15/05/2017

1

Alessandro Lo Presti, Università degli studi della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Italy

Kaisa Törnroos (nee Kirves), Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Finland

Sara Pluviano, Università degli studi ”Suor Orsola Benincasa”, Italy - University of Edinburgh, UK

18th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology CongressEnabling Change through Work and Organizational Psychology: Opportunities and Challenges for Research and Practice

Employability and permanent employment

• Due to economic and organizational changes reflected in the increased need forindividual career self-management (Baruch, 2004), employability is a hot topic incontemporary W/O Psychology (Lo Presti & Pluviano, 2016);

• Employability orientation has been defined as the individual positive attitudetowards interventions aimed at increasing the organization’s flexibility throughdeveloping and maintaining own employability for the organization (Van Dam,2004);

• Consistently with the increasing ratio of temporary employment, W/O Psychologystudies increasingly examined employability among temps (De Cuyper et al.,2009);

• However, several studies (Manuti et al., 2016) stressed the peculiarities ofemployability for permanent employees that, along with their still dominant ratioin Western economies, call for constant research efforts.

2

15/05/2017

2

Self-esteem and employability as resources

• Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989): “people strive toretain, protect, and build resources and that what is threatening tothem is the potential or actual loss of these valued resources” (p.516);

• “[…] examples of resources include […] self-esteem” (ibidem, p. 516);

• Self-esteem has been shown to relate to better well-being boththeoretically and empirically (Locke et al., 1996; Mäkikangas et al.,2004); the same has been found with regard to employability(Berntson & Marklund, 2007; Kirves et al., 2011);

• Recent theory (Lo Presti & Pluviano, 2016) and evidence (Kim et al.,2015) stressed the interplay between self-esteem and employability.

3

Emotionalexhaustion

Psychologicalsymptoms

Work engagement

Job satisfaction

Negative

Positive

Low activationHigh activation

CONTEXT-FREE

DOMAIN-SPECIFIC

Well-beingat work

(Warr, 1987)

4

15/05/2017

3

Empirical model and study hypotheses

H1: High self-esteem is related to higher vigour at work,

job satisfaction and lower emotional exhaustion and

psychological symptoms.

H2: High self-esteem is related to higher employability

orientation.

H3: High employability orientation is related to higher

vigour at work and job satisfaction and lower emotional

exhaustion and psychological symptoms.

H4: Employability orientation partly mediates the

relationship between self-esteem and psychological

well-being (i.e., vigour at work, job satisfaction,

emotional exhaustion, and psychological symptoms).

5

Italy vs. Finland

1. Southern European regime

2. Weak government influence on labourregulation

3. Low skilled workforce4. Low employment rate

1. Social democratic regime2. Government policies

aimed at extending employment and employment rights

3. High skilled workforce4. High employment rate(Amable, 2003)

6

15/05/2017

4

Method participants

• Initial sample of 383 Italian and 587 Finnish workers;

• Selection of only permanent employees: 263 Italian and 540 Finnish workers;

• Removal of cases with missing values at control variables AND samples balancing

--> final sample of 254 Italian and 254 Finnish workers;

52.8% men

87.8% higher educational level

Mean age 38.68 (sd 8.88)

Average tenure 11.17 (sd 7.91)

98.8% men

94.9% higher educational level

Mean age 45.26 (sd 12)

Average tenure 15.66 (sd 12.06)

7

Method measures

• A preliminary measurement invariance test was carried out in order tohave invariant measures across studies.• Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Four items (e.g., “I feel that I have a number of good

qualities”). Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for Italy and .72 for Finland.• Employability orientation (Van Dam, 2004). Five items (e.g., “I find it important to

develop myself in a broad sense, so I will be able to perform different task activitiesor jobs within the organization”). Cronbach’s alpha was .81 for Italy and .71 forFinland.

• Vigour (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Three items (e.g., “At my job, I feel strong andvigorous”). Cronbach’s alpha was .92 for Italy and .90 for Finland.

• Emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Five items (e.g., “I feel emotionallydrained from my work”). Cronbach’s alpha was .90 for Italy and .92 for Finland.

• Job satisfaction (Pejterson et al., 2010). Four items (e.g., “physical workingconditions”). Cronbach’s alpha was .82 for Italy and .76 for Finland.

• Psychological symptoms (Lehto & Sutela, 2008). Six items (e.g., “I felt nervous and/orirritable”). Cronbach’s alpha was .84 for Italy and .89 for Finland.

8

15/05/2017

5

The association between self-esteem and employability orientation varies on country

SIMPLE SLOPE ANALYSIS (Hayes, 2013)

Self-esteem was more strongly associated with

employability orientation among Italian (B = .29, p

< .001; LLCI = .23, ULCI = .35) than Finnish workers

(B = .15, p < .001; LLCI = .08, ULCI = .21).

9

Results direct effects

Italy Finland

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Gender a .05 .04 .07 .05 .06 .05

Educational level b .42*** .14* .11 -.10 -.10 -.09

Organizational tenure .08 .14** .15** -.04 -.04 .01

Self-esteem .44*** .34*** .47*** .42***

Employability orientation .21** .18**

R2 .20*** .31*** .34*** .02 .23*** .26***

Δ R2 .11*** .03** .22*** .03**

Vigour regressed on predictors and control variables.

Italy Finland

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Gender a .04 .03 .05 -.04 -.04 -.05

Educational level b .32*** .05 .02 -.05 -.05 -.04

Organizational tenure -.06 -.01 -.01 .02 .03 .07

Self-esteem .43*** .36*** .29*** .25***

Employability orientation .16* .15*

R2 .12*** .23*** .24*** .01 .09*** .11***

Δ R2 .11*** .02* .08*** .02*

Job satisfaction regressed on predictors and control variables.

Note: a 0 = male, 1 = female; b 1 = lower 2 = higher; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

10

15/05/2017

6

Results direct effects

Italy Finland

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Gender a -.08 -.08 -.07 -.05 -.05 -.05

Educational level b -.13* -.07 -.08 .01 -.01 -.01

Organizational tenure -.02 -.03 -.03 -.07 -.07 -.08

Self-esteem -.10 -.14 -.42*** -.41***

Employability orientation .08 -.02

R2 .03* .04 .04 .01 .18*** .18***

Δ R2 .01 .00 .17*** .00

Italy Finland

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Gender a -.05 -.05 -.05 .01 .01 .01

Educational level b .02 .14 .14 .04 .04 .04

Organizational tenure .02 -.01 -.01 .02 .01 -.02

Self-esteem -.19* -.18* -.54*** -.51***

Employability orientation -.02 -.11

R2 .00 .02 .02 .00 .29*** .30***

Δ R2 .02* .00 .29*** .01

Emotional exhaustion regressed on predictors and control variables.

Psychological symptoms regressed on predictors and control variables.

Note: a 0 = male, 1 = female; b 1 = lower 2 = higher; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

11

Results simple slope and mediation analyses (Hayes, 2013)

Vigour Job

satisfaction

Emotional

exhaustion

Psychological

symptoms

Int1: Employability

orientation × Country

.02 -.01 -.12 -.13

Int2: Self-esteem ×

Country

.08 -.06 -.38** -.50***

Int2 B Italy -.19* -.16*

Int2 B Finland -.57*** -.66***

B [LLCI, ULCI]

Indirect effect Italy .15 [.07, .26] .05 [.01, .10] .05 [-.05, .14] -.01 [-.09, .08]

Indirect effect Finland .08 [.03, .15] .02 [-.01, .05] -.01 [-.06, .04] -.04 [-.09, -.01]

12

15/05/2017

7

Discussion

• Self-esteem positively, and similarly for both countries, predictsvigour and job satisfaction. Only for Finnish workers, it negativelypredicts psychological symptoms and emotional exhaustion (H1);

• Self-esteem promotes employability, although to a lesser extentamong Finnish workers than Italian ones (H2);

• Employability, similarly for both countries, is positively associated tovigour and job satisfaction (H3);

• Employability is a partial mediator in the case of Vigour for bothcountries, in the case of job satisfaction only for Italy, in the case ofpsychological symptoms only for Finland (H4).

13

Conclusions and implications

• Self-esteem can be fostered in order to increase employability orientation, especially amongItalian employees;

• For both countries, self-esteem and employability confirm to be personal resources that have animpact on the positive side of well-being (work engagement and job satisfaction);

• Only for Finland, both variables can be targeted in order to decrease emotional exhaustion andpsychological symptoms;

• Country differences need to be partially taken into account when planning organizational traininginterventions.

14

Limits

• Cross-sectional survey;

• Common method variance issues;

• Sampling bias.

15/05/2017

8

See you in

Turin

References

• Amable, B. (2003). The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford University Press on Demand.

• Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: from linear to multidirectional career paths: organizational and individual perspectives. Career development international, 9(1), 58-73.

• Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. (2007). The relationship between perceived employability and subsequent health. Work & Stress, 21(3), 279-292.

• De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and employability in fixed-term contractors, agency workers, and permanent workers: associations with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Journal of occupational healthpsychology, 14(2), 193.

• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.

• Kim, S., Kim, H., & Lee, J. (2015). Employee self-concepts, voluntary learning behavior, and perceived employability. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(3), 264-279.

• Kirves, K., De Cuyper, N., Kinnunen, U., & Nätti, J. (2011). Perceived job insecurity and perceived employability in relation to temporary and permanent workers’ psychological symptoms: A two samples study. International archives of occupational and environmental health, 84(8), 899-909.

• Lehto, A.-M., & Sutela, H. (2008). Työolojen kolme vuosikymmentä: Työolotutkimusten tuloksia 1977–2008 [Three decades of working conditions: Results of Working Condition Surveys of 1977–2008]. Helsinki, Finland: Tilastokeskus.

16

15/05/2017

9

References

• Locke, E. A., McClear, K., & Knight, D. (1996). Self-esteem and work. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 1–32.

• Lo Presti, A., & Pluviano, S. (2016). Looking for a route in turbulent waters: Employability as a compass for career success. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(2), 192-211.

• Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2004). Self-esteem, dispositional optimism, and health: Evidence from cross-lagged data on employees. Journal of research in personality, 38(6), 556-575.

• Manuti, A., Depergola, V., & Giancaspro, M. L. (2016). “Mi spezzo ma non mi impiego”: l’employability per i lavoratori maturi del pubblico impiego”. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, XLIII(4), 855-873.

• Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of organizational behavior, 2(2), 99-113.

• Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3), 8-24.

• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

• 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.

• Van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 13(1), 29-51.

• Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford University Press.

17

Zero-order correlations between study variables (Italy below the diagonal, Finland above the diagonal)

18

M (SD)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Italy Finland

1) Gender a – – – –.14* –.05 –.01 .06 .07 –.04 –.05 .01

2) Educational level b – – .30*** – –.06 –.01 –.03 –.10 –.05 .01 .04

3) Tenure 11.17 (7.91) 15.66 (12.06) –.10 .01 – –.01 –.27*** –.04 .03 –.07 .01

4) Self-esteem 3.37 (0.64) 3.53 (0.49) .22*** .63*** –.13* – .29*** .47*** .29*** –.42*** –.54***

5) Employability orientation 3.06 (0.65) 3.01 (0.46) .04 .45*** –.06 .57*** – .30*** .20** –.12 –.25***

6) Vigour 4.22 (1.48) 4.18 (1.21) .17** .44*** .08 .52*** .45*** – .55*** –.61*** –.62***

7) Job satisfaction 2.81 (0.64) 2.84 (0.51) .14* .33*** –.06 .47*** .37*** .73*** – –.52*** –.42***

8) Emotional exhaustion 1.82 (1.39) 1.94 (1.25) –.12 –.16* –.01 –.16* –.04 –.50*** –.52*** – .76***

9) Psychological symptoms 1.64 (1.16) 1.65 (1.17) –.05 .01 .02 –.11 –.06 –.40*** –.43*** .63*** –

Note: a 0 = male, 1 = female; b 1 = lower 2 = higher; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.