Marjan Gorgievski, Ph.D., Erasmus University RotterdamDominika Dej, Ph.D. , Technical University Dresden

Ute Stephan, Ph.D. , University of Sheffield

15th International Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational

Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands, May 25th-28th, 2011

Gain spiral of Resources, Engagement and Entrepreneurial PerformanceBased on The JD-R model, e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007

Job resourcesAutonomySocial support

Personal resourcesBroad traitsSpecific traitsHuman capital

Job Demands

Motivation

Work engagement

Job Performance-In role performance-Ex role performance-CreativityBusiness outcomes-Financial turnover

Empirical Evidence

Ample evidence for a positive gain spiral of personal and job resources and work engagement (overview: Salanova, Schaufeli, Xanthopoulou & Bakker, 2010)

Ample evidence for the positive relationship between work engagement and performance, also for entrepreneurs (Overview: Gorgievski, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2010)

Predicting Entrepreneurial performance

No planningPlanning

Proactive

Opportunistic

Reactive

Reactive

Top-down

Complete Planning

Localized

Critical Point

Individual-level planning or self-management styles play a central role; Giessen-Amsterdam-Model, Rauch & Frese, 2001, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007)

• Informal, everyday activity• Proces planning• Personal difference variable (habituation), but it can be changed easier than a

trait

Empirical Evidence concerning Planning

Evidence for a positive relationship between critical point / complete planning and entrepreneurial performance (Frese et al., 2000, 2002, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007; Rauch et al., 2000; Stephan et al., 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2000)

Evidence for a negative relationship between reactive strategies and entrepreneurial performance (Frese et al., 2000, 2002, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007; Rauch et al., 2000; Stephan et al., 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2000)

Evidence for cross-cultural differences in effectiveness of different planning styles (Stephan et al., 2006)

Research Model

Job resources

Decision latitudeSkill variety

Personal resources

Personal innitiative

Self efficacy

PlanningFull planningCritical point

planning

Work engagement

Subjective business success

What the study adds

Evidence on the relationship between resources job resources, perdsonal resources and planning?

Evidence on the relationship planning and work engagement?

Evidence for a possible mediating effect of planning styles in the resources – performance, and resources – engagement relationship.

Method

N=150 business owners (response rate 29%)Germany N=62The Netherlands N = 40Poland N = 49

Invited by telephone, face to face interviews

Mean age 43.06 years (sd = 9.63)On average 12.11 years in business (sd = 7.12)76 % males30 % from entrepreneurial family

Measurements

Job ResourcesSkill discretion and Decision making latitude (JCQ; 8 items, alpha

= .71)Personal resources

Personal Initiative (Frese et al. 1996; 7 items, alpha = .79 )Self efficacy (Schwarzer und Jerusalem; 10 items, alpha = .84)

Planning stylesCritical point planning (Zempel, 2003; 5 items = .69)Complete planning (Zempel, 2003; 4 items, alpha = .77)

work-engagement (UWES; 9 items, alpha = .92); entrepreneurs’ subjective firm business success (Stephan,

Dej, Lukes & Richter, 2007; 7 items, alpha = .81);

Correlations between study variables

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Job resources - .50*** .18 .16 .48*** .20+

2. Personal resources .63*** - .54* .18 .44*** .44***

3. Critical point planning .37+ .19 - .14 .17

4. Full planning .35 .15 - .18 .06

5. Work engagement .44* .22 .42* .73** - .17+

6. Subjective success .26 .40* -.35* -.31 -.18 -

Upper diagonal: Germany/The Netherlands (N = 102)Lower diagonal, Poland (N=49)

N = 102; X2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000

Job resources

Decision latitudeSkill variety

Personal

resources

Personal innitiative

Self efficacy

Planning

Critical point

Work engageme

nt

Subjective

business success

.41**

.60***

.82**

.80**

N = 102; X2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04

Job resources

Decision latitudeSkill variety

Personal resource

sPersonal

innitiativeSelf efficacy

Planning

Full planning

Work engagement

Subjective business success

.79**

.75**

.52**

.23**

Critical point PolandJob

resourcesDecision latitude

Skill variety

Personal

resources

Personal innitiative

Self efficacy

Planning

Critical point

Work engageme

nt

Subjective

business success

.46**

.36**

-.61*

.58***

.69**

N = 49 ; X2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000

.28**

Job resources

Decision latitudeSkill variety

Personal

resources

Personal innitiative

Self efficacy

Planning

Full planning

Work engageme

nt

Subjective

business success

.76**

.43***

.54**

Full planning Poland

N = 49 ; X2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04

.49**

ConclusionsMajor conclusion is there are important cross national differences.

The data show little evidence for a mediating role of planning styles in the positive spiral of resources, well-being and performance in Germany and The Netherlands.

However, in the Polish sample, both critical point and full planning related to more work engagement.

Strangely, both planning styles and work engagement related negatively to subjective success . Robustness checks showed similar relations with objective indicators of business performance.

Question is what moderator is at work ?

Future research

Collect more data, comparing developed and developing countries.

Find meaningful moderator variables

Conduct longitudinal studies to investigate causality.

For example: Prior studies showed poor planning results in poor business

performance. However, poor performance caused by environmental factors might stimulate planning, which increases performance (although it may still be poor) which in turn increases work engagement.