The Effect of High Involvement Work Systems and
Empowerment Oriented Leadership on Job
Satisfaction and Absence Frequency
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
Student:
M. M. H. van Vugt,
ANR:
961336
Supervisor:
dr. F. C. van de Voorde
Second supervisor:
dr. B. Kroon
Project period:
January 2015 - August 2015
Project theme:
Healthy workplaces
31-08-2015
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Abstract
Healthy workplaces are increasingly important to facilitate both employee and organizational
outcomes including absence frequency. This cross-sectional study aims to investigate the
mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between high involvement work systems
(HIWS) and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency. In
addition, this study investigates the interaction between HIWS and empowerment oriented
leadership on job satisfaction. It was expected that they cancel each other out in influencing job
satisfaction, because of their overlapping function in providing power, information, rewards, and
knowledge to employees. Using a sample of 97 healthcare workers, this study found that HIWS
are significantly related to job satisfaction, and that empowerment oriented leadership has a
marginal positive effect on job satisfaction. No evidence was found for the mediating role of job
satisfaction, and the interaction between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership on job
satisfaction. Though, gaining insight in the mediating role of job satisfaction and the interaction
effect of HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership is important in clarifying the relationship
between human resource practices and leadership style with absenteeism. Understanding the link
between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership, and focusing on the related concepts of
power, information, rewards and knowledge can provide starting points for practice in order to
manage and improve sustainable employability.
Keywords: high involvement work systems, job satisfaction, empowerment oriented
leadership, absence frequency, healthy workplace
1
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Table of contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Theoretical background .................................................................................................................. 6
High involvement work systems and job satisfaction .................................................................. 6
Empowerment oriented leadership and job satisfaction ............................................................. 7
Job satisfaction and absence frequency ...................................................................................... 9
Job satisfaction as a mediator................................................................................................... 10
Interaction between high involvement work systems and empowerment oriented leadership .. 12
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 14
Participants ............................................................................................................................... 14
Instruments ................................................................................................................................ 15
Data analysis ............................................................................................................................. 17
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Correlation analysis and ANOVA ............................................................................................. 19
Test of hypotheses...................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion and discussion ............................................................................................................ 24
Study limitations ........................................................................................................................ 26
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 28
Recommendations for future research ...................................................................................... 28
Practical implications ............................................................................................................... 29
References ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A. Questionnaire items ................................................................................................. 37
Appendix B. Characteristics of the participants involved in this study ........................................ 41
Appendix C. Factor analyses ........................................................................................................ 42
Appendix D. Distribution of variables .......................................................................................... 46
Appendix E. One-Way ANOVA for HIWS, empowerment oriented leadership, and job
satisfaction by work location ........................................................................................................ 49
2
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Introduction
Occupational health and safety management is important to facilitate the health and
wellbeing of employees, and in turn affect organizational outcomes positively. According to the
World Health Organization (WHO), a healthy workplace is ‘one in which workers and managers
collaborate to use a continual improvement process to protect and promote the health, safety and
well-being of workers and the sustainability of the workplace…‘ (Burton, 2010, p. 16). From a
business perspective, organizations may provide healthy workplaces because ‘the enormous
economic cost of problems associated with health and safety at work inhibits economic growth
and affects the competitiveness of businesses’ (Burton, 2010, p. 7). A problem for business is
absenteeism, which refers to ‘any failure of an employee to report for, or to remain at work as
scheduled, regardless of the reason’ (Cascio, 1999, p. 596). Organizations perceive productivity
loss and costs for wages and replacement, and society has to pay for healthcare and additional
allowances. Employees experience health care costs, loss of income, and reduced quality of life
(Van der Ploeg, van der Pal, de Vroome, & van den Bossche, 2014). Despite the reduction of the
absence rate in the Netherlands, approximately from 4.1% in 2011 to 3.7% in the second quarter
of 2014, absenteeism remains an important issue because of its major costs (CBS, 2014a).
Approximately 2.6 billion was paid on wages for absentees by employers in 2011 (CBS, 2015).
So, absenteeism still has important financial consequences on the individual, organizational, and
societal level. Therefore, managing absenteeism is a relevant issue for organizations.
Absence frequency is important because it predicts prolonged absence in the next year
(Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers, 2010), and it is related to voluntary absenteeism (Bakker,
Demerouti, de Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003; Hensing, Alexanderson, Alleback, & Bjurulf, 1998).
Therefore, absence frequency, the number of times an employee reports absent (Bakker et al.,
2003; Hensing et al., 1998), will be investigated in this study. Many factors influence absence
frequency, including work-related factors. This study includes the work-related factors high
involvement work systems (HIWS) and empowerment oriented leadership, because organizations
can influence these factors in order to affect health and safety at work. HIWS are a bundle of high
involvement work practices (HIWP) that offer employees opportunities for organizational
involvement by increasing their autonomy and participation in work-related decision making
(Boxall & Purcell, 2011; Lawler, 1996; Vandenberg, Richardson & Eastman, 1999).
3
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Empowerment leadership refers to leaders who give their subordinates the experience of achieving
control and influence at their job (Keiffer, 1984). HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership
allow and encourage employees to be proactive in the organization and let them experience power,
information, rewards, and knowledge (Vandenberg et al., 1999).
In line with the Job Characteristics Model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), employees
who perceive HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership develop a positive attitude towards the
job and feel satisfied at work, because they experience meaningfulness of work, responsibility for
outcomes, and knowledge of the actual results (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Vandenberg et al.,
1999). Job satisfaction is defined as ‘the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike
(dissatisfaction) their jobs’ (Spector, 1997, p. 2). Previous studies indicated that job satisfaction is
negatively associated with absenteeism (e.g. Cohen & Golan, 2007; Siu, 2002; Wood et al., 2012).
A reason for this is that a lack of satisfaction is associated with poor physical and mental health
(Faragher, Cass & Cooper, 2005). Though, previous research was often focused on the relation
between job satisfaction and absence duration, and only a weak effect of job satisfaction on
absence
frequency
was
found
(e.g.
Notenbomer,
Roelen,
&
Groothoff,
2006;
Roelen, Koopmans, Notenbomer, & Groothoff, 2008).
A key issue for research and practice is to know how to manage job satisfaction to decrease
absence frequency. This study investigates the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship
between both HIWS and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and absence
frequency. Employees with low or no involvement or power, often in repetitive, simplified jobs,
are more likely to be absent due to dissatisfaction (Lawler, 1996). Based on the social exchange
theory and the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), it is expected that employees
perceive HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership as benefits from the organization, and want
to do something back in return. Employees can express their satisfaction in their behavior, by being
present at work. In addition, when individuals experience sufficient reciprocity, they have less
emotional distress and physical complaints (Bakker, Schaufeli, Sixma, Bosveld, & van
Dierendonck, 2000; Siegrist, 2005), leading to better health and less absence.
Based on the substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr, 1977; Kerr & Jermier, 1978), Jiang
and colleagues (2014) proposed that service-oriented high performance work systems (HPWS)
and service leadership enhance collective customer knowledge and service climate in a substitutive
4
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
manner, because both factors overlap in their functions to enhance these outcomes (Jiang, Chuang,
& Chiao, 2014). In line with this study, it is expected that HIWS and empowerment oriented
leadership reduce the impact of one another in relation to job satisfaction, because of its overlap
in providing power, information, rewards, and knowledge to employees.
This study makes a contribution to research on HIWS. First, this study will research
whether job satisfaction is a mediator in the relationship between HIWS and absence frequency,
and empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency. Van de Voorde and colleagues
(2012) argued that limited research is done regarding the relationship between high involvement
practices and employee outcomes (Van de Voorde, Paauwe & van Veldhoven, 2012).
Corresponding to this, little research has been conducted on the relationship between work-related
factors, including HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership, and work processes experienced
by employees, including involvement and empowerment. And in turn, on the influence of these
work processes on employee affective outcomes, including job satisfaction, and operating
outcomes, including absenteeism (Boxall & Macky, 2009). Second, this study will provide
knowledge about the interaction between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership. Research
on the interaction between human resource (HR) practices and leadership style is limited, and the
interaction between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership has not been investigated before
(Jiang et al., 2014). Third, this study will clarify the influence of this important interplay on job
satisfaction. Last, implications for practice will be provided about managing job satisfaction
positively for both the organization and employee. It is important for organizations to know how
job satisfaction can be managed through HR practices and leadership style to decrease absence
frequency.
In sum, this cross-sectional study aims to investigate the mediating effect of job satisfaction
in the relationship between HIWS and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership
and absence frequency. In addition, this study will focus on the interaction effect between HIWS
and empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction. This resulted in the following research
questions: ‘To what extent does job satisfaction mediates the relationship between HIWS and
absence frequency, and between empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency? And
to what extent do HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership interact with each other to affect
job satisfaction?’
5
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Theoretical background
In the following section, the variables that are included in this study and the
interrelationships between them are explained by using the social exchange theory as an underlying
theory. The social exchange theory indicates that behavior is influenced by an individual’s desire
to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Blau, 1964). A social exchange relationship is based on
the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Employees and organizations interact with each other.
When one party experiences benefit from the other, it reciprocates benefits, which in turn leads to
beneficial exchanges between parties. In this study, it is expected that when employees experience
HIWS or empowerment oriented leadership, they feel satisfied and reciprocate benefits to the
organization and supervisor by being present at work.
High involvement work systems and job satisfaction
Organizations that offer HIWS increase job satisfaction in employees by providing
employees with benefits, including power, information, knowledge and rewards. Job satisfaction
is defined as ‘the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs’
(Spector, 1997, p. 2). Job satisfaction is ‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from
an appraisal of one’s job or job experiences’ (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Other researchers stated that
job satisfaction is an attitude, defined as ‘a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one makes
about one’s job or job situation’ (Weiss, 2002, p. 175).
Vandenberg and colleagues (1999) proposed a model of HIWS by indicating high
involvement work as a collective set of ‘mutually reinforcing attributes: power (to act and make
decisions about work), information (about processes, quality, customer feedback, event and
business results), rewards (tied to business results and growth in capability and contribution), and
knowledge (of the work, business, and the total work system) (PIRK), which influences job
satisfaction, and in turn organizational performance positively’ (Butts, Vandenberg, DeJoy,
Schaffer, & Wilson, 2009; Lawler, 1986; 1996; Vandenberg et al., 1999, p. 303). These elements
‘empower workers to make more decisions, enhance the information and knowledge they need to
do so, and reward them for doing so’ (Boxall & Macky, 2011, p. 41). The adoption of HIWS is
aimed at ‘obtaining a high level of commitment and involvement within the organization in a way
6
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
that proactive behavior is largely controlled by the individual instead of external factors’ (Wood,
2010). The Job Characteristics Model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) proposes that five core
job characteristics influence three critical psychological states: meaningfulness of work results
from the job characteristics skill variety, task identity or task significance, responsibility for
outcomes from autonomy, and knowledge of actual results from feedback. In turn, these
psychological states affect work outcomes, including job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
HIWS provide the PIRK-elements to enhance employee’s control at work and increase proactive
behavior to achieve higher job satisfaction (Vandenberg et al., 1999). According to the JCM,
organizations can increase job satisfaction by enriching jobs with more autonomy, skill utilization,
and development (Wood & de Menezes, 2011). Power, information, and knowledge are related to
autonomy and feedback, which enhance job satisfaction, because employees experience
responsibility for outcomes and knowledge of actual results (PIRK; Lawler, 1986; 1996; Hackman
& Oldham, 1976). In addition, Kanter’s (1993) theory of structural empowerment states that access
to empowerment structures, including opportunity and power, is associated with both individual’s
formal and informal power within the organization. Access to job-related empowerment structures,
including HIWS as individual’s formal power, leads to increased job satisfaction (Kanter, 1993).
Previous research indicated that greater experience of HIWP and work enrichment is
related to higher levels of job satisfaction (Macky & Boxall, 2008; Wood, 2008; Wood, van
Veldhoven, Croon, & de Menezes, 2012). Based on research, the JCM and the theory of structural
empowerment, it is expected that when employees experience enriched job designs, including the
PIRK-elements within HIWS, they feel more satisfied at work:
Hypothesis 1: HIWS are positively associated with job satisfaction
Empowerment oriented leadership and job satisfaction
The leadership style of supervisors contributes to the employee’s perceived availability of
work-related resources (Pantelidis, 2014). According to Kanter’s theory of structural
empowerment (1993), informal power develops from relationships and networks, for example with
superiors (Kanter, 1993). At the individual level, empowerment is the experience of achieving
control and influence in daily life and community participation (Keiffer, 1984). An empowering
leader facilitates the experience of power in subordinates. Subordinates experience perceived
7
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
control, perceived competence, and power as being energized towards achieving valued goals,
which in turn influences their empowerment positively (Menon, 2001). It is expected that
empowerment oriented leadership improves job satisfaction of subordinates by letting them feel
empowered within their job.
Empowering leadership is originated in transformational leadership. In transformational
leadership ‘an interaction between leader and followers exists to create an envisioned change in
individuals and social systems by increasing followers’ motivation to go beyond self-interests for
the good of the organization‘ (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985). An transformational leader provides
subordinates with an inspiring mission and vision and transforms and motivates them through
idealized influence (charisma), intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass, 1985).
Previous research indicated that transformational leadership highly corresponds to charismatic
leadership, because charisma is necessary for both leadership styles to be effective (e.g. Northouse,
2004). Charismatic leaders act in a unique way and have extraordinary leadership abilities to
motivate and activate their followers, and bring social change (House, 1977). Though, Den Hartog
(1997) stated that transformational leadership is broader, and consists of two dimensions:
charismatic, including inspirational motivation and idealized influence (Bass, 1985), and
empowerment, including intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and participative
leadership (Bass, 1985). Charismatic and empowerment leaders provide individual attention to
their subordinates and stimulate them to take initiative and responsibility (De Hoogh, den Hartog,
& Koopman, 2004). Based on research from De Hoogh and colleagues (2004), this study will
investigate the influence of charismatic and empowerment oriented leadership, because
empowerment oriented leadership is increasingly apparent in organizations, and especially in
healthcare organizations (De Hoogh et al., 2004). Supervisors in this sector encourage employees
to take control, for example by stimulating self-regulated teams. Therefore, this study will
investigate the role of an empowering oriented leader in affecting job satisfaction.
Konczak and colleagues (2000) state that leader empowering behavior consists of six
dimensions (Konczak, Stelly, & Trusty, 2000). The first dimension is the delegation of authority,
by placing new responsibilities to subordinates, which may be related to the power attribute of
PIRK (Lawler, 1986; 1996; Vandenberg et al., 1999). In addition, the subordinate must feel
accountable for the responsibilities and leaders must encourage self-directed decision making
8
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
among subordinates, which captures the second and third dimension. The fourth dimension states
that leaders must share information with their subordinates to enable them to contribute to the
organization, which can be linked to the information attribute of PIRK (Lawler, 1986; 1996;
Vandenberg et al., 1999). Fifth, the leader must develop the right skills among their subordinate in
order to perform the job properly. Skill development is related to the knowledge attribute of PIRK
(Lawler, 1986; 1996; Vandenberg et al., 1999). Last, leaders have to give their subordinates the
room to make mistakes and coach them for innovative performance and to learn at work. Based
on these dimensions, empowerment oriented leadership is related to the PIRK attributes, which
are related to job satisfaction (Vandenberg et al., 1999).
Continuing on the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), autonomy, feedback, and
development affect job satisfaction positively. Supervisors can provide employees with enriched
jobs in a way that they experience their work as pleasurable, meaningful and valuable. For
example, when a supervisor provides subordinates with job characteristics, including autonomy,
their job satisfaction increases, because subordinates experience responsibility of outcomes.
Previous research found a positive relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction
(e.g. Lautizi, Laschinger, & Ravazzolo, 2009; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002). In addition, work
enrichment results in increased job satisfaction (Wood, 2008; Wood et al., 2012). Based on
previous research, the JCM theory, and the theory of structural empowerment, it is expected that
empowering employees, by providing them with job characteristics, including PIRK, increases
their job satisfaction:
Hypothesis 2: Empowerment oriented leadership is positively associated with job satisfaction
Job satisfaction and absence frequency
In predicting absenteeism, job satisfaction is an important factor, because satisfied
employees appear to be less absent (e.g. Notenbomer et al., 2006; Roelen et al., 2008). Employees
can choose to withdraw from work in several ways, including absenteeism, psychological
withdrawal, lateness, and turnover (Beehr & Gupta, 1978). Two types of absenteeism can be
distinguished: duration and frequency. Absence duration is related to the amount of time an
employee is absent from work, and can result from health problems. Absence frequency is the
9
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
number of times an employee reports absent, and can be an indicator of voluntary absenteeism
(Bakker et al., 2003; Hensing et al., 1998). The relationship between job satisfaction and absence
frequency will be investigated in this study, because absence frequency is a predictor for
absenteeism in future (Ybema et al., 2010). It is expected that voluntary absenteeism or absence
frequency can occur when an employee is dissatisfied at work.
Building upon the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964;
Gouldner, 1960), employees who receive benefits from the organization experience a positive
attitude towards the organization. It is expected that when employees feel satisfied at work, they
have a feeling of reciprocity because they feel that the organization is investing in them or cares
about them. Employees want to do something back to benefit the organization. When employees
are satisfied at work, it is expected that they report sick less often, because they experience pleasure
at work and want to do good for the organization. In addition, employees may reciprocate to
maintain or enhance the benefits they receive from the organization, in order to preserve the social
exchange relationship (Gouldner, 1960).
Previous research indicated that job satisfaction appears to be a predictor of absenteeism
(e.g. Cohen & Golan, 2007; Siu, 2002; Wood et al., 2012), and is related to absence frequency
(e.g. Roelen et al., 2008), because satisfied employees experience enjoyment at work and have less
health complaints (Faragher et al., 2005). In addition, employees experience less emotional distress
and physical complaints when they receive sufficient reciprocity, (Bakker et al., 2000; Siegrist,
2005), leading to better health and less absence. Based on these findings and the social exchange
theory, it is expected that satisfied employees show lower levels of absence frequency:
Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction is negatively associated with absence frequency.
Job satisfaction as a mediator
Central in this section is the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between
HIWS and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency.
Building upon the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner,
1960), employees who receive benefits from the organization experience a positive attitude
towards the organization. HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership can act as benefits for the
10
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
employee, because employees perceive power, information, rewards, and knowledge at work. In
line with the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), employee’s experience of these PIRK attributes
increases job satisfaction (Vandenberg et al., 1999), which in turn creates a feeling of reciprocity
towards the organization or supervisor (Gouldner, 1960). Satisfied employees hold a positive
attitude towards the organization or supervisor, and want to do something back, because they
appreciate the benefits. They feel the organization or supervisor is investing in them by providing
them with power, information, rewards and knowledge, and want to benefit the organization or
supervisor in return. It is expected that dissatisfied employees report sick more often. Therefore,
job satisfaction can act as a mediator in the relationship between both HIWS and absence
frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency.
Recently, a multi-level study has examined the mediating role of job satisfaction in the
relationship between high involvement management (HIM) and absenteeism, and between
enriched job design and absenteeism. They found a significant positive indirect effect of HIM and
a significant negative overall effect of enriched job design on absenteeism (Wood et al., 2012). In
line with this study, it is expected that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between HIWS
and absence frequency. Though, in line with the JCM and the social exchange theory, it is expected
that job satisfaction negatively mediates these relationships on the individual level. When workers
perceive benefits from the organization and feel satisfied, they have a feeling of reciprocity
towards the organization, because they enjoy their work, and feel the organization is investing in
them. Moreover, beside health and safety-related factors, reasons for absenteeism may be
irresponsibility, and a lack of support or communication to employees (Hanna, Menches, Sullivan
& Sargent, 2005; Barrow, 2013). Responsibility, communication, and support are related to
respectively power, information, and rewards, which in turn increase job satisfaction (Vandenberg
et al., 1999). Therefore, it is expected that a mediation effect of job satisfaction exists in the
relationship between these PIRK elements and absenteeism. As PIRK is related to HIWS and
empowerment oriented leadership, it is expected that job satisfaction will mediate the relationship
between HIWS and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and absence
frequency.
Based on the social exchange theory, JCM, and previous research, it is expected that job
satisfaction results from HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership, and in turn influences
11
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
absence frequency negatively on the individual level. Therefore, two mediating processes of job
satisfaction will be addressed in this study:
Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between HIWS and absence frequency is negatively mediated by
job satisfaction
Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between empowerment oriented leadership and absence
frequency is negatively mediated by job satisfaction
Interaction between high involvement work systems and empowerment oriented leadership
In predicting job satisfaction, HR practices and leadership style can interact with each
other. It is proposed that both HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership affect job satisfaction
positively. Based on these hypotheses, it is expected that an interaction between HIWS and
empowerment oriented leadership will occur. The substitutes for leadership theory, indicates that
substitutes for leadership tend ‘to negate the leader's ability to either improve or impair subordinate
satisfaction and performance’ (Kerr & Jermier, 1978, p. 377). Based on this theory, it is expected
that organizational factors, including HIWS, decrease the influence of supervisor’s behavior on
job satisfaction. For example, HIWS provide employees with power, information, rewards, and
knowledge that are out of supervisor’s control. In addition, employee’s professional orientation
and self-regulated teams in healthcare can reduce the influence of a leader, because of greater value
of feedback from peers (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Employees are allowed and enabled to influence
their own outcomes, including job satisfaction. As a result, the supervisor will have less influence
because of its overlap with HIWS in their function to increase power, information, knowledge, and
rewards in employees. In line with the vitamin model of Warr (1987, 2007), more control
(vitamins) is healthy up to a certain point, and beyond this point a sustained or a downturn in
employee benefits will occur. The power element within HIWS and empowerment oriented
leadership corresponds to control in the vitamin model. In line with this model, the effect of power
as vitamins, leads to positive employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, up to a certain point.
Therefore the power element within HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership can cancel each
other out.
12
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Previous research of Jiang and colleagues (2014) indicated the substantive influence of HR
practices and leadership style. They found that the positive effect of both service-oriented HPWS
and service leadership on collective customer knowledge and service climate was stronger when
respectively service leadership and service-oriented HPWS were lower (Jiang et al., 2014). In line
with this research and the substitutes for leadership theory and vitamin model, it is expected that
HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership will overlap in their function to enhance job
satisfaction, because both predictors tend to increase employee’s power, information, rewards, and
knowledge. This leads to the last hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership negatively interact on job satisfaction.
When both HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership are present, they will reduce the positive
influence of one another on job satisfaction.
13
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Method
This cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted in May 2015. A Dutch healthcare
organization, providing both intramural and extramural care, was included in this research. The
study was approved by the management of the three locations involved. The sample involved all
employees with a contract, and an e-mail account of the organization in these three locations.
Procedure
Data were collected using an online self-report questionnaire developed for this study
(Appendix A). A small pilot study was conducted (N = 9) to assess whether the questionnaire was
clear and easy to complete in time. After the pilot, all employees (approximately N = 250) were
informed and invited to participate in the research by an introduction e-mail, announcements,
posters, and face-to-face contact. Each employee received a link to the online questionnaire by email from the manager, and was asked to fill out the questionnaire within three weeks. After two
weeks a reminder was send to all employees to increase the response rate. In addition, paper
versions of the questionnaire were handed out through face-to-face contact with the researcher.
The participation of employees in this study was voluntarily, and confidentiality and anonymity
was guaranteed by conducting data-analyses outside the organization without tracing responses to
employees.
Participants
In total, 102 questionnaires were returned within the predefined three week response
period, which resulted in a response rate of approximately 40.8%. Participants who only filled out
the control variables were excluded, resulting in a final valid sample of N = 97.
In Appendix B, the demographics and job characteristics of all participants are presented.
The mean participants’ age was 44.65, and the majority of the sample was female (N = 85). Most
participants worked part time (80.4%) and were working in care and wellbeing (66.0%). The living
situation of the participants was mostly a multi person household with or without children at home,
respectively 50.5% and 26.8%.
14
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Instruments
Validated instruments were used to measure HIWS, empowerment oriented leadership, job
satisfaction, and workload. Additional questions were added to measure the control variables and
absence frequency.
High involvement work systems. HIWS were measured by using the ‘Participative
Decision-Making’, ‘Information Sharing’, ‘Performance-Based Rewards’, and ‘Training’ scales
of Riordan and colleagues (Riordan, Vandenberg, & Richardson, 2005). These scales are based on
the PIRK-elements power, information, rewards, and knowledge (Vandenberg et al., 1999; Lawler,
1986). All scales were measured on a 5-point scale (‘1 = strongly disagree’ to ‘5 = strongly agree’).
First, participative decision-making was measured with three power items (α = .76) (example item:
‘I have sufficient authority to fulfill my job responsibilities’), with an explained variance of 68.5%
by one component and factor loadings above .76. The Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant
(p = .000), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .63 (see Appendix C for the Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) of all (sub)scales). A KMO value above .60 is recommended in
research (Pallant, 2010). Second, the information sharing scale consisted of six items (α = .73)
(example item: ‘Company policies and procedures are clearly communicated to employees‘). This
scale was forced to explain the variance by one component, resulting in an explained variance of
43.7%, and factor loadings above .49. The KMO value was .75, and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity
was significant (p = .000). Third, five items were included to measure performance-based rewards
(α = .65) (example item: ‘Generally I feel this company rewards employees who make an extra
effort’), with an explained variance of 42.0% by one component and factor loadings above .58.
The Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p = .000), and the KMO value was .67. Fourth,
knowledge was measured by the training scale, consisting of four items (α = .89) (example item:
‘I receive sufficient training to do my job’), with an explained variance of 74.8% by one
component, and factor loadings above .80. The Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p
= .000), and the KMO value was .83.
The overall score of HIWS was calculated by averaging the four subscales (α = .70). The
PCA indicated that the validity of this HIWS scale was good. The explained variance was 54.0%,
with factor loadings above .62. The Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p = .000), and the
KMO value was .72. This overall score was used in the analyses.
15
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Empowerment oriented leadership. To measure empowerment oriented leadership, the
‘charismatic and empowerment oriented leadership’ subscale of the ‘Charismatic Leadership In
Organizations’ (CLIO; De Hoogh et al., 2004) was used. The subscale consisted of 11 items (α
= .96), including formulating an attractive vision, giving sense and meaning to employee’s work,
leading by example, participation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. The items
were assessed on a 7-point scale (‘1 = totally disagree‘ to ‘7 = totally agree’) (example item: ‘My
supervisor is always looking for new opportunities for the organization’). The KMO value was .92,
and the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p = .000). The validity of this scale was good
with one component explaining 70.3% of the variance and with factor loadings all above .72.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using a single item on a 10-point scale
ranging from 1 to 10 (one item: ‘In general, how satisfied are you with your job?’) (Berkhout,
Boumans, van Breukelen, Huijer Abu-Saad, & Nijhuis, 2004), and was normal distributed
(Appendix D). Previous research indicated that a single item measure highly correlated with scale
measures, thus the validity and reliability of a one item measure is good (Wanous, Reichers, &
Hudy, 1997).
Absence frequency. Absence frequency was measured for the past twelve months (one item:
‘How often did you report sick in the past twelve months?’). Because of a lack of normality,
absence frequency was transformed by using the square root transformation (Pallant, 2010), which
improved the skewness and kurtosis values extremely (Appendix D).
Control variables. Control variables were included at the individual level, including age,
gender, level of education, and living situation. Age (continuous), gender (0 = female; 1 = male),
and living situation (0 = multi person household with children at home; 1 = multi person household
without children at home; 2 = one person household; 3 = only parent with children at home; 4 =
other) were controlled because previous research indicated that these factors influence absence
frequency (e.g. Ichino & Moretti, 2009). Level of education was measured by using the
standardized classification: ‘Lower’ (basic education, vmbo, the first three years of havo/vwo, mbo
1 (vbo, lbo, ulo, mulo, mavo)), ‘Middle’ (havo, vwo, mbo 2, mbo 3, mbo 4), and ‘Higher’ (hbo-,
wo-bachelor, hbo-, wo-master) (CBS, 2014b). At the job level type of job contract, job function,
work location, working hours, and workload were included. Previous research indicated that type
of contract was related to absenteeism (e.g. Lusinyan & Bonato, 2007), and job demands, including
16
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
working hours and workload, were related to absence frequency (e.g. Bakker et al., 2003). It was
expected that job function and work location influence absenteeism as well. The following
categories for job contract were used: ‘Full-time (35 hours a week)’, ‘Part-time’, ‘Call worker’,
and ‘Student’. After consultation with the nursing homes, five categories of job function were
used: ‘Care and Well-being’, ‘Horeca and Facilitair’, ‘Management’, ‘Human Resources’ and
‘Other’. Work location was measured by using the three locations as answer possibilities. Working
hours were measured as a continuous variable. Workload was assessed using the shortened version
of the workload subscale of the ‘Vragenlijst Beleving en Beoordeling van de Arbeid’ (VBBA; Van
Veldhoven & Meijman, 1994; Van Veldhoven & Broersen, 2003) (α = .85). This subscale included
six items on a 4-point scale (‘1 = never’ to ‘4 = always’) (example item: ‘Do you have problems
with the pace of work?’). Based on the PCA, the validity of this scale was good. One component
with factor loadings above .69 explained 57.8% of the variance. The Barlett’s Test of Sphericity
was significant (p = .000), and the KMO value was .77.
Data analysis
The data were analyzed using SPSS version 22.0. To determine the impact of the
categorical control variables level of education, living situation, job contract, job function, and
work location on HIWS, empowerment oriented leadership, job satisfaction, and absence
frequency, one way ANOVA’s were performed using the post-hoc tukey procedure. Correlation
analyses using Pearson’s correlation coefficient were performed in order to investigate the
relationship between HIWS, empowerment oriented leadership, job satisfaction, and absence
frequency. In addition, the relationship between these variables with the control variables age,
gender, working hours, and workload, was measured with the Pearson correlation coefficient.
Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses. The baseline model
included the control variables, which were added in the first model of all regression analyses. First,
a regression model was constructed to test the effect of HIWS and empowerment oriented
leadership on job satisfaction (hypotheses 1 and 2). Control variables were included in model 1.
For hypothesis 1, model 2 included HIWS as independent variable, and job satisfaction as the
dependent variable. For hypothesis 2, model 2 included empowerment oriented leadership as the
independent variable, and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. In addition, HIWS and
17
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
empowerment oriented leadership were controlled for each other’s influence by adding
empowerment oriented leadership and HIWS in model 3, respectively for hypothesis 1 and 2.
Second, a regression model was composed to test the influence of job satisfaction on absence
frequency (hypothesis 3). The first model included the control variables. The second model
included job satisfaction as the independent variable, and absence frequency as the dependent
variable. Third, a regression model was composed to assess the mediating role of job satisfaction
in the relationship between HIWS and absence frequency (hypothesis 4a), and empowerment
oriented leadership and absence frequency (hypothesis 4b). The first model included the control
variables. In the second model respectively HIWS for hypothesis 4a and empowerment oriented
leadership for hypothesis 4b were included as the independent variables, and absence frequency
as the dependent variable. Furthermore the mediation factor job satisfaction was added in model
3. Following the conditions for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), the Sobel Test was carried out
when the independent variables HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership were significantly
related to the mediator job satisfaction, and in turn job satisfaction was significantly related to the
dependent variable absence frequency. Fourth, a regression model was constructed to determine
the interaction effect between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction
(hypothesis 5). Control variables were included in model 1. The second model included HIWS and
empowerment oriented leadership as independent variables, and job satisfaction as the dependent
variable. The interaction term, which was computed by multiplying the standardized variables of
HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership, was added to the regression model in model 3. In
addition, the Simple Slopes Test (Aiken & West, 1991) was used, and an interaction graph with
HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership as independent variables was created to interpret
their combined effect on job satisfaction.
18
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Results
Correlation analysis and ANOVA
No significant differences between group means were found for level of education, living
situation, job contract, and job function. So, those control variables were not included in the
following regression analyses. Though, significant differences between group means were found
for work location (Appendix E). The mean of location A and C differed significantly from location
B in HIWS (p < .05), and a significant difference between location A and B was found for
empowerment oriented leadership (p < .01). Therefore, work location was included as a dummy
variable in the regression analyses with HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership as
independent variables. The correlation analysis indicated that workload had a significant
correlation with job satisfaction (r = -.34; p < .01), but no significant correlations were found for
age, gender, and working hours. Therefore, workload was included in all regression analyses.
In sum, the control variable work location was included in the regression analyses were
HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership were included. Workload was included in all
regression analyses, because of its significant correlation with job satisfaction. In Table 1,
descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are presented for the variables considered in the
regression analyses, including absence frequency, HIWS, empowerment oriented leadership, job
satisfaction, workload, and work location. Location B differed significantly from location A
(reference group), resulting in significant correlations with HIWS (r = .34; p < .01), and
empowerment oriented leadership (r = .36; p < .01). As mentioned before, workload had a
significant correlation with job satisfaction (r = -.34; p < .01). Absence frequency did not correlate
significantly with the other variables. Significant positive correlations were found between HIWS
and empowerment oriented leadership (r = .50; p < .01), and HIWS and job satisfaction (r = .42;
p < .01). Empowerment oriented leadership was significantly correlated with job satisfaction (r
= .29; p < .01).
The absence frequency of participants is low in the past twelve months (.76). Overall,
participants experience HIWS (3.49 on a 5-point scale), empowerment oriented leadership (5.60
on a 7-point scale), and job satisfaction (7.88 on a 10-point scale) as high in the organization.
Participants experience moderate workload (2.00 on a 4-point scale).
19
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables
Variable
1. Absence Frequency1
2. HIWS2
3. Empowerment oriented Leadership
4. Job Satisfaction1
5. Workload
6. Location B
7. Location C
Mean
.75
3.49
5.57
7.87
2.00
.24
.27
SD
.77
.41
.92
1.03
.47
.43
.45
1
1
−.11
−.16
−.07
.08
−.12
−.01
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
.50**
.42**
−.19
.34**
−.04
1
.29**
−.19
.36**
.06
1
−.34**
.19
-.02
1
-.12
−.20
1
−.34**
1
Notes: N = 97. *p <.05, **p < .01; absence frequency: transformation (SQRT(old variable)); HIWS: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; empowerment (emp.) leadership: 1 = totally disagree to 7
= totally agree; job satisfaction: 1 = extremely unsatisfied to 10 = extremely satisfied; workload: 1 = never to 4 = always; and work location: 0 = location A (reference group), 1 = location B, 2 = location
C; no differences between groups were found for age, gender, level of education, living situation, job contract, job function, and working hours, so those control variables are not included in this table
and in the following regression analyses.
1
N = 94.
2
HIWS: high involvement work systems, constituted by calculating the participative decision-making (power), information sharing, rewards, and training (knowledge) (PIRK) subscales.
20
Test of hypotheses
Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the direct effect of HIWS on job
satisfaction, and empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction (hypotheses 1 and 2). As
shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the positive effect of HIWS on job satisfaction was found to be
significant (ß = .36; p < .01) even when controlled for empowerment oriented leadership (ß = .33;
p < .01). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported. As shown in Table 2, it appears that empowerment
oriented leadership is marginal positively related to job satisfaction (ß = .21; p < .10). However,
the influence of empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction becomes non-significant
when controlled for HIWS (ß = .08; p = .491) (Table 3). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was marginally
supported in this study. In addition, workload was significantly negative related to job satisfaction
(ß = -.33; p < .01).
Table 2
Direct effect of HIWS on job satisfaction controlled for empowerment oriented leadership
Model/variable
R2
△R2
F
△F
Model 1 (control variables)
.14
.14
4.80***
4.80***
B
SE
ß
Workload
-.71
.22
-.33***
Location B
.33
.26
.14
Location C
-.08
.25
-.03
.24
.12
.21*
.83
.27
.33***
Model 2
.17
.04
4.69***
3.91*
Empowerment oriented
leadership
Model 3
.25
HIWS1
.08
5.95***
9.24***
Notes: *p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01; work location: 0 = location A (reference group), 1 = location B, 2 = location C.
1
HIWS: high involvement work systems, constituted by calculating the participative decision-making (power), information sharing, rewards, and
training (knowledge) (PIRK) subscales.
21
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Table 3
Direct effect of empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction controlled for HIWS
Model/variable
R2
△R2
F
△F
Model 1 (control variables)
.14
.14
4.80***
4.80***
B
SE
ß
Workload
-.71
.22
-.33***
Location B
.33
.26
.14
Location C
-.08
.25
-.03
.90
.25
.36***
.09
.13
.08
Model 2
.25
.11
7.36***
13.10***
HIWS1
Model 3
.25
.00
5.95***
.48
Empowerment oriented leadership
Notes: *p < .1, **p < .05, ***p < .01; work location: 0 = location A (reference group), 1 = location B, 2 = location C.
1
HIWS: high involvement work systems, constituted by calculating the participative decision-making (power), information sharing, rewards, and
training (knowledge) (PIRK) subscales.
Table 4 shows the influence of job satisfaction on absence frequency (hypothesis 3). No
significant direct effect was found in the relationship between job satisfaction and absence
frequency (ß = -.03; p = .776). Therefore, hypothesis 3 was not supported in this study.
Table 4
Multiple regression analysis predicting absence frequency
Model/variable
R2
△R2
F
△F
Model 1 (control variables)
.01
.01
.58
.58
Workload
Model 2
.01
Job satisfaction
.00
.38
B
SE
ß
.13
.17
.08
-.04
.08
-.05
.19
Notes: *p < .05.
22
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Based on the assumptions of mediation analysis of Baron and Kenny (1986), there is no
mediation of job satisfaction in the relationship between HIWS and absence frequency, and
empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency because of a lack of significance in the
relationship between job satisfaction and absence frequency. Therefore, the mediating role of job
satisfaction in the relationship between HIWS and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented
leadership and absence frequency was not supported in this study (hypothesis 4a and 4b).
In testing hypothesis 5, a multiple regression analysis was performed to predict the
interaction effect of HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction (Table 5).
The addition of the interaction term in model 3 did not significantly increase the R2 (p = .119).
Therefore, the interaction effect between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership on job
satisfaction was not supported in this study. Because of a lack of evidence for the moderation, the
Simple Slopes Test (Aiken & West, 1991) was not performed.
Table 5
Multiple regression analysis predicting job satisfaction
Model/variable
R2
△R2
F
△F
Model 1 (control variables)
.14
.14
4.80**
5.05**
B
SE
ß
Workload
-.71
.22
-.33**
Location B
.33
.26
.14
Location C
-.08
.25
-.03
HIWS1
.83
.27
.33**
Empowerment oriented
leadership
.09
.13
.08
-.15
.09
-.15
Model 2
.25
Model 3
.27
Interaction2
.12
.02
5.95**
5.46**
6.19**
2.73
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .01; work location: 0 = location A (reference group), 1 = location B, 2 = location C.
1
HIWS: high involvement work systems, constituted by calculating the participative decision-making (power), information sharing, rewards, and
training (knowledge) (PIRK) subscales.
2
Interaction effect of HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership.
23
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Conclusion and discussion
The purpose of this cross-sectional study among healthcare employees (N = 97), was to
examine the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between HIWS and absence
frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency. In addition, this study
tested the interaction between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction.
This study indicated that HIWS are significantly positively associated with job satisfaction
(hypothesis 1), and empowerment oriented leadership has a marginal positive effect on job
satisfaction (hypothesis 2). No evidence was found for supporting the remaining hypotheses.
HIWS have a significantly positive effect on job satisfaction, therefore hypothesis 1 was
supported. In line with the JCM (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), power, information, rewards and
knowledge can result in enriched job designs for employees, leading to higher job satisfaction. In
addition, HIWS, as job-related empowerment structures, increase job satisfaction as stated in the
theory of structural empowerment (Kanter, 1993). Previous studies indicated a positive relation
between HIWS and job satisfaction (e.g. Lawler, 1986; Macky & Boxall, 2008; Vandenberg et al.,
1999). The effect of empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction was marginally
significant (hypothesis 2). A positive relationship between empowerment oriented leadership and
job satisfaction was indicated by the theory of structural empowerment (Kanter, 1993), and in
previous studies (Lautizi et al., 2009; Manojlovich & Laschinger, 2002). Corresponding to these
theories and findings, power, information, rewards, and knowledge as incorporated in HIWS and
empowerment leadership, increase job satisfaction in employees (Vandenberg et al., 1999). The
marginal significance in the relationship between empowerment oriented leadership and job
satisfaction as found in this study, might be caused by the fact that multiple leaders are present in
the organization involved. Employees have scored only their own leader, but the data consisted of
multiple leaders.
No significant results were found in the relationship between job satisfaction and absence
frequency (hypothesis 3). Previous research found a marginal effect of job satisfaction on absence
frequency (e.g. Roelen et al., 2008). Though, in this study, the effect of job satisfaction on absence
frequency was nonsignificant. Job satisfaction and absence frequency were determined with an
one-item self-report measure. More detailed measures could lead to more insights in these
variables to support the hypothesis. The self-reported questionnaire could also have led to
24
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
information bias because participants could give social desirable answers regarding HIWS,
empowerment oriented leadership, job satisfaction, and absence frequency. In addition, because
of the cross-sectional nature of this study, long term effects could not be examined. In this study,
absence frequency was measured for the last twelve months, and HIWS, empowerment oriented
leadership, and job satisfaction were measured at this moment. This post-predictive design is a
limitation for finding adequate relationships between the predicting variables and absence
frequency, because absence frequency should be measured in another time perspective than the
predicting variable. When measuring the predicting variables at this moment, absence frequency
should be measured for the next twelve months. In addition, employees may experience other
work-related factors that influence their absence frequency. Employees in healthcare often
experience power at work, for example through self-regulated teams and self scheduling, and often
feel responsible in their work because of intensive contact with clients and colleagues. For
example, by self rostering, employees perceive and take the responsibility to respond to their own
and their colleagues needs. In this way, employees can anticipate on for example their private life,
which can influence absence frequency.
In line with the social exchange theory and norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner,
1960), it was expected that employees feel satisfied through receiving benefits from the
organization and the supervisor, including HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership, and in
turn want to do something back by being present at work (hypothesis 4a and 4b). However, a
mediation analysis was not performed because of a lack of significance between job satisfaction
and absence frequency. The lack of significant results can be explained by methodological issues,
including the specific characteristics of the sample and the influence of other work-related factors
on absence frequency as mentioned before. Therefore the mediating role of job satisfaction in the
relationship between HIWS and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and
absence frequency, was not supported in this study (hypothesis 4a and 4b). A recent multi-level
study found a significant positive indirect effect of HIM and a significant negative overall effect
of enriched job design on absenteeism (Wood et al., 2012). In contrast to this research, no evidence
was found on the individual level.
The interaction between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction
was almost negative significant (p = .119) (hypothesis 5). The small sample size might prevented
25
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
the researcher from finding evidence for the moderation. Jiang and colleagues (2014) proposed the
interaction effect of leadership and HR practices on employee and organizational outcomes (Jiang
et al., 2014). They found that when service-oriented HPWS were low, service leadership was more
positively related to collective customer knowledge and service climate, than when serviceoriented HPWS were high (Jiang et al., 2014). In line with these results and the substitutes for
leadership theory (Kerr, 1977; Kerr & Jermier, 1978), this study revealed HIWS as a more
important indicator for job satisfaction than empowerment oriented leadership. In presence of
HIWS, the influence of empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction became weaker. This
can be explained by the specific characteristics of the sample. Healthcare employees, including
nurses, are professionals, and HIWS give them the opportunity and responsibility to determine
their own outcomes. For example, employees work in self-regulated teams, perform self rostering,
and respond to ongoing changes in healthcare. This decreases the influence of empowerment
oriented leadership on employee outcomes, including job satisfaction, because these employees
are professionals and are already responsible for their work. Based on the vitamin model (Warr,
1987; 2007), power lead to positive employee outcomes up to a certain point. The fact that
empowerment oriented leadership was less positively related to job satisfaction in presence of
HIWS, might indicate that employees already achieved that certain point. In this way, the power
element within HIWS cancels the influence of leadership out. Though, no significant effect was
found for the interaction between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership. More research is
needed to investigate this effect.
Study limitations
Limitations of the study exist in methodological issues regarding the sample and procedure
of this study. The cross sectional data of this study do not reveal information of the influence of
HIWS and empowerment on job satisfaction and absence frequency over time. In addition, the
small numbers of participants (N = 97), might have caused that no evidence was found for
hypotheses 3, 4 and 5, and that small correlations were found with absence frequency. Most
participants in this study were female. In addition, healthcare workers have specific characteristics.
For example, most employees in healthcare are professionals in their job, which can impact the
influence of supervisors on their behavior. In addition, healthcare workers are closely involved
26
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
with clients and colleagues, which can influence absence frequency, because they can experience
the responsibility to be at work. This decreases the external validity of this research to other sectors.
Additionally, this study resulted in data which are specific for the nursing homes included. To
increase the generalizability of results, a larger sample resulting from several organizations or
sectors is needed. Sources of bias could have appeared because the questionnaire was a selfreported questionnaire, which can lead to social desirable answers or information bias. In addition,
it is possible that only employees with less absence frequency and higher levels of satisfaction
participated in this study. The questionnaire was online for only three weeks. Therefore, employees
on holiday or sick leave were excluded from research.
Limitations in the questionnaire were identified after collecting data. The questionnaire did
not include open-ended questions, which had provided more insight. For example, more insight
could be provided in other (work-)related factors, beside job satisfaction, that influence absence
frequency. In addition, some participants indicated that they had several leaders, and differences
in leadership style between leaders existed as well. For example, self rostering and self-regulated
teams were not implemented equally across the locations. Additionally, participants indicated after
filling out the questionnaire that they experienced difficulties with the information-statements
regarding communications with the higher management, because they were not aware of these
communications. The experience of performance-based rewards remained low among the
participants. In examining the data in detail, it turned out that participants experienced moderate
to high levels of recognition and appreciation but that they usually did not experience promotion
or an increase in salary when they perform well. This can be explained by the fact that healthcare
workers receive appreciation from colleagues and clients, but materialistic rewards are not
common. Therefore, the reward subscale was less applicable in healthcare. Training and
knowledge were experienced as high in the healthcare organization. This corresponds to the
organizational culture of the healthcare organization as a learning organization, because the
healthcare organization provides internships to students and trainings to their employees. The
specific results in the healthcare sector lead to less external validity.
27
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Conclusion
HIWS were significantly positive related to job satisfaction, and empowerment
oriented leadership had a marginal positive effect on job satisfaction. The mediating role of job
satisfaction and the interaction effect between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership on job
satisfaction could not be supported. This study provided new insights in the potential mediating
role of job satisfaction, and the potential interaction effect between HIWS and empowerment
oriented leadership, but further research is needed.
Recommendations for future research
Based on the analysis and interpretation of the study results, recommendations can be
provided for future research. First, the potential mediating role of job satisfaction in the
relationship between HIWS and absence frequency, and empowerment oriented leadership and
absence frequency is worth to investigate in future to broaden the knowledge regarding HIWS and
empowerment oriented leadership in organizations. This will provide starting points for
occupational health management in practice. Previous research indicated a significant relation
between job satisfaction and absence duration (e.g. Notenbomer et al., 2006; Roelen et al., 2008),
possibly job satisfaction might be a mediator in the relationship between HIWS or empowerment
oriented leadership and absence duration. In addition, the post-predictive design in this study
should be replaced by measuring absence after one year, to examine the effect of predicting
variables over time. Second, other predictors, including job stress, might be a better predictor for
absenteeism (e.g. Leontaridi & Ward, 2002). Therefore, future research can investigate the
mediating role of job stress in the relationship between HIWS and absence frequency, and
empowerment oriented leadership and absence frequency. In addition, job satisfaction is strongly
related to job stress (e.g. Zangaro & Soeken, 2007). Therefore, it is interesting to investigate the
mediating effect of job satisfaction in the relationship between HIWS and job stress, and
empowerment oriented leadership and job stress. Third, the interaction between HR practices and
leadership style is underrepresented in research and should receive more attention. Building upon
the substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr, 1977; Kerr & Jermier, 1978), and the vitamin model
(Warr, 1987; 2007), HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership interact negatively with each
other, because overlap exists between the PIRK attributes, and the provision of power is favorable
28
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
up to a certain point. In this study, no evidence was found for the interaction between HIWS and
empowerment oriented leadership on job satisfaction. Though, it was indicated that in presence of
HIWS, empowerment oriented leadership was no longer related to job satisfaction. The small
sample size of this study might have prevented to find evidence. Future research should focus on
the interaction effect between HR practices and leadership style to get more insight into their effect
on employee and organizational outcomes. Last, the target population in this study was very
specific, future research could find evidence for the hypotheses in investigating the profit sector.
In addition, it is interesting to compare the non-profit with the profit sector, because of differences
in characteristics of participants, supervisors and organizations.
Practical implications
Healthy workplaces and improving sustainable employability are increasingly important
for organizations. HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership are positively associated with job
satisfaction, and job satisfaction is, based on previous research, related to absenteeism. Managers
need to take into account the opportunities to influence both HR practices and leadership style in
a way to foster job satisfaction and sustainable employability. Conditions of work attendance
should be increased by focusing on the concepts of power, information, rewards, and knowledge
to improve employee satisfaction. In addition, HIWS appeared to be more important in predicting
job satisfaction than empowerment oriented leadership. Therefore, organizations should consider
the implementation of HIWS in developing and maintaining a healthy workplace. Based on this
research, no evidence was found for the interaction effect, but understanding the relationship
between HIWS and empowerment oriented leadership is important in managing job satisfaction
and sustainable employability. Possibly a negative effect may appear, indicating that when HIWS
are low or not present, empowerment oriented leadership is needed in order to increase job
satisfaction.
29
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park: Sage
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., de Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job
resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 62, 341 – 356. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1
Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W. B., Sixma, H., Bosveld, W., & van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Patient
demands, lack of reciprocity, and burnout: A five-year longitudinal study among general
practitioners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 425-441. 10.1002/(SICI)10991379(200006)21:4<425::AID-JOB21>3.0.CO;2-#
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(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
Barrow, P. (2013). 8 Hidden reasons for workplace absenteeism. Retrieved from:
https://knowledgeresources.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/8-hidden-reasons-for-workplaceabsenteeism-2/
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Beehr, T. A., & Gupta, N. (1978). A note on the structure of employee withdrawal.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 73-79. doi:10.1016/00305073(78)90040-5
Berkhout A. J. M. B., Boumans N. P. G., van Breukelen G. P. J., Huijer Abu-Saad H., &
Nijhuis F. J. N. (2004). Resident-oriented care in nursing homes: Effects on nurses.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45, 1–12. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02956.x
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: J. Wiley.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems:
Progressing the high involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1),
3–23. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2008.00082.x
30
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2011). High-involvement work processes in New Zealand: A briefing
paper for HR practitioners. New Zealand Journal of Human Resource Management,
11(1), 40-44. Retrieved from http://www.nzjhrm.org.nz/Site/Articles/2011_Folder/
2011.aspx
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and Human Resource Management. New York and
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ltd.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burton, J. (2010). WHO healthy workplace framework and model: Background and supporting
literature and practices. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Wilson, M. G. (2009).
Individual reactions to high involvement work processes: Investigating the role of
empowerment and perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 14(2), 122–136. doi:10.1037/a0014114
Cascio, W. F. (1999). Costing Human Resources: The financial impact of behavior in
organizations. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA: South-Western College Pub
Centraal
Bureau
voor
de
Statistiek
(2014a).
Arbeidsongeschiktheid
en
ziekteverzuim: Arbeidsongeschiktheid stabiel. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/nlNL/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/arbeidsmarkt-vogelvlucht/kortetermijn-ontw/2006-arbeidsmarkt-vv-ao-zv-art.htm
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2015). Kosten ziekteverzuim. Retrieved from
http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/methoden/toelichtingen/alfabet/k/kostenziekteverzuim.htm
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2014b). Standaard onderwijsindeling 2006, editie 2013/’14.
Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek
31
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Cohen, A., & Golan, R. (2007). Predicting absenteeism and turnover intentions by past
absenteeism and work attitudes: An empirical examination of female employees in long
term nursing care facilities. Career Development International, 12, 416-432.
doi:10.1108/13620430710773745
Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and
health: A meta-analysis. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 62, 105112. doi:10.1136/oem.2002.006734
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Social
Review, 25, p. 161-178. Retrieved from jstor.org/stable/2092623.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Koopman, P. L., & den Hartog, D. N. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de
CLIO: een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag &
Organisatie, 17(5), 354-382. Retrieved from http://www.boomlemmatijdschriften.nl/
tijdschrift/GenO/2004/5/GenO_2004_017_005_008
Den Hartog, D. N. (1997). Inspirational Leadership. Doctoral dissertation, Amsterdam: Vrije
Universiteit.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory.
Organizational
behavior
and
human
performance,
16(2),
250-279.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hanna, A. S., Menches, C. L., Sullivan, K. T. & Sargent, J. R. (2005). Factors affecting
absenteeism in electrical construction. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 131(11), 1212-1218. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:11(1212)
Hensing, G., Alexanderson, K. Alleback, P., & Bjurulf, P. (1998). How to measure sickness
absence? Literature review and suggestion of five basic measures. Scandinavian Journal
of Social Medicine, 26(2), 133–144. doi:10.1177/14034948980260020201
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois:
University
Press.
32
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Ichino, A., & Moretti, E. (2009). Biological gender differences, absenteeism, and the earnings
gap. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 183–218. doi:10.3386/
w12369
Jiang, K., Chuang, C.-H., & Chiao, Y.-C. (2014). Developing collective customer
knowledge and service climate: The interaction between service-oriented
high-performance work systems and service leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
no pagination specified. doi:10.1037/apl0000005
Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Keiffer, C. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in Human
Services, 3, 9-35. doi:10.1300/J293v03n02_03
Kerr, S. (1977). Substitutes for leadership: Some implications for organizational design.
Organization and Administrative Sciences, 8, 135–146.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22, 375–403. doi:10.1016/00305073(78)90023-5
Konczak, L. J., Stelly, D. J., & Trusty, M. L. (2000), “Defining and measuring empowering
leader behaviors: Development of an upward feedback instrument”. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 60 (2), 301-313. doi:10.1177/00131640021970420
Lautizi, M., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Ravazzolo, S. (2009). Workplace empowerment, job
satisfaction and job stress among Italian mental health nurses: An exploratory
Journal of Nursing Management, 17(4), 446–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
study.
2834.2009.
00984.x
Lawler, E. E. III. (1986). High involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E. III. (1996). From the ground up: Six principles for building the new logic
corporation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leontaridi, R. M., & Ward, M. E. (2002). Work-related stress, quitting intentions and
absenteeism. Bonn: IZA Discussion Papers.
33
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Lusinyan, L., & Bonato, L. (2007). Work absence in Europe. IMF Staff Papers, 54(3), 475-538.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.imfsp.9450016
Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2008). High-involvement work processes, work intensification and
employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources, 46(1), 38-55. doi: 10.1177/1038411107086542.
Manojlovich, M., & Spence Laschinger, H. K. (2002). The relationship of empowerment and
selected personality characteristics to nursing job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing
Administration, 32(11), 586-595. doi:10.1097/00005110-200211000-00006
Menon, S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach.
International Association of Applied Psychology, 50(1), 153-180. doi:10.1111/14640597.00052
Northouse, P. P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
Notenbomer, A., Roelen, C. A., & Groothoff, J. W. (2006). Job satisfaction and short-term
sickness absence among Dutch workers. Occupational Medicine, 56(4), 279-281.
doi:10.1093/occmed/kql031
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pantelidis, I. S. (2014). The Routledge handbook of hospitality management. London:
Routledge.
Riordan, C. M., Vandenberg, R. J, & Richardson, H. A. (2005). Employee involvement and
organizational effectiveness: An organizational system perspective. Human Resource
Management, 44(4), 471-488. doi:10.1002/hrm.20085
Robbins, P. S. (2003). Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
34
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Roelen, C. A., Koopmans, P. C., Notenbomer, A., & Groothoff, J. W. (2008). Job satisfaction
and sickness absence: a questionnaire survey. Occupational Medicine, 58(8), 567-571.
doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn113
Siegrist, J. (2005). Social reciprocity and health: New scientific evidence and policy
implications. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 1033-1038. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.
03.017
Siu, O.-L. (2002). Predictors of job satisfaction and absenteeism in two samples of Hong Kong
nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(2), 218–229. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.
02364.x
Spector, P. E. (1997). Advanced topics in organization behavior: Job satisfaction: Application,
assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The impact Of high
involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness. Group & Organization
Management, 24(3), 300-339. doi:10.1177/1059601199243004
Van der Ploeg, K., van der Pal, S., de Vroome, E., & van den Bossche, S. (2014). De kosten van
ziekteverzuim voor werkgevers in Nederland. Leiden: TNO.
Van Veldhoven M., & Broersen S. (2003). Measurement quality and validity of the ‘need for
recovery scale’. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60, 3–9. doi:10.1136/
oem.60.suppl_1.i3.
Van Veldhoven M., & Meijman T. F. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting
met een vragenlijst: de Vragenlijst Beleving en Beoordeling van de Arbeid (VBBA).
Amsterdam: NIA.
Van de Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee well‐being and the
HRM–organizational performance relationship: A review of quantitative studies.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 391-407. doi:10.1111/j.14682370.2011.00322.x
35
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252. doi:10.1037/00219010.82.2.247
Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warr, P. B. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction; Separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194.
doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00045-1
Wood, S. (2008). High involvement management, employee well-being & organizational
performance. Swindon: ESRC.
Wood, S. (2010). ‘High involvement management and performance’, in A. Wilkinson, P. J.
Gollan, M. Marchington and D. Lewin (eds), The Oxford handbook of participation
in organizations, 407-26. Oxford: Oxford University.
Wood, S., & de Menezes, L. M. (2011). High involvement management, high-performance work
systems and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22(7), 1586-1610. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.561967
Wood, S., van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M., & de Menezes, L. M. (2012). Enriched job design,
high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating roles
of job satisfaction and well-being. Human Relations, 65(4), 419-446. doi:10.1177/
0018726711432476
Ybema, J. F., Smulders, P. G. W., & Bongers, P. M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of
employee absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and
burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 102-124.
doi:10.1080/13594320902793691
Zangaro, G. A., & Soeken, K. L. (2007). A meta-analysis of studies of nurses' job satisfaction.
Research in Nursing and Health, 30(4), 445-458. doi:10.1002/nur.20202
36
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Appendices
Appendix A. Questionnaire items
Demographics
1 Age [Number]
2 Gender (female/male)
3 Education
-
Lower: basic education vmbo, first three years of havo/vwo, mbo 1 (vbo, lbo, ulo, mulo,
mavo))
-
Middle: havo, vwo, mbo 2, mbo 3, mbo 4
-
Higher: hbo-, wo-bachelor, hbo-, wo-master)
4 Living situation
-
Multiperson household with children at home
-
Multiperson household without children at home
-
Only parent with children at home
-
One person household
-
Other
Job characteristics
1. Work location
-
Location A
-
Location B
-
Location C
2. Job function
-
Care and wellbeing: e.g. verzorgende, helpende, verpleegkundige, zorgassistent(e),
activiteitenbegeleid(st)er, gastvrouw of heer
-
Horeca and Facilitair (H&F): e.g. receptionist(e), technische dienst, huishoudelijk of
horeca medewerk(st)er
-
Management: e.g. teammanager, ondersteunend medewerker manager
-
Human Resources
-
Other
37
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
3. Job contract
-
Full time (>34 hours a week)
-
Parttime (<35 hours a week)
-
Call worker
-
Student)
4. Working hours [Number]
5. Workload
1 = Never
2 = Sometimes
3 = Often
4 = Always
1. Do you have too much work to do?
2. Do you have to work extra hard in order to complete something?
3. Do you have to hurry?
4. Do you find that you are behind in your work activities?
5. Do you have problems with the work pace?
6. Do you have problems with the work pressure?
High involvement work systems (HIWS)
1 = strongly
disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neither agree
nor disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
1. Participative Decision Making / Power
1. I have sufficient authority to fulfill my job responsibilities.
2. I have enough input in deciding how to accomplish my work.
3. I have enough freedom over how I do my job.
2. Information Sharing
4. Company goals and objectives are clearly communicated to employees.
5. The channels for employee communication with top management are effective.
6. Top management is adequately informed of the important issues in my department.
7. Company policies and procedures are clearly communicated to employees.
8. I often have to rely on the grapevine to get job-related information (reverse).
38
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
9. Most of the time I receive sufficient notice of changes affecting my work group.
3. Performance-Based Rewards
10. I am satisfied with the amount of recognition I receive when I do a good job.
11. Generally I feel this company rewards employees who make an extra effort.
12. There is a strong link between how well I perform my job and the likelihood of receiving
a raise in pay/salary.
13. There is a strong link between how well I perform my job and the likelihood of receiving
high performance appraisal ratings.
14. If I perform well, I am more likely to be promoted.
4. Training
15. I receive sufficient training to do my job.
16. Education and training are integral parts of this company’s culture.
17. I have had sufficient/adequate job-related training.
18. If I felt that I needed more job-related training, the company would provide it.
Empowerment oriented leadership
Hieronder vind je een aantal uitspraken over leiderschap. Geef voor iedere uitspraak aan in
hoeverre deze jouw directe leidinggevende weergeeft. Daarvoor omcirkel je één van de cijfers 1
t/m 7 die achter de uitspraken staan.
1 = helemaal
niet mee eens
2 = niet mee
eens
3 = meer niet
dan wel mee
eens
4 = midden
5 = meer wel
dan niet mee
eens
6 = mee eens
7 = helemaal
mee eens
1. Mijn leidinggevende praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen belangrijk is.
2. Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na te
denken.
3. Mijn leidinggevende heeft visie en een beeld van de toekomst.
39
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
4. Mijn leidinggevende is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de organisatie.
5. Mijn leidinggevende moedigt medewerkers aan om onafhankelijk te denken.
6. Mijn leidinggevende is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen.
7. Mijn leidinggevende betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk.
8. Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te ontwikkelen.
9. Mijn leidinggevende geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een belangrijke, gemeenschappelijke
missie/opdracht te werken.
10. Mijn leidinggevende laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en
waarden.
11. Mijn leidinggevende delegeert uitdagende verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers.
Job satisfaction
How satisfied are you with your current job? [Number: 1-10]
Absence frequency
How often were you absent from work in the past twelve months? [Number]
40
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Appendix B. Characteristics of the participants involved in this study
Variables
Total
(N = 97)
Demographics
Age (18-64)1; mean(SD)
44.65(12.45)
Gender, female; N(%)
85(87.6)
Education level2; N(%)
Lower
Middle
Higher
Living situation; N(%)
Multi person household with children at home
Multi person household without children at home
One person household
Only parent with children at home
Other
Employment characteristics
15(15.5)
67(69.1)
15(15.5)
49(50.5)
26(26.8)
8(8.2)
8(8.2)
6(6.2)
Work site; N(%)
Location A
48(49.5)
Location B
23(23.7)
Location C
26(26.8)
Job function; N(%)
Care and Wellbeing
64(66.0)
Horeca and Facilitair
19(19.6)
Other3
14(14.4)
Job contract; N(%)
Fulltime
11(11.3)
Parttime
78(80.4)
Other4
8(8.2)
Working Hours (3-45)1; mean(SD)
25.98(7.37)
1
Minimum and maximum value
Lower: basic education, vmbo, the first three years of havo/vwo, mbo 1 (vbo, lbo, ulo, mulo, mavo); Middle: havo, vwo, mbo 2, mbo 3, mbo 4;
Higher: hbo-, wo-bachelor, hbo-, wo-master
3
Management, 7(7.4%), Human Resources, 3(3.2%), and ‘Other’, 3(3.2%)
4
Call worker, 4(4.2%), and Student, 4(4.2%)
2
41
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Appendix C. Factor analyses
Table 1.
PCA High involvement work systems scale*
Subscale/statistics
Factor 1
Participative Decision Making / Power
.73
Information Sharing
.81
Performance-based Rewards
.62
Training / Knowledge
.77
Eigenvalue
2.16
Explained variance (%)
54.0
KMO
.72
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
.000
Method: Principal Component Analysis
*calculated by averaging the four subscales: Power, Information, Performance-based Rewards and Knowledge/Training.
Table 2.
PCA Participative Decision Making subscale
Item/statistics
Factor 1
I have sufficient authority to fulfill my job responsibilities
.82
I have enough input in deciding how to accomplish my work
.90
I have enough freedom over how I do my job
.76
Eigenvalue
2.05
Explained variance (%)
68.5
KMO
.63
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
.000
Method: Principal Component Analysis
42
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Table 3.
PCA Information Sharing subscale, forced one factor
Item/statistics
Factor 1
Company goals and objectives are clearly communicated to
employees
.61
The channels
management
top
.72
Top management is adequately informed of the important issues
in my department
.79
Company policies and procedures are clearly communicated to
employees
.74
I often have to rely on the grapevine to get job-related
information (reverse)
.49
Most of the time I receive sufficient notice of changes affecting
my work group
.56
for employee
are effective
communication
with
Eigenvalue
2.62
Explained variance (%)
43.7
KMO
.75
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
.000
Method: Principal Component Analysis
Table 4.
PCA Performance-based Rewards subscale
Item/statistics
Factor 1
I am satisfied with the amount of recognition I receive when I do
a good job
.58
Generally I feel this company rewards employees who make an
extra effort
.70
There is a strong link between how well I perform my job and
the likelihood of receiving a raise in pay/salary
.63
There is a strong link between how well I perform my job and
the likelihood of receiving high performance appraisal ratings.
.72
If I perform well, I am more likely to be promoted
.60
Eigenvalue
2.10
Explained variance (%)
42.0
43
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
KMO
.67
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
.000
Method: Principal Component Analysis
Table 5.
PCA Training subscale
Item/statistics
Factor 1
I receive sufficient training to do my job
.83
Education and training are integral parts of this company’s
culture
.80
I have had sufficient/adequate job-related training
.72
If I felt that I needed more job-related training, the company
would provide it
.64
Eigenvalue
2.99
Explained variance (%)
74.8
KMO
.83
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
.000
Method: Principal Component Analysis
Table 6.
PCA Charismatic and Empowerment oriented leadership scale (CLIO subscale)
Item/statistics
Factor 1
Mijn leidinggevende praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen
belangrijk is
.72
Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe
manieren over problemen na te denken
.86
Mijn leidinggevende heeft visie en een beeld van de toekomst
.81
Mijn leidinggevende is altijd op
mogelijkheden voor de organisatie
.85
Mijn leidinggevende moedigt
onafhankelijk te denken
zoek
naar
medewerkers
nieuwe
aan
om
.88
44
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Mijn leidinggevende is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken
voor zijn/haar plannen
.88
Mijn leidinggevende betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van
belang zijn voor hun werk
.83
Mijn leidinggevende stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo
goed mogelijk te ontwikkelen
.85
Mijn leidinggevende geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een
belangrijke, gemeenschappelijke missie/opdracht te werken
.86
Mijn leidinggevende laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar
idealen, opvattingen en waarden
.86
Mijn
leidinggevende
delegeert
verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers
.81
uitdagende
Eigenvalue
7.74
Explained variance (%)
70.3
KMO
.92
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
.000
Method: Principal Component Analysis
Table 7.
PCA Workload
Item/statistics
Factor 1
Do you have too much work to do?
.71
Do you have to work extra hard in order to complete something?
.84
Do you have to hurry?
.77
Do you find that you are behind in your work activities?
.77
Do you have problems with the work pace?
.77
Do you have problems with the work pressure?
.69
Eigenvalue
3.47
Explained variance (%)
57.8
KMO
.77
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
.000
Method: Principal Component Analysis
45
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Appendix D. Distribution of variables
Table 1.
Characteristics of the initial variable of absence frequency (N = 94)
Absence frequency
Mean(SD)
Minimum/
Maximum
Skewness
Kurtosis
1.15(1.86)
0-10
3.02
10.72
Figure 1. Distribution of the initial variable absence frequency
46
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Table 2.
Characteristics of the square root variable of absence frequency (N = 94)
Absence frequency square
root
Mean(SD)
Minimum/
Maximum
Skewness
Kurtosis
.75(.77)
0-3.16
.89
.67
Figure 2. Distribution of absence frequency with a square root transformation
47
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Table 3.
Characteristics of the variable job satisfaction (N = 94)
Job satisfaction
Mean(SD)
Minimum/
Maximum
Skewness
Kurtosis
7.87(1.03)
4-10
-.65
2.28
Figure 3. Distribution of job satisfaction
48
M. M. H. van Vugt, 961336
Appendix E. One-Way ANOVA for HIWS, empowerment oriented leadership, and job
satisfaction by work location
Table 1
One-Way ANOVA for HIWS by work location
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sign.
Between groups
2.00
2
1.00
6.67
.00
Within groups
14.11
94
.15
Total
16.11
96
Table 2
One-Way ANOVA for empowerment oriented leadership by work location
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sign.
Between groups
13.75
2
6.87
9.48
.00
Within groups
68.14
94
.73
Total
81.88
96
Table 3
One-Way ANOVA for job satisfaction by work location
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sign.
Between groups
3.84
2
1.92
1.85
.16
Within groups
94.63
91
1.04
Total
98.47
93
49