j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)

8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/j1748-8583200900103x1 1/20

Perceived investment in employee

development, intrinsic motivation and work

performanceBård Kuvaas and Anders Dysvik, Department of Leadership and

Organisational Management, Norwegian School of Management BI

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 19, no 3, 2009, pages 217–236

The purpose of this study was to explore alternative relationships between perceived

investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and different facets of

work performance. Three cross-sectional surveys of a total of 826 respondents from

organisations located in Norway showed that the relationship between perceivedinvestment in employee development and work effort was mediated by intrinsic

motivation. In addition, intrinsic motivation was found to moderate the relationship

between perceived investment in employee development and organisational

citizenship behaviour. The form of the moderation revealed a positive relationship

only for employees with high levels of intrinsic motivation.

Contact: Bård Kuvaas, Department of Leadership and Organisational

Management, Norwegian School of Management BI, Nydalsveien 37, 0484

Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]_103 217..236

INTRODUCTION

Investing in employee development is vital in maintaining and developing the

skills, knowledge and abilities of both individual employees and the organisation

as a whole (e.g. Lee and Bruvold, 2003). In addition, and according to social

exchange theory, when organisations invest in their employees, employees tend toreciprocate in positive ways (Settoon et al., 1996; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).

Simply put, when organisations offer organisational inducements in the form of

developmental opportunities, employees become prosocially motivated, that is, they

desire to expend effort to benefit the organisation.

Relying on social exchange theory, Lee and Bruvold (2003) developed a generic

measure of perceived investment in employee development (PIED) and tested amodel including affective and continuance commitment, job satisfaction and

turnover intention among more than 400 nurses in two different countries. They

found that PIED was positively related to employees’ affective commitment and jobsatisfaction, but not to continuance commitment, and that the relationship between

PIED and turnover intention was fully mediated by job satisfaction and affective

commitment. Lee and Bruvold (2003) thus contributed to the human resource

management (HRM) literature by demonstrating that organisational inducements inthe form of investments in employee development can indeed create obligations on

the part of the employees to reciprocate in positive ways, which, in turn, may

improve our understanding of how ‘best practice’, high-performance, high-

commitment, high-involvement and human-capital-enhancing HRM can result in

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009 217

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

mailto:[email protected]_103




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


higher organisational performance. Lee and Bruvold (2003: 994) also proposed that

‘investing in employee development may create a dynamic relationship where

employees may work harder’ and called for research on ‘other important outcomes

such as in-role performance and helping behavior’.The purpose of the present study is to respond to this call and investigate the

relationship between PIED, work quality, work effort and organisational citizenship

behaviour (OCB). In doing so, we integrate social exchange theory and self-

determination theory (SDT) and propose two models: one where intrinsic motivationis proposed to mediate the relationship and one where intrinsic motivation is

proposed to moderate it. Both models are based on recent attempts (Meyer et al.,

2004; Gagné and Deci, 2005; Grant, 2007, 2008) to investigate simultaneously two

different types of motivation: one type with its origin in social exchange relationships

and one that originates from the job itself, where employees become intrinsicallymotivated because they experience pleasure, interest and enjoyment in their jobs

(Deci et al., 1989; Vallerand, 1997). Theories of social exchange and intrinsicmotivation are rooted in different literatures and, despite their mutual interest in

explaining many of the same employee outcomes, there have been few attempts tointegrate prosocial and intrinsic motivation. While recent theoretical developments of

SDT have laid the ground for integration (Gagné and Deci, 2005), empirical research

is scarce. As far as social exchange theory is concerned, most scholars rely almost

exclusively on the norm of reciprocity to explain why social exchange leads to

favourable work outcomes (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro andShore, 2007), without taking into account the important motivating potential

emanating from the job itself.

The intended contribution of this study is therefore twofold. First, we respond to

the call for research relating PIED to work performance. Second, by empiricallytesting models with intrinsic motivation as a mediator and moderator, we hope to

contribute to a better understanding of how different motivational sources interact

and thereby in part can explain how PIED may be related to work performance.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Whereas investment in employee development means equipping employees withknowledge and competence development, PIED refers to employees’ assessment of

their organisations’ commitment to help employees learn to identify and obtain new

skills and competencies (Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Below, we first develop hypotheseswhere intrinsic motivation is proposed to mediate the relationship between PIEDand facets of work performance.

A mediated model of PIED, intrinsic motivation and work performance

Lee and Bruvold (2003) followed the motivational processes of social exchange

theory (Blau, 1964) and argued that employees who believe that their organisation

is committed to providing skill and competence development should reciprocate byway of organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Blau (1964), however,

originally argued that intrinsic inducements offered by the organisation could exist

in the relationship or in the job. Accordingly, Blau (1964) explicitly acknowledged

both task-related intrinsic motivation and prosocial motivation emanating from

Employee investment and performance

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 19 NO 3, 2009218


8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


interpersonal giveaways. In addition to acknowledging these two different

motivational sources, SDT suggests that the social environment influences employee

outcomes through intrinsic or autonomous work motivation. According to SDT,

‘work climates that promote satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs willenhance employees’ intrinsic motivation and promote full internalization of extrinsic

motivation and that this will in turn yield (the) important work outcomes’, where

three basic psychological needs refer to the needs for autonomy, competence and

relatedness (Gagné and Deci, 2005: 337). Prior research has established strongpositive relationships between need fulfilment and intrinsic motivation (Gagné et al.,

1997; Richer et al., 2002) and several studies reviewed by Gagné and Deci (2005) have

provided support for the proposition that autonomy-supportive work environments

promote basic need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Still, most of these

studies have operationalised autonomy-supportive work environments by way ofmanagerial autonomy support, and not explored alternative antecedents.

Furthermore, SDT research has typically investigated either the antecedents or theoutcomes of intrinsic motivation (Grouzet et al., 2004). In this study, we investigate

both a potential antecedent and employee outcomes and suggest that to the extentthat PIED enhances work performance it is through its impact on intrinsic

motivation.

First, and as far as the relationship between intrinsic motivation and work

performance is concerned, recent research suggests that intrinsic motivation is a

potent predictor of both task performance (Kuvaas, 2006a,b, 2007; Piccolo andColquitt, 2006) and OCB (Chiu and Chen, 2005; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006). Second,

employees who believe that their organisation is committed to employee

development may perceive that the organisation is concerned about their long-term

growth and therefore develop positive feelings towards the employer (Lee andBruvold, 2003), which in turn should promote satisfaction of the need for relatedness.

Third, and according to Lee and Bruvold (2003), PIED gives employees a greater

sense of control over their career because of the opportunities to gain new skills and

competencies and update old ones, which should increase satisfaction of the need forautonomy. Furthermore, because the organisation takes the risk that developmental

opportunities may increase the attractiveness of employees outside the organisation,

PIED can signal trust in the employee, which may further satisfy the need for

autonomy. Fourth, and with respect to the need for competence, employees who

actually take the opportunity to update their skills and competencies and gain new

ones will probably experience greater satisfaction of the need for competence thanemployees who do not have such an opportunity. Accordingly, based on SDT we

suggest that if PIED increases work performance, it is because it reflects a perceived

work climate that enhances intrinsic motivation through need satisfaction. Initialempirical support for such a model is provided by Dysvik and Kuvaas (2008), who

observed that the relationship between perceived training opportunities and both

work performance and citizenship behaviours was fully mediated by intrinsic

motivation. Therefore, we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 1: The relationship between perceived investment in employee

development and (a) work effort, (b) work quality and (c) OCB is mediated by

intrinsic motivation.

Bård Kuvaas and Anders Dysvik



8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


A moderated model of PIED, intrinsic motivation and work performance

Grant (2008) recently reported a study where intrinsic motivation strengthened the

relationship between prosocial motivation and employee outcomes such as

persistence, productivity and performance. Grant claims that employees experienceprosocial motivation as more autonomous when intrinsic motivation is high because

intrinsically motivated employees feel that performing well is beneficial to their own

self-selected goals, as they enjoy their work and value the outcome of helping others.Drawing on concepts from research on prosocial personality, prosocial motivation

should be pleasure-based rather than pressure-based (Gebauer et al., 2008) because

employees feel volition, autonomy and free choice in their efforts to benefit others by

way of in-role and extra-role work performance when prosocial motivation is

accompanied by intrinsic motivation. When intrinsic motivation is low, however,employees will experience prosocial motivation as more controlled because they do

not enjoy their work or benefiting others through their work (Ryan and Connell,

1989; Grant, 2008). Then, prosocial motivation will be better characterised aspressure-based and involving ought representations (Gebauer et al., 2008), andpossibly result in stress and role overload (Bolino and Turnley, 2005) and other

psychological costs that may impede or diminish any positive effects on work

performance (Grant, 2008). Drawing on this logic and research, prosocial motivation

emanating from PIED, as suggested by social exchange theory, should be

experienced as more autonomous and pleasure-based and less controlling andpressure-based when accompanied by high levels of intrinsic work motivation.

Beyond the effect of perceiving prosocial motivation emanating from PIED as

more or less autonomous or controlled depending on the level of intrinsic

motivation, extant research suggests that intrinsically motivated persons may benefitmore from developmental activities than their less intrinsically motivated

counterparts. Findings from studies in educational settings reviewed by Deci and

Ryan (2000) show that intrinsically motivated students are more likely to perceive

learning content more constructively and have higher levels of persistence inacquiring the learning content than students with lower levels of intrinsic

motivation. Furthermore, intrinsically motivated employees are found to be more

self-driven and more autonomy-oriented than those less intrinsically motivated (e.g.Ryan and Deci, 2000; Thomas, 2002), which suggests that they will take more

responsibility for ensuring the necessary levels of skills and competencies whenoffered developmental opportunities. Performance appraisal research, for instance,

suggests that a positive performance appraisal reaction is positively related to workperformance only for employees with high levels of intrinsic motivation (Kuvaas,

2006a). These findings suggest that intrinsically motivated employees may be moreactive in response to PIED and therefore benefit more from developmental

opportunities with respect to skills and abilities, which suggest that intrinsic

motivation should moderate the relationship between PIED and work quality.

Because intrinsically motivated employees are also more engaged and involved withtheir jobs (e.g. Guay et al., 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), they may to a greater

extent use developmental opportunities to increase their own work effort, as well as

be more engaged and involved in the work of their colleagues, when compared with

employees with lower intrinsic motivation. Accordingly, we believe that the




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


relationship between PIED and work performance should be stronger for higher than

for lower levels of intrinsic motivation:

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceived investment in employee

development and (a) work effort, (b) work quality and (c) OCB is moderated byintrinsic motivation: the higher intrinsic motivation, the stronger positive

relationships.

METHODOLOGY

Samples and procedure

We tested the hypotheses in three different samples, in line with recent calls by Kline

(2004) for an increase of replication studies in organisational behaviour research. The

details of each study are presented below.

Study 1. Respondents were drawn from four different organisations located in

Norway: one government agency, one labour union, one bank and one temporary

staff agency. In April 2008, a questionnaire was distributed to 337 employees by use

of a web-based tool (Confirmit), which resulted in complete data from 182 employeesand a response rate of approximately 54 per cent. Because of issues of anonymity, we

were not allowed to collect data on demographic variables.

Study 2. Respondents were drawn from a bank located in Norway. In April 2008,a questionnaire was distributed to 280 employees by use of a web-based tool

(Confirmit), which resulted in complete data from 156 employees and a response rate

of approximately 56 per cent. Of the respondents, approximately 49 per cent werewomen and 51 were men. Their average organisational tenure was approximately 17

years. With respect to educational level, which was measured by six categories, 47per cent held a university degree of three years’ study or more. Base pay was

measured by nine categories, where approximately 47 per cent reported to earn more

than NOK450,000.

Study 3. Respondents were drawn from four different organisations located in

Norway: one telecommunication company, one energy company, one bank and one

newspaper organisation. In June 2008, a questionnaire was distributed to 955

employees by the use of a web-based tool (Confirmit), which resulted in 488 completeresponses, representing a response rate of approximately 50 per cent. Of therespondents, approximately 40 per cent were women and 60 were men. Their average

organisational tenure was approximately 13 years. With respect to educational level,

which was measured by six categories, 44 per cent held a university degree of three

years’ study or more. Base pay was measured by six categories, where approximately50 per cent reported to earn more than NOK450,000.

Measures

All the items were scored on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A description of each item included in study 1 is

presented in the Appendix. Perceived investment in employee development was




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


measured by seven items that were partly adapted from Lee and Bruvold (2003) and

partly developed for this study. The reason we developed our own measure was that

we wanted to assess employees’ perception of the organisation’s long-term and

continuous commitment to investment in employee development, rather than theirperception of particular learning or developmental practices. Example items are ‘My

organisation stands out as an organisation that is very focused on continuous

development of the skills and abilities of its employees’ and ‘I definitely think that my

organisation invests more heavily in employee development than comparableorganisations’.

Intrinsic motivation was measured by four items from a six-item scale used by

Kuvaas (2006b). Because two of the items in the original scale loaded on a separate

factor, we developed two additional items (referred to as IM4 and IM6 in the

Appendix).The ten-item measure of work effort and work quality was developed based on

a six-item self-report scale (Kuvaas, 2006b). As this scale did not distinguish betweeneffort and quality, we used four of the items in the original scale that clearly referred

to quality or effort and developed six additional items to be used in the presentstudy.

OCB was measured by the seven-item helping behaviour scale validated by Van

Dyne and LePine (1998).

Analysis

As a first step to determine item retention, we followed the advice of Medsker et al.(1994) and performed an exploratory principal component analysis with varimax

rotation. According to Brannick and Williams (see Hurley et al., 1997), explorative

factor analysis is well suited when the purpose is to evaluate and increase discriminantvalidity. Furthermore, as we exclusively rely on self-report measures, we applied

relatively stringent rules-of-thumb and retained only items with a strong loading of

0.50 or higher on the target construct (Nunnally and Bernstein, 2007), a cross-loading

of less than 0.35 on other included factors (Kiffin-Petersen and Cordery, 2003) and adifferential of 0.20 or higher between included factors (Van Dyne et al., 1994).

To test the hypotheses containing direct and mediational relationships

(Hypothesis 1a, 1b and 1c), the three-step procedure recommended by Baron and

Kenny (1986) was used.1 According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the followingconditions must be met to support a mediating relationship. First, the independent

variable must be significantly associated with the mediator. Second, the independentvariable must be significantly associated with the dependent variable. Finally, after

the mediator is entered in the regression model, the relationship between the

independent and dependent variables should either disappear (full mediation) orsignificantly diminish (partial mediation). In order to test for significance of full

versus partial mediation, we ran Sobel tests (Preacher and Leonardelli, 2001) and

used the computer software MedGraph (Jose, 2003).

To test the moderation hypotheses (Hypothesis 2a, 2b and 2c), we usedhierarchical moderated regression (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Interaction terms often

create multicollinearity problems because of their correlations with main effects. We

thus computed the interaction terms by centring the variables before multiplying

them with each other. To probe the form of the interactions, we followed procedures




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


recommended by Aiken and West (1991) and first plotted low versus high scores on

PIED and intrinsic motivation (one standard deviation below and above the means

using standardised scores). We then conducted tests to determine whether the slopes

for high versus low levels of PIED and intrinsic motivation were significant andwhether they were significantly different from each other.

Finally, because some of the control variables suffered from a few instances of

missing data, we performed the regression analyses with the mean of the variable

substituted for missing observations.

Results

The principal component analysis for study 1 revealed that one of the PIED measures

did not meet the 0.5 loading criterion and that one of the work effort items

cross-loaded on the work quality component (see the Appendix). These items wereremoved before the scales were computed. Means, standard deviations and bivariate

correlations for all the variables are reported in Table 1a.The first condition for mediation was met as PIED was significantly related to

intrinsic motivation (b = 0.31, p < 0.001) when controlled for organisational affiliation.The second condition (see Table 2a), that PIED should be related to the dependent

variables before intrinsic motivation is entered, was only met for work effort

(b = 0.23, p < 0.01). Because this relationship became insignificant after intrinsic

motivation was included and the Sobel test supported full mediation (Z = 3.35,

p < 0.001), the relationship between PIED and work effort was mediated by intrinsic

motivation, providing support for Hypothesis 1a, but not 1b and 1c.

The significant interaction term in predicting OCB suggests that the relationship

between PIED and OCB is moderated by intrinsic motivation, although the increase

in explained variance was modest. To probe the form of this interaction, we followedthe procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991) and plotted low versus high

scores on PIED and intrinsic motivation (one standard deviation below and above

the means using standardised scores). The results, displayed in Figure 1, suggest a

marginally significant positive relationship between PIED and OCB for employeeshigh in intrinsic motivation and a negative relationship for employees low in

intrinsic motivation. Finally, a t-test revealed that the two slopes were significantly

different from each other (t = 4.02, p < 0.001), providing support for Hypothesis 2c. As

there were no significant interaction terms when predicting work effort and work

quality, Hypothesis 2a and 2b were not supported.

The principal component analysis for study 2 revealed that one of the intrinsicmotivation items loaded on a separate component, two of the OCB items did not

meet the 0.5 loading criterion and two of the work effort items cross-loaded on the

work quality component. These items were removed before the scales werecomputed. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for all the variables

are reported in Table 1b.

The first condition for mediation was met once again as PIED was significantly

related to intrinsic motivation (b = 0.42, p < 0.001) after the control variables wereincluded. The second condition (see Table 2b), that PIED should be related to the

dependent variables before intrinsic motivation is entered, was met for all the

dependent variables. Finally, after intrinsic motivation was included, these

relationships became insignificant when predicting work effort and work quality,




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


T A B L E 1 D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s , c o r r e l a t i o n s a n d s c a l e r e l i a b i l i t i e s

( a ) S t u d y 1 a

M e a n

S D

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

1 .

O r g a n i s a t i o n 1

0 . 4 5

0 . 5

0

2 .


0 . 2 4

0 . 4

3

- 0 . 5

0

3 .


0 . 2 5

0 . 4

3

- 0 . 5

2

- 0 . 3 2

4 .


0 . 0 7

0 . 2

5

- 0 . 2

4

- 0 . 1 5

- 0 . 1

5

5 .

P I E D

3 . 1 2

0 . 7

9

0 . 0

7

- 0 . 0 1

0 . 1 1

- 0 . 3

1

( 0 . 9

2 )

6 .

I n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n

3 . 7 8

0 . 7

8

- 0 . 2

4

0 . 0 6

0 . 1

6

0 . 1

2

0 . 2

5

( 0 . 9

2 )

7 .

W o r k e f f o r t

4 . 1 4

0 . 5

3

- 0 . 1

5

0 . 0 2

0 . 0

5

0 . 1

8

0 . 1

5

0 . 4

4

( 0 . 8

1 )

8 .

W o r k q u a l i t y

3 . 6 7

0 . 4

9

- 0 . 1

0

0 . 0 6

- 0 . 0

3

0 . 1

4

0 . 0

2

0 . 3

1

0 . 4

5

( 0 . 8

1 )

9 .

O C B

3 . 9 4

0 . 4

8

- 0 . 1

5

- 0 . 0 5

0 . 0

8

0 . 2

5

0 . 0

1

0 . 4

1

0 . 4

7

0 . 5

0

( 0 . 8

5 )

( b ) S t u d y 2 b

M e a n

S D

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

1 .

G e n d e r

1 . 4 9

0 . 5

0

2 .

E d u c a t i o n

4 . 1 3

1 . 3

1

- 0 . 3

9

3 .

T e n u r e

1 7 . 4 1

1 2 . 8

6

0 . 0

5

- 0 . 5 5

4 .

B a s e p a y

5 . 6 1

2 . 1

7

- 0 . 4

5

0 . 4 6

- 0 . 1

5

5 .

P I E D

3 . 5 3

0 . 5

5

0 . 0

7

- 0 . 0 7

- 0 . 0

7

- 0 . 0

9

( 0 . 8

7 )

6 .


3 . 8 3

0 . 4

9

- 0 . 0

5

0 . 0 8

0 . 0

2

0 . 1

7

0 . 3

9

( 0 . 8

5 )

7 .

W o r k e f f o r t

4 . 0 1

0 . 4

7

0 . 1

4

- 0 . 1 2

0 . 0

9

- 0 . 0

1

0 . 2

7

0 . 3

8

( 0 . 7

2 )

8 .


3 . 5 4

0 . 3

9

0 . 0

0

- 0 . 0 6

0 . 1 1

0 . 1

7

0 . 2

1

0 . 2

5

0 . 3

6

( 0 . 7

4 )

9 .

O C B

3 . 9 3

0 . 3

8

- 0 . 0

4

- 0 . 0 8

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

8

0 . 2

5

0 . 2

8

0 . 3

2

0 . 3

4

( 0 . 7

7 )




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


( c ) S t u d y 3 c

M e a n

S D

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

1 0 .

1 1 .

1 2 .

1 3 .

1 4 .

1 .


0 . 5

2

0 . 5

0

2 .


0 . 1

7

0 . 3

8

- 0 . 4

8

3 .


0 . 1

5

0 . 3

5

- 0 . 4

3

- 0 . 1

9

4 .


0 . 1

6

0 . 3

7

- 0 . 4

6

- 0 . 2

0

- 0 . 1

8

5 .

G e n d e r

1 . 4

1

0 . 4

9

- 0 . 2

4

0 . 1 1

0 . 2

2

0 . 0

1

6 .

M a n a g e r i a l p o s i t i o n

1 . 2

6

0 . 4

4

0 . 1

2

- 0 . 1 1

- 0 . 2

5

0 . 1

9

- 0 . 2

5

7 .

T e n u r e

1 3 . 2

3

1 1 . 7

2

- 0 . 1

5

- 0 . 0

6

0 . 4

0

- 0 . 1

2

0 . 1

0

- 0 . 0

8

8 .

E d u c a t i o n

3 . 9

9

1 . 4

0

0 . 0

3

- 0 . 0

4

- 0 . 1

4

0 . 1

4

- 0 . 0

8

0 . 2

0

- 0 . 2

8

9 .

B a s e p a y

4 . 2

6

1 . 7

2

0 . 1

5

- 0 . 1

2

- 0 . 2

0

0 . 1

1

- 0 . 2

6

0 . 4

5

0 . 0

7

0 . 4

3

1 0 .

P I E D

3 . 2

2

0 . 7

3

- 0 . 1

9

0 . 1

0

0 . 0

7

0 . 0

9

0 . 1

5

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

- 0 . 0

9

- 0 . 1

3

( 0 . 9

1 )

1 1 .


3 . 6

3

0 . 7

0

- 0 . 1

2

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

1

0 . 1

0

- 0 . 0

3

0 . 2

2

0 . 1

0

0 . 0

1

0 . 2

7

0 . 2

8

( 0 . 9

0 )

1 2 .

W o r k e f f o r t

4 . 2

4

0 . 5

0

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

3

- 0 . 0

7

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

2

0 . 2

1

- 0 . 0

4

- 0 . 0

6

0 . 1 1

0 . 1

6

0 . 5

1

( 0 . 8

3 )

1 3 .


3 . 7

5

0 . 4

7

- 0 . 0

8

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

5

- 0 . 0

2

0 . 0

7

- 0 . 0

2

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

3

0 . 1 1

0 . 3

1

0 . 4

9

( 0 . 7 8 )

1 4 .

O C B

3 . 8

9

0 . 4

5

- 0 . 0

1

- 0 . 0

1

0 . 0

5

- 0 . 0

2

- 0 . 0

3

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

2

- 0 . 0

5

0 . 0

7

0 . 2

2

0 . 3

6

0 . 4

2

0 . 3 7

( 0 . 8

4 )

a N

=

1 8 2 ; c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a s i n d i c a t i n g

s c a l e r e l i a b i l i t i e s a r e i n p a r e n t h e s e s ; c o r r e l a t i o n s e q u a l t o o r g r e a t e r t h a n 0 . 1

5 a r e s i g n i fi c a n t a t t h e 0 . 0

5 l e v e l a n d

t h o s e e q u a l

t o o r g r e a t e r t h a n 0 . 2

4 a t t h e 0 . 0

0 1 l e v

e l .

b N =




5 l e v e l a n d

t h o s e e q u a l


7 a t t h e 0 . 0

0 1 l e v

e l .

c N =




5 l e v e l a n d

t h o s e e q u a l


5 a t t h e 0 . 0

0 1 l e v

e l .

P I E D , p e r c e i v e d i n v e s t m e n t i n e m p l o y

e e d e v e l o p m e n t ; O C B , o r g a n i s a t i o n a l

c i t i z e n s h i p b e h a v i o u r .




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


T A B L E 2 R e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s

W

o r k e f f o r t


O C B

S t e p 1

S t e p 2

S t e p 3

S t e p 4

S t e p 1

S t e p 2

S t e p 3

S t e p 4

S t e p 1

S t e p 2

S t e p 3

S t e p 4

( a ) S t u d y 1 a


0 . 0

9

0 . 1 0

0 . 0

3

0 . 0

4

0 . 0 9

0 . 1

0

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

4

0 . 0

3

0 . 0

3

- 0 . 0

3

- 0 . 0

1


0 . 1 1

0 . 1 0

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

2

0 . 0 3

0 . 0

2

- 0 . 0

5

- 0 . 0

5

0 . 1

4

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

6


0 . 2

1 * *

0 . 2 8

* * *

0 . 1

8 *

0 . 1

9 *

0 . 1 6 *

0 . 1

8 *

0 . 1

0

0 . 1

0

0 . 2

8 * * *

0 . 3

0 * * *

0 . 2

0 * *

0 . 2

3 * *

P I E D

0 . 2 3

* *

0 . 1 1

0 . 1

0

0 . 0

8

- 0 . 0

2

- 0 . 0

1

0 . 0

9

- 0 . 0

3

- 0 . 0

5

I M

0 . 3

9 * * *

0 . 4

0 * * *

0 . 3

0 * * *

0 . 3

0 * * *

0 . 3

8 * * *

0 . 4

1 * * *

P I E D ¥

I M

0 . 0

8

- 0 . 0

3

0 . 1

8 *

D R 2

0 . 0

5 *

0 . 0 4

* *

0 . 1

3 * * *

0 . 0

1

0 . 0 3

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

8 * * *

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

8 * *

0 . 0

1

0 . 1

2 * * *

0 . 0

3 *

R 2

0 . 0

5

0 . 0 9

0 . 2

2

0 . 2

3

0 . 0 3

0 . 0

3

0 . 1 1

0 . 1 1

0 . 0

8

0 . 0

9

0 . 2

1

0 . 2

4

F

2 . 8

8 *

4 . 5 1

* *

9 . 9

5 * * *

8 . 5

0 * * *

1 . 6 7

1 . 5

1

4 . 4

2 * *

3 . 6

9 * *

5 . 1

4 * *

4 . 2

0 * *

9 . 4

4 * * *

9 . 2

3 * * *

( b ) S t u d y 2 b

G e n d e r

0 . 1

5

0 . 1 5

0 . 1

4

0 . 1

3

0 . 0 7

0 . 0

7

0 . 0

6

0 . 0

6

- 0 . 0

3

- 0 . 0

3

- 0 . 0

4

- 0 . 0

4

E d u c a t i o n

- 0 . 0

7

- 0 . 0 4

- 0 . 0

8

- 0 . 1

0

- 0 . 1 0

- 0 . 0

7

- 0 . 0

9

- 0 . 1

0

- 0 . 0

9

- 0 . 0

6

- 0 . 0

8

- 0 . 1

0

T e n u r e

0 . 0

6

0 . 0 9

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

3

0 . 0 8

0 . 1 1

0 . 0

9

0 . 0

9

0 . 1

0

0 . 1

4

1 1 .

0 . 0

9

B a s e p a y

0 . 1

0

0 . 1 1

0 . 0

5

0 . 0

3

0 . 2 6 *

*

0 . 2

7 * *

0 . 2

4 *

0 . 2

4 *

0 . 1

3

0 . 1

4

0 . 1

0

0 . 0

9

P I E D

0 . 2 7

* *

0 . 1

3

0 . 1

2

0 . 2

3 * *

0 . 1

6

0 . 1

6

0 . 2

7 * *

0 . 1

8 *

0 . 1

7 *

I M

0 . 3

3 * * *

0 . 3

4 * * *

0 . 1

5

0 . 1

6

0 . 2

0 *

0 . 2

1 *

P I E D ¥

I M

0 . 2

0 * *

0 . 0

8

0 . 2

2 * *

D R 2

0 . 0

3

0 . 0 7

* *

0 . 0

8 * * *

0 . 0

4 * *

0 . 0 6

0 . 0

5 * *

0 . 0

2

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

3

0 . 0

7 * *

0 . 0

3 *

0 . 0

5 * *

R 2

0 . 0

3

0 . 1 1

0 . 1

9

0 . 2

3

0 . 0 6

0 . 1 1

0 . 1

3

0 . 1

3

0 . 0

3

0 . 1

0

0 . 1

3

0 . 1

8

F

1 . 3

1

3 . 5 3

* *

5 . 9

2 * * *

6 . 4

5 * * *

2 . 3 6

3 . 6

8 * *

3 . 6

4 * *

3 . 2

9 *

1 . 2

3

3 . 3

6 * *

3 . 7

8 * *

4 . 6

2 * * *




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


whereas a significant drop was observed for OCB, but intrinsic motivation was notsignificantly related to work quality. Sobel tests revealed no mediation for work

quality (Z = 1.69, n.s.), but that the relationship between PIED and work effort was

fully mediated by intrinsic motivation (Z = 3.26, p<

0.01) and that the relationship between PIED and OCB was partially mediated by intrinsic motivation (Z = 2.13,

p < 0.05). Accordingly, we obtained support for Hypothesis 1a and partial support for

1c, but not support for 1b.

Turning to the moderation hypotheses, Table 2b reveals significant interaction

terms for both work effort and OCB and an increase in explained variance of 4 and

5 per cent, respectively. The plots in Figure 1 suggest positive relationships betweenPIED and both work effort and OCB for employees high in intrinsic motivation and

no relationship for employees low in intrinsic motivation. Finally, t-tests revealed

that the two slopes were significantly different from each other (t = 1.91, p < 0.05 for

work effort and t = 2.46, p < 0.01 for OCB). Accordingly, Hypothesis 2a and 2c was

supported whereas 2b was not.

FIGURE 1 Plots of significant interaction terms

Study 1

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

4,4

perceived investmentin employee development


o r g a n i s a t i o n a l

c i t i z e n s h i p b e h a v i o u r

High intrinsic motivation (p < .06)

Low intrinsic motivation (p < .001)








Low intrinsic motivation (n.s.)





Study 2

3,6

3,8

4

4,2

W o r k e f f o r t

Study 2

3,7

3,9

4,1

4,3

Study 3

3,5

3,7

3,9

4,1

4,3

Low High Low High

Low High Low High

OCB, organisational citizenship behaviour; IM, intrinsic motivation; PIED, perceivedinvestment in employee development.




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


The principal component analysis for study 3 revealed that one of the OCB items

cross-loaded on the work effort component. This item was removed before the scales

were computed. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for all the

variables are reported in Table 1c.The first condition for mediation was met once again as PIED was significantly

related to intrinsic motivation (b = 0.28, p < 0.001) after the control variables were

included. The second condition (see Table 2c), that PIED should be related to the

dependent variables before intrinsic motivation is entered, was met for all thedependent variables. Finally, after intrinsic motivation was included, these

relationships became insignificant when predicting work effort and work quality, and

a significant drop was observed for OCB. Sobel tests revealed that the relationship

between PIED and both work effort (Z = 5.84, p < 0.001) and work quality (Z = 4.75,

p < 0.001) was fully mediated by intrinsic motivation, while the relationship betweenPIED and OCB (Z = 4.77, p < 0.001) was partially mediated by intrinsic motivation,

providing support for Hypothesis 1a and 1b, and partial support for 1c.Finally, Table 2c reveals a significant interaction term in predicting OCB, but only

an increase in explained variance of 1 per cent. The plots in Figure 1 again suggesta positive relationship between PIED and OCB for employees high in intrinsic

motivation and no relationship for employees low in intrinsic motivation. Finally, the

t-test again revealed that the two slopes were significantly different from each other

(t = 3.48, p < 0.001), providing support for Hypothesis 2c, but not for 2a and 2b.

DISCUSSION

In the current study, we have responded to a call for research on the relationship

between PIED and work performance (Lee and Bruvold, 2003) and investigated therole of intrinsic motivation as a mediator and a moderator. With respect to mediation,

the data from all of the three studies suggest that the relationship between PIED and

work effort is fully mediated by intrinsic motivation. In one of the three studies,

intrinsic motivation fully mediated the relationship between PIED and work quality, but it should be noted that the direct relationship between PIED and work quality was

relatively weak also before intrinsic motivation was entered (b = 0.10, p < 0.05). For two

of the three studies, intrinsic motivation partially mediated the relationship between

PIED and OCB. For two out of the nine instances where intrinsic motivation did notmediate the relationship between PIED and the dependent variable, the reason was

that PIED was not significantly related to work quality and OCB before intrinsicmotivation was entered into the model. These findings suggest that, to the extent that

PIED is related to different facets of work performance, this can largely be explained

by the influence PIED has on intrinsic motivation.In addition, our results indicated that intrinsic motivation moderated the

relationship between PIED and OCB in all of the three studies and the relationship

between PIED and work effort in one of the studies. Interestingly, and accordant with

our hypotheses, all the significant moderations suggest that there were positiverelationships only for employees with high levels of intrinsic motivation. These

findings also imply that the partially mediated relationship between PIED and OCB

is less practically significant as they indicate that PIED is only positively related to

OCB when intrinsic motivation is high. Thus, and in contrast to social exchange




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


theory, simply offering organisational inducements in the form of PIED and

expecting elevated levels of prosocial behaviour fails to be supported in our study.

A plausible explanation for this contingency is that intrinsically motivated employees

‘experience autonomy in acting freely to benefit others, competence in successfullyhelping others, and relatedness in connecting their actions to outcomes that matter

in the lives of other people’ (Grant, 2008: 50). In addition, the higher work

engagement and involvement of highly intrinsically motivated employees may make

them respond more broadly in response to PIED, where they act as ‘missionaries’who exert helping behaviours towards their colleagues and share the positive

experience of their work environment with their peers. The explanation that

intrinsically motivated employees should respond more proactively to

developmental opportunities and therefore be better trained and more skilled is less

likely, as intrinsic motivation did not moderate the relationship between PIED andwork quality in any of the three studies.

In sum, the present study should contribute to the emerging literature thatintegrates theories of social exchange and intrinsic motivation by exploring how the

two sources of motivation may interact in predicting facets of work performance.First, empirical support for mediation and the observation that the extent to which

PIED is related to work performance can partly be explained by intrinsic motivation,

provides empirical evidence that social or work climate factors other than autonomy

support can influence intrinsic motivation, and in turn, work performance (Gagné

and Deci, 2005). Second, whereas Grant (2008) identified a similar motivationalsynergy in predicting in-role performance, the observation that there was a positive

relationship between PIED and OCB only for intrinsically motivated employees

should advance existing knowledge about the conditions under which organisational

inducements and prosocial motivation is likely to increase citizenship behaviour.Finally, and in response to the call for research on PIED and work performance (Lee

and Bruvold, 2003), the findings of our study do not suggest any direct or strong

relationship. Accordingly, in order to better understand this relationship it is

probably wise to extend the theoretical lenses from relying exclusively on socialexchanges and prosocial motivation to include theories of intrinsic motivation.

Limitations and research directions

The contributions of this research should be viewed in the light of several limitations.First, the data were gathered at one point in time, making it impossible to draw

inferences of causality or rule out the possibility of reverse causality. Consequently,longitudinal or experimental studies are needed to come closer to causality inferences

on the relationships examined in the present study. Another limitation is the reliance

on self-reported questionnaire data, causing concerns about possible mono-method bias and percept-percept inflated measures (e.g. Crampton and Wagner, 1994). The

principal component analyses, however, generated five to seven factors with

eigenvalues of 1 or more, and an explained variance of the first factor ranging from 25.4

(study 2) to 28.2 (study 1) per cent. Although this test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) isnothing more than a diagnostic technique to assess the extent to which common

method variance may be a problem (Podsakoff et al., 2003), it seems to indicate that

mono-method variance was not a serious threat in our studies. Besides, to the extent

mono-method variance has inflated the results this would probably only be the case




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


for the mediation hypotheses, as there is no reason to expect interactions owing to

common-method variance (e.g. Harrison et al., 1996; Xie, 1996).

The self-reported measures of work effort, work quality and organisational

citizenship behaviour may have resulted in an upward bias. Still, research amongsalespeople suggests that self-rated performance tends to be upward-biased, but also

that the amount of bias does not seem to vary across performance levels (Sharma

et al., 2004). Accordingly, the respondents in the present studies may have

overestimated their levels, without necessarily affecting the results. Still, the meanvalue for self-reported work quality was ‘only’ 3.65 across the three studies

compared with 3.75 for intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, whereas performance

ratings by supervisors help rule out the validity threats of self-report and the

mono-method, performance appraisal research suggests that performance ratings

conducted by supervisors may be even more biased than self-report measures (Levyand Williams, 2004; Murphy, 2008). Thus, it is not obvious that the extra effort

involved in gathering performance data by supervisors or peers would haveproduced better performance data. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to gather

both self-report and supervisor or peer measures of task and contextual performance.Beyond conducting similar studies with longitudinal designs and data from

several sources, an interesting avenue for future research would be to investigate the

moderating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between multiple human

resource (HR) practices and employee outcomes, as the vast majority of studies to

date suggest that this relationship is mediated rather than moderated by intrinsicmotivation.

Implications for HR policy and practice

If the associations between PIED, intrinsic motivation and the dependent variablesrepresent causal relationships, our findings may have important implications for

practice. Given the central role played by intrinsic motivation, organisations may use

our findings to tailor their HR polices in general, and their selection and work design

practices in particular, towards intrinsic motivation. With respect to work design andintrinsic motivation, close attention should be paid to intrinsically motivational job

characteristics such as job autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance and

feedback from the job (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Humphrey et al., 2007). As far

as selection practices are concerned, organisations should try to hire employees withthe potential and capacity to find meaning and enjoyment in their work. Following

Pfeffer, we add to the importance of selection: ‘Organizations serious about obtainingprofits through people will expend the effort needed to ensure that they recruit the

right people in the first place’ (Pfeffer 1998: 100). Finally, and from an HR policy

standpoint, research on ‘best practice’ HRM often views the fulfilment of employeeneeds as an end in itself (e.g. Guest, 1997) and pertains to flexible, autonomous

and empowering work systems that rest primarily on employees’ self-regulated

behaviour and discretionary effort (e.g. MacDuffie, 1995; Truss et al., 1997). Such a

view fits nicely with SDT and the positive effect of autonomy-supporting workenvironments on need fulfilment and intrinsic motivation (Gagné and Deci, 2005),

which suggests that organisations should pay attention to autonomy support and

empowerment also when they design and implement other HR practices than

investment in employee development.




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


Conclusion

This study has introduced intrinsic motivation as a mediating and moderating

influence on the relationship between PIED and different facets of work

performance. Across three different studies, our findings suggest that intrinsicmotivation completely mediates the relationship between PIED and work effort. In

addition, intrinsic motivation seems to moderate the relationship between PIED and

organisational citizenship behaviour. These findings may contribute to emergingliterature that integrates theories of social exchange and intrinsic motivation by

exploring how the two sources of motivation may interact in predicting facets of

work performance.

Note

1. Although this approach is the most widely used, more sophisticated methodsare available (see MacKinnon et al., 2002).

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 6, 1173–1182.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2005). ‘The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the

relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 740–748.

Chiu, S.F. and Chen, H.L. (2005). ‘Relationship between job characteristics andorganizational citizenship behavior: the mediational role of job satisfaction’. SocialBehavior and Personality, 33: 6, 523–539.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for theBehavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Shore, L.M. (2007). ‘The employee-organization relationship:where do we go from here?’ Human Resource Management Review, 17: 166–179.

Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994). ‘Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect’. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79: 67–76.

Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005). ‘Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary

review’. Journal of Management, 31: 6, 874–900.Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs

and the self-determination of behavior’. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 4, 227–268.Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989). ‘Self-determination in a work organization’.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 4, 580–590.Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B. (2008). ‘The relationship between perceived training

opportunities, work motivation and employee outcomes’. International Journal of Training and Development, 12: 3, 138–157.

Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005). ‘Self-determination theory and work motivation’. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 26: 331–362.

Gagné, M., Senecal, C.B. and Koestner, R. (1997). ‘Proximal job characteristics, feelings ofempowerment, and intrinsic motivation: a multidimensional model’. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 27: 1222–1240.




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


Gebauer, J.E., Riketta, M., Broemer, P. and Maio, G.R. (2008). ‘Pleasure and pressure basedprosocial motivation: divergent relations to subjective well-being’. Journal of Research inPersonality, 42: 2, 399–420.

Grant, A.M. (2007). ‘Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial

difference’. Academy of Management Review, 32: 2, 393–417.Grant, A.M. (2008). ‘Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational

synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity’. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 93: 1, 48–58.

Grouzet, F.M.E., Vallerand, R.J., Thill, E.E. and Provencher, P.J. (2004). ‘Fromenvironmental factors to outcomes: a test of integrated motivational sequence’.

Motivation and Emotion, 28: 4, 331–346.Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J. and Blanchard, C. (2000). ‘On the assessment of situational

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS)’. Motivationand Emotion, 24: 3, 175–213.

Guest, D. (1997). ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and researchagenda’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8: 3, 263–276.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976). ‘Motivation through the design of work: test ofa theory’. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.

Harrison, D.A., McLaughlin, M.E. and Coalter, T.M. (1996). ‘Context, cognition, andcommon method variance: psychometric and verbal protocol evidence’. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 68: 3, 246–261.

Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007). ‘Integrating motivational,social and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoreticalextension of the work design literature’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 5, 1332–1356.

Hurley, A.E., Scandura, T.A., Schriesheim, C.A., Brannick, M.T., Seers, A., Vandeberg, R.J.and Williams, L.J. (1997). ‘Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines,issues, and alternatives’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 667–683.

Jose, P.E. (2003). MedGraph-I: A programme to graphically depict mediation among threevariables. The internet version, version 2.0. 2008. Retrieved 05.12.2008, Available at:http://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-jose-files/medgraph/medgraph.php

Kiffin-Petersen, S. and Cordery, J.L. (2003). ‘Trust, individualism and job characteristics aspredictors of employee preference for teamwork’. International Journal of HumanResource Management, 14: 1, 93–116.

Kline, R.B. (2004). Beyond Significance Testing – Reforming Data Analysis Methods inBehavioral Research, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kuvaas, B. (2006a). ‘Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes:mediating and moderating roles of motivation’. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 17: 3, 504–522.Kuvaas, B. (2006b). ‘Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: the

roles of pay administration and pay level’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 3,365–385.

Kuvaas, B. (2007). ‘Different relationships between perceptions of developmentalperformance appraisal and work performance’. Personnel Review, 36: 3, 378–397.

Lee, C.H. and Bruvold, N.T. (2003). ‘Creating value for employees: investment inemployee development’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 6,981–1000.

Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004). ‘The social context of performance appraisal: a reviewand framework for the future’. Journal of Management, 30: 6, 881–905.

MacDuffie, J.P. (1995). ‘Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance:organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry’.

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 197–221.




http://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-jose-files/medgraph/medgraph.php

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-jose-files/medgraph/medgraph.php

8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002). ‘Acomparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects’.Psychological Methods, 7: 1, 83–104.

Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994). ‘A review of current practices for

evaluating causal-models in organizational-behavior and human-resourcesmanagement research’. Journal of Management, 20: 2, 439–464.

Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004). ‘Employee commitment andmotivation: a conceptual analysis and integrative model’. Journal of Applied Psychology,89: 6, 991–1007.

Murphy, K.R. (2008). ‘Explaining the weak relationship between job performance andratings of job performance’. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1: 148–160.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (2007). Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). ‘Seven practices of successful organizations’. California ManagementReview, 40: 2, 96–124.

Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006). ‘Transformational leadership and job behaviors: themediating role of core job characteristics’. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 2, 327–340.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). ‘Self reports in organizational research: problemsand prospectus’. Journal of Management, 12: 531–544.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). ‘Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 5, 879–903.

Preacher, K.J. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2001). Calculation for the Sobel test: an interactivecalculation tool for mediation tests, available at: http://www.people.ku.edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.htm

Richer, S.F., Blanchard, C. and Vallerand, R.J. (2002). ‘A motivational model of turnover’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10: 2089–2113.

Ryan, R.M. and Connell, J.P. (1989). ‘Perceived locus of causality and internalization:examining reasons for acting in two domains’. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57: 749–761.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsicmotivation, social development, and well-being’. American Psychologist, 55: 68–78.

Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996). ‘Social exchange in organizations:perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity’.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 3, 219–227.Sharma, A., Rich, G.A. and Levy, M. (2004). ‘Comment: starting to solve the method

puzzle in salesperson self-report evaluations’. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XXIV: 2, 135–139.

Thomas, K.W. (2002). Intrinsic Motivation at Work: Building Energy & Commitment, SanFrancisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P. (1997). ‘Soft and hardmodels of human resource management: a reappraisal’. Journal of Management Studies,34: 1, 53–73.

Vallerand, R.J. (1997). ‘Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation’,in M.P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: AcademicPress, pp. 271–360.

Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998). ‘Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidenceof construct and predictive validity’. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 1, 108–119.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and validation’. Academy of Management

Journal, 37: 4, 765–802.




http://www.people.ku.edu/~preacher

http://www.people.ku.edu/~preacher

8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. and Van denBroeck, A. (2007). ‘On the relations among work value orientations, psychological needsatisfaction and job outcomes: a self-determination theory approach’. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 2, 251–277.

Xie, J.L. (1996). ‘Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic of China: effects of job demands,control, and individual differences’. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1594–1618.

APPENDIX

Principal component analysis with varimax rotation for Study 1

Items PIED IM OCB WE WQ

PIED4: By investing time and money in employee

development, my organisation demonstrates that it

actually invests in its employees

0.89

PIED2: My organisation stands out as an organisation

that is very focused on continuous development of

the skills and abilities of its employees

0.88

PIED3: By way of practices such as developmental

performance appraisal, counselling systems,

competence development programmes and leadership

development programmes, my organisation clearly

demonstrates that it values development of the skills

and abilities of its employees

0.84

PIED1: My organisation invests heavily in employee

development (for instance by way of training,

programmes and career development)

0.82

PIED6: I definitely think that my organisation invests

more heavily in employee development than

comparable organisations

0.79

PIED5: I’m confident that my organisation will provide

for the necessary training and development to solve

any new tasks I may be given in the future

0.77

PIED7: My organisation is effective in meeting

employees’ requests for internal job transfers

0.41

IM4: My job is very exciting 0.88

IM5: My job is so interesting that it is a motivation in

itself

0.87

IM2: The tasks that I do at work are enjoyable 0.86

IM3: My job is meaningful 0.79

IM1: The tasks that I do at work are themselves

representing a driving power in my job

0.77

IM6: Sometimes I become so inspired by my job that I

almost forget everything else around me

0.72

OCB6: I help others in my work group learn about the

work

0.76

OCB7: I help others in my work group with their work

responsibilities

0.73




8/7/2019 j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)


APPENDIX Continued

Items PIED IM OCB WE WQ

OCB3: I attend functions that help my work group,even though they are beyond the formal

requirements of my job

0.70

OCB5: I get involved in order to benefit my work

group

0.70

OCB2: I help orient new employees in my work group 0.66

OCB4: I assist others in my work group with their

work for the benefit of the group

0.65

OCB1: I volunteer to do things for my work group 0.55 0.31

WE3: I often expend extra effort in carrying out my

job

0.78

WE5: I usually don’t hesitate to put in extra effort

when it is needed

0.74 0.32

WE2: I intentionally expend a great deal of effort in

carrying out my job

0.72

WE1: I try to work as hard as possible 0.65

WE4: I almost always expend more than an acceptable

level of effort

0.57 0.39

WQ5: Others in my organisation look at my work as

typical high quality work

0.74

WQ4: I rarely complete a task before I know that the

quality meets high standards

0.73

WQ2: The quality of my work is top-notch 0.71

WQ3: I deliver higher quality than what can beexpected from someone with the type of job I have

0.71

WQ1: The quality of my work is usually high 0.62

Eigenvalues 8.46 4.73 2.54 1.79 1.53

% of variance 28.19 15.77 8.48 5.96 5.09

Factor loadings less than 0.30 are not shown; underlined loadings are included in the final scales;

PIED = perceived investment in employee development; IM = intrinsic motivation; OCB = organisational

citizenship behaviour; WE = work effort; WQ = work quality.




j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)

Documents

Transcript of j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x(1)