ,382 ,705 ,785 1,274
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime ,088 ,218 ,067 ,403 ,689 ,582 1,717
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime -,206 ,326 -,101 -,631 ,531 ,627 1,594
cCompetence ,008 ,155 ,009 ,052 ,959 ,535 1,870
cImpact ,336 ,096 ,545 3,499 ,001 ,658 1,519
cSelfdetermination -,208 ,130 -,242 -
1,605
,116 ,702 1,425
cFlexibleworking ,115 ,101 ,162 1,138 ,262 ,782 1,278
4 (Constant) 3,584 ,513 6,989 ,000
Age ,000 ,011 ,005 ,039 ,969 ,679 1,473
Dummy_Gender_Female ,130 ,163 ,126 ,798 ,429 ,543 1,842
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,109 ,133 ,111 ,818 ,418 ,741 1,350
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime ,075 ,202 ,057 ,372 ,712 ,578 1,729
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime -,100 ,320 -,049 -,312 ,757 ,555 1,802
cCompetence ,124 ,154 ,138 ,805 ,426 ,461 2,169
cImpact ,353 ,093 ,571 3,778 ,001 ,594 1,684
cSelfdetermination -,368 ,149 -,427 -
2,461
,018 ,450 2,222
cFlexibleworking ,191 ,104 ,269 1,828 ,075 ,626 1,598
cCompetenceXcFlexibleworking ,798 ,296 ,578 2,700 ,010 ,296 3,373
cImpactXcFlexibleworking -,301 ,139 -,299 -
2,171
,036 ,714 1,401
108
cSelfdeterminationXcFlexibleworking -,721 ,303 -,481 -
2,380
,022 ,332 3,013
5 (Constant) 3,812 ,479 7,956 ,000
Age -,001 ,010 -,014 -,111 ,912 ,677 1,477
Dummy_Gender_Female ,060 ,152 ,058 ,392 ,697 ,528 1,892
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,021 ,127 ,022 ,168 ,868 ,697 1,435
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime ,017 ,187 ,013 ,089 ,930 ,571 1,750
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime -,126 ,295 -,062 -,428 ,671 ,554 1,804
cCompetence ,133 ,142 ,148 ,939 ,353 ,461 2,170
cImpact ,224 ,097 ,362 2,301 ,027 ,465 2,150
cSelfdetermination -,297 ,140 -,345 -
2,123
,040 ,436 2,294
cFlexibleworking ,212 ,096 ,300 2,201 ,034 ,622 1,608
cCompetenceXcFlexibleworking ,811 ,272 ,587 2,976 ,005 ,296 3,374
cImpactXcFlexibleworking -,162 ,137 -,161 -
1,187
,243 ,623 1,604
cSelfdeterminationXcFlexibleworking -,745 ,279 -,498 -
2,669
,011 ,332 3,015
cEngagement ,358 ,125 ,416 2,853 ,007 ,542 1,846
6 (Constant) 4,119 ,467 8,828 ,000
Age -,009 ,010 -,114 -,887 ,381 ,612 1,635
Dummy_Gender ,055 ,143 ,053 ,385 ,703 ,528 1,893
Dummy_Education ,060 ,120 ,061 ,502 ,618 ,685 1,460
109
Dummy_Employment1 ,087 ,178 ,066 ,489 ,627 ,557 1,795
Dummy_Employment2 -,253 ,281 -,124 -,898 ,375 ,536 1,865
cCompetence ,174 ,134 ,194 1,294 ,203 ,454 2,202
cImpact ,200 ,092 ,324 2,180 ,036 ,460 2,173
cSelfdetermination -,323 ,132 -,375 -
2,451
,019 ,433 2,309
cFlexibleworking ,145 ,094 ,205 1,536 ,133 ,571 1,750
cCompetenceXcFlexibleworking ,796 ,256 ,576 3,111 ,004 ,296 3,376
cImpactXcFlexibleworking ,083 ,162 ,083 ,516 ,609 ,392 2,550
cSelfdeterminationXcFlexibleworking -1,140 ,306 -,761 -
3,721
,001 ,243 4,115
cEngagement ,309 ,119 ,359 2,585 ,014 ,527 1,898
cEngagementXcFlexibleworking -,635 ,255 -,525 -
2,492
,017 ,228 4,377
110
Table G. 2. Hierarchical Regression with the dependent variable work-life balance
Model Summary
g
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R
Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R
Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 0,414 ,171 ,083 ,81563 ,171 1,941 5 47 ,105
2 0,586 ,343 ,224 ,75026 ,172 3,849 3 44 ,016
3 0,637 ,406 ,282 ,72177 ,063 4,541 1 43 ,039
4 0,662 ,438 ,269 ,72819 ,032 ,748 3 40 ,530
5 0,735 ,540 ,387 ,66671 ,103 8,717 1 39 ,005
6 0,751 ,565 ,404 ,65747 ,024 2,104 1 38 ,155 1,932
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression 6,455 5 1,291 1,941 ,105
Residual 31,267 47 ,665
Total 37,722 52
2 Regression 12,955 8 1,619 2,877 ,012
Residual 24,767 44 ,563
Total 37,722 52
3 Regression 15,321 9 1,702 3,268 ,004
Residual 22,401 43 ,521
Total 37,722 52
4 Regression 16,511 12 1,376 2,595 ,012
Residual 21,211 40 ,530
Total 37,722 52
5 Regression 20,386 13 1,568 3,528 ,001
Residual 17,336 39 ,445
Total 37,722 52
6 Regression 21,296 14 1,521 3,519 ,001
Residual 16,426 38 ,432
Total 37,722 52
111
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 4,057 1,003 4,046 ,000
Age ,007 ,021 ,049 ,323 ,748 ,750 1,333
Dummy_Gender_Female -,625 ,297 -,340 -
2,106
,041 ,676 1,479
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
-,230 ,254 -,131 -,905 ,370 ,844 1,185
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,891 ,383 -,378 -
2,326
,024 ,667 1,498
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,973 ,555 ,266 1,752 ,086 ,762 1,312
2 (Constant) 4,057 ,929 4,368 ,000
Age ,004 ,019 ,027 ,189 ,851 ,743 1,346
Dummy_Gender_Female -,333 ,289 -,181 -
1,152
,256 ,603 1,659
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
-,212 ,238 -,121 -,891 ,378 ,815 1,227
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,632 ,373 -,268 -
1,695
,097 ,597 1,676
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,693 ,563 ,190 1,231 ,225 ,627 1,594
cCompetence ,408 ,263 ,254 1,552 ,128 ,555 1,800
cImpact ,274 ,165 ,249 1,665 ,103 ,668 1,496
cSelfdetermination ,072 ,223 ,047 ,325 ,746 ,710 1,408
3 (Constant) 4,013 ,894 4,489 ,000
Age ,009 ,019 ,064 ,469 ,642 ,731 1,368
Dummy_Gender_Female -,484 ,287 -,263 -
1,686
,099 ,566 1,766
112
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
-,308 ,233 -,175 -
1,318
,194 ,785 1,274
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,751 ,363 -,319 -
2,070
,044 ,582 1,717
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,714 ,542 ,195 1,317 ,195 ,627 1,594
cCompetence ,302 ,257 ,189 1,173 ,247 ,535 1,870
cImpact ,232 ,160 ,211 1,454 ,153 ,658 1,519
cSelfdetermination ,023 ,216 ,015 ,109 ,914 ,702 1,425
cFlexibleworking ,358 ,168 ,283 2,131 ,039 ,782 1,278
4 (Constant) 4,290 ,932 4,603 ,000
Age ,003 ,020 ,019 ,133 ,895 ,679 1,473
Dummy_Gender_Female -,568 ,296 -,309 -
1,919
,062 ,543 1,842
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
-,290 ,242 -,165 -
1,197
,238 ,741 1,350
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,787 ,367 -,334 -
2,142
,038 ,578 1,729
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,619 ,581 ,169 1,064 ,294 ,555 1,802
cCompetence ,157 ,280 ,098 ,561 ,578 ,461 2,169
cImpact ,158 ,170 ,143 ,930 ,358 ,594 1,684
cSelfdetermination ,232 ,272 ,151 ,854 ,398 ,450 2,222
cFlexibleworking ,268 ,190 ,212 1,412 ,166 ,626 1,598
cCompetenceXcFlexibleworking -,502 ,537 -,204 -,935 ,356 ,296 3,373
cImpactXcFlexibleworking -,122 ,252 -,068 -,483 ,632 ,714 1,401
113
cSelfdeterminationXcFlexibleworking ,742 ,551 ,277 1,348 ,185 ,332 3,013
5 (Constant) 4,716 ,866 5,449 ,000
Age ,000 ,018 -,002 -,013 ,990 ,677 1,477
Dummy_Gender_Female -,699 ,274 -,380 -
2,548
,015 ,528 1,892
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
-,454 ,229 -,258 -
1,986
,054 ,697 1,435
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,896 ,338 -,380 -
2,649
,012 ,571 1,750
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,569 ,532 ,156 1,069 ,292 ,554 1,804
cCompetence ,174 ,256 ,109 ,680 ,501 ,461 2,170
cImpact -,084 ,176 -,076 -,477 ,636 ,465 2,150
cSelfdetermination ,364 ,253 ,237 1,442 ,157 ,436 2,294
cFlexibleworking ,308 ,174 ,243 1,768 ,085 ,622 1,608
cCompetenceXcFlexibleworking -,479 ,492 -,194 -,973 ,336 ,296 3,374
cImpactXcFlexibleworking ,138 ,247 ,077 ,558 ,580 ,623 1,604
cSelfdeterminationXcFlexibleworking ,697 ,504 ,260 1,381 ,175 ,332 3,015
cEngagement ,669 ,227 ,435 2,953 ,005 ,542 1,846
6 (Constant) 4,378 ,885 4,948 ,000
Age ,008 ,019 ,060 ,439 ,663 ,612 1,635
Dummy_Gender_Female -,694 ,271 -,378 -
2,564
,014 ,528 1,893
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
-,497 ,228 -,283 -
2,185
,035 ,685 1,460
114
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,974 ,338 -,413 -
2,883
,006 ,557 1,795
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,709 ,534 ,194 1,328 ,192 ,536 1,865
cCompetence ,129 ,255 ,081 ,509 ,614 ,454 2,202
cImpact -,058 ,174 -,052 -,331 ,742 ,460 2,173
cSelfdetermination ,393 ,250 ,256 1,573 ,124 ,433 2,309
cFlexibleworking ,382 ,179 ,302 2,132 ,040 ,571 1,750
cCompetenceXcFlexibleworking -,463 ,485 -,188 -,954 ,346 ,296 3,376
cImpactXcFlexibleworking -,133 ,307 -,074 -,435 ,666 ,392 2,550
cSelfdeterminationXcFlexibleworking 1,132 ,581 ,423 1,949 ,059 ,243 4,115
cEngagement ,723 ,226 ,471 3,192 ,003 ,527 1,898
cEngagementXcFlexibleworking ,701 ,483 ,325 1,451 ,155 ,228 4,377
115
Table G. 3. Hierarchical Regression with the dependent variable work engagement
Model Summary
e
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R
Square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R
Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 0,298 ,089 -,008 ,55689 ,089 ,915 5 47 ,480
2 0,612 ,375 ,261 ,47669 ,286 6,716 3 44 ,001
3 0,612 ,375 ,244 ,48219 ,000 ,001 1 43 ,971
4 0,677 ,458 ,296 ,46540 ,083 2,053 3 40 ,122 2,164
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1,419 5 ,284 ,915 ,480
Residual 14,576 47 ,310
Total 15,995 52
2 Regression 5,997 8 ,750 3,299 ,005
Residual 9,998 44 ,227
Total 15,995 52
3 Regression 5,997 9 ,666 2,866 ,010
Residual 9,998 43 ,233
Total 15,995 52
4 Regression 7,331 12 ,611 2,821 ,007
Residual 8,664 40 ,217
Total 15,995 52
116
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 2,486 ,685 3,630 ,001
Age ,017 ,014 ,188 1,170 ,248 ,750 1,333
Dummy_Gender_Female ,168 ,203 ,140 ,827 ,412 ,676 1,479
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,102 ,174 ,089 ,590 ,558 ,844 1,185
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime -,107 ,262 -,070 -,410 ,684 ,667 1,498
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,682 ,379 ,287 1,800 ,078 ,762 1,312
2 (Constant) 2,622 ,590 4,444 ,000
Age ,012 ,012 ,132 ,953 ,346 ,743 1,346
Dummy_Gender_Female ,268 ,184 ,224 1,458 ,152 ,603 1,659
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,163 ,151 ,142 1,076 ,288 ,815 1,227
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime ,207 ,237 ,135 ,876 ,386 ,597 1,676
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,208 ,358 ,087 ,581 ,564 ,627 1,594
cCompetence ,002 ,167 ,002 ,014 ,989 ,555 1,800
cImpact ,406 ,105 ,565 3,879 ,000 ,668 1,496
cSelfdetermination -,319 ,142 -,319 -
2,254
,029 ,710 1,408
3 (Constant) 2,622 ,597 4,391 ,000
Age ,012 ,012 ,132 ,939 ,353 ,731 1,368
Dummy_Gender_Female ,266 ,192 ,222 1,388 ,172 ,566 1,766
117
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,162 ,156 ,141 1,037 ,305 ,785 1,274
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime ,206 ,242 ,134 ,850 ,400 ,582 1,717
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,208 ,362 ,088 ,575 ,568 ,627 1,594
cCompetence ,001 ,172 ,001 ,007 ,995 ,535 1,870
cImpact ,406 ,107 ,565 3,801 ,000 ,658 1,519
cSelfdetermination -,320 ,144 -,319 -
2,219
,032 ,702 1,425
cFlexibleworking ,004 ,112 ,005 ,037 ,971 ,782 1,278
4 (Constant) 2,969 ,596 4,985 ,000
Age ,004 ,013 ,048 ,339 ,736 ,679 1,473
Dummy_Gender_Female ,197 ,189 ,164 1,040 ,305 ,543 1,842
Dummy_Education_Higher
Education
,245 ,155 ,214 1,585 ,121 ,741 1,350
Dummy_Employment1_Fulltime ,164 ,235 ,107 ,696 ,490 ,578 1,729
Dummy_Employment2_Overtime ,074 ,371 ,031 ,200 ,843 ,555 1,802
cCompetence -,026 ,179 -,025 -,146 ,885 ,461 2,169
cImpact ,361 ,108 ,503 3,328 ,002 ,594 1,684
cSelfdetermination -,198 ,174 -,198 -
1,142
,260 ,450 2,222
cFlexibleworking -,060 ,121 -,073 -,495 ,623 ,626 1,598
cCompetenceXcFlexibleworking -,035 ,343 -,022 -,102 ,920 ,296 3,373
cImpactXcFlexibleworking -,388 ,161 -,332 -
2,410
,021 ,714 1,401
118
cSelfdeterminationXcFlexibleworking ,068 ,352 ,039 ,193 ,848 ,332 3,013