To what extent is the effect of locus of control on job satisfaction
mediated by learning activities and social learning context, and
moderated by supervisor support?
Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
Student:
Madara Odzina
ANR:
494357
E-mail:
m.odzina@tilburguniversity.edu
Supervisor:
Rob Poell
Second reader: Christina Meyers
Project Period: February 2014 – August 2015
Project Theme: Professional development
Preface
I truly believe that in today’s fast changing world one of the factors for success is
learning. If you want to develop yourself and stay employable, you need to focus on
your professional development.
“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that
what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” (William Pollard)
Writing the thesis was not an easy task to combine next to the full time job.
Therefore, I would like to thank Rob Poell for his guidance and feedback, Christina
Meyers for her constructive feedback and fellow student Elsa Ros Smaradottir for her
support. Finally, I would like to say big thank you to my mother and my partner for their
love, encouragement and faith in me.
1
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate to what extent the effect of LOC on job
satisfaction is mediated by learning activities and social learning context. Furthermore,
to what extent supervisor support moderates the effect of LOC on learning activities. A
quantitative research design was used in order to collect and analyze data which
consisted of 149 employees. The findings of present study demonstrate that not all
hypothesized associations were confirmed. The findings showed that there is a positive
relationship between learning activities and learning context. Furthermore, employees
who score higher on LOC engage with more diverse interaction partners for their
purposes to acquire more knowledge. The study does offer interesting avenues for the
future research.
2
Introduction
Fast technological changes, globalization and increased customer demands
have forced organizations to become more agile. One approach on how to deal with
these changes is to create a flexible and employable workforce (van Dam, 2004).
Therefore, in today’s competitive labor market, employability and learning are the center
of attention (Garsten & Jacobsson, 2004). Employees are expected to take their
professional development into their own hands. Nowadays, employees do that by
organizing their learning based on their own ideas and interests (Poell & van der Krogt,
2010). Previous research has described that there are several learning activities that
employees might engage in (Collin, 2002; Berings et al., 2008). Thus, employees
choose which learning activities to participate in. This study will use the Learning
Network Theory (LNT) to describe the way learning is organized in the context of work
organizations (Poell, 1998).
Previous research has demonstrated that the intentions to learn can be
influenced by personality (van Dam, 2004). There are many personality traits that might
affect employees’ intentions to learn. This study looks closer on one personality trait –
locus of control (LOC), which describes whether a person sees the future as dependent
on their behavior or external forces. The study explores whether LOC influences with
whom employee learns – social learning context – and his/her engagement in different
learning activities. Social learning context plays an important role as employees also
decide with whom to share and learn together in order to develop themselves,
professionally.
In today’s market the job satisfaction has become an important objective for
organizations (Society for Human Resource Management, 2012). Job satisfaction
represents individual’s evaluation of his/her job and work context (Spector, 1997). In the
literature it is often distinguished between situational (job characteristics) and
dispositional (personal features of an individual) factors (Spector, 1997) of job
satisfaction. The personality of an employee might influence work-related attitudes, like
job satisfaction (Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006). This study explores whether personality
trait, LOC, influence employee’s job satisfaction. Next to that, in the context when there
is an increased emphasize to individual responsibility for learning and development, the
3
learning in which employee engage might be a factor that influence job satisfaction
(Society for Human Resource Management, 2012).
The work environment can also influence the relationship between personality of
an employee and engagement in learning. For instance, supervisor support could
influence employee motivation to learn (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). Furthermore,
supervisor support is a factor that can be a key determinant of an employee
participation in learning activities (Colquitt et al., 2000, Noe, 1996). This study explores
whether supervisor support influences the relationship between LOC and employee
engagement in learning activities.
The aim of this research is to contribute to research done on the learning
activities in which employees participate. This study is the first study to link other
variable with the learning activities construct used in this study. Furthermore, it aims to
contribute to scarce evidence about social learning context. To do so, this study
investigates a number of specific relationships on data set collected specifically for this
study in different companies and countries. This study explores on an individual level
how LOC indirectly affects job satisfaction through learning activities and social learning
context. Furthermore, the study investigates how supervisor support influences the
effect of LOC on learning activities. These variables are related to each other for the
first time. Consequently, following research question is presented:
To what extent does locus of control affect job satisfaction through learning
activities and social learning context, and to what extent does supervisor support
moderate the effect of locus of control on learning activities?
This study has theoretical implications as it contributes to the literature by
extending the validation of the learning activities scale created by Berings, Gelissen and
Poell (2008), using the classification to study different professions than nurses.
Furthermore, it will contribute to the Learning Network Theory (LNT) as there is limited
empirical evidence to support this theory. Moreover, the study will contribute to clarify
personal and contextual factor relationships with learning at the workplace of an
individual (Lohman, 2005). Next to that, results of the study intend to support employees
and HRD professionals. The evidence of employees engaging in learning activities can
4
serve as an awareness that can allow employees to operate more strategically
regarding their professional development. Results can also be highly relevant to HRD
professionals as they influence what and how employees learn.
The following section presents the theoretical framework in which all concepts –
locus of control, learning activities, social learning context, supervisor support and job
satisfaction are defined and explained. Then the relationships between the variables are
briefly explained. Finally, the methods and results will be discussed. At the end the
discussion and conclusion will be presented.
Theoretical Framework
Learning Network Theory
One of the theoretical foundations of this study is the LNT which will be
introduced first. The LNT describes the way learning is organized in companies (Poell,
1998). It acknowledges employees as central actors who organize their learning on the
basis of their ideas and interests. Employees are able to influence their professional
development by creating a learning path (Poell & van der Krogt, 2013a). Employees are
engaging in development activities continuously. They can gain relevant experiences for
their professional development in various ways, like doing their daily job, interacting with
other actors in the organization and participating in education programs (Poell & van der
Krogt, 2010; 2013b). A combination of meaningful learning experiences and activities
forms an employee learning path (Poell & van der Krogt, 2010). Van der Krogt (as cited
in Poell & van der Krogt, 2013a) has proposed that a learning path consists of four
elements: learning theme (what an employee is learning about), learning activities (how
an employee is learning), social learning context (with whom an employee is learning)
and learning facilities (means of support from the organization experienced by
employee in their learning path). This study will focus on learning activities and social
learning context to better understand employees’ professional development and how it
influence employees’ job satisfaction. This study will combine the two elements as there
is empirical evidence about learning activities while research about social learning
context is scarce. Furthermore, the study will contribute to current research by focusing
5
on the relationship between the personality and learning activities and social learning
context, which has not been done in previous research.
Locus of control
Researchers have observed that the personality of a person plays an essential
role at work (Ng et al., 2006). One of these traits is locus of control (LOC), which can be
described as the extent to which individuals believe that their future is dependent on
their own behavior or it is controlled by external forces (Ng et al., 2006; Rotter, 1966).
Rotter (1966) makes a distinction between internal and external LOC. Individuals with
an internal LOC believe that their fate is determined by their own behavior; they see
change as a function of their actions. ‘Internals’ often expose alertness and confidence
while controlling their external environment. They act and regard themselves as ones
who are in control of their future. Moreover, internals often see the strong link between
their actions and consequences (Judge & Bono, 2001; Ng et al., 2006; Rotter, 1966;
Spector, 1982). In contrast, individuals with an external LOC believe that their future is a
function of fate, powerful others, chance, and other external factors. On the other hand,
‘externals’ believe that their fate does not depend on their actions. They perceive
themselves in a passive role and regard themselves as having no direct control of their
future (Ng et al., 2006; Rotter, 1966; Spector, 1982). For the purpose of the study we
will talk about internals such as scoring high on LOC and while externals are those
scoring low on LOC.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction can be considered a global feeling of individuals about their job;
the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their job and enjoy working in their
organization (Spector, 1997). Aspects related to the job, as well as the job environment
can influence job satisfaction. This involves the relationship with colleagues, how
employees are treated at the workplace and characteristics of job tasks. Furthermore,
individual factors that a person brings to work can also influence job satisfaction. These
consist of both an individual’s personality and previous experience (Spector, 1997).
Even though many traits have shown to correlate significantly with job satisfaction,
6
major attention has been given to LOC. It seems to act as a part in the development of
job satisfaction (Spector, 1997).
Beliefs about control of the external environment can have an effect on work
attitudes. Spector (1982) suggests that individuals with internal LOC should be more job
satisfied than those with external LOC. Internals are more likely to take an action when
they are dissatisfied with their current situation, which means that if an individual is not
satisfied with the job he/she is likely to leave the job. In turn, this means that if the
person with an internal LOC is not leaving the job then he/she has evaluated the work
situation as favorable (Spector, 1982). This positive evaluation of the work situation
should be associated with positive feelings about the work environment such as being
more satisfied with one’s job (Ng et al., 2006). More recently, Judge and Bono (2001)
concluded that LOC was a significant predictor related to job satisfaction and job
performance. In addition, Ng, Sorensen and Eby (2006) explain that internal LOC
positively relates to overall job satisfaction. Therefore, it is expected that employees
with an internal LOC will be more satisfied with their job than those with an external
LOC.
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between internal LOC and job
satisfaction.
Learning activities
Several studies have defined and categorized employees learning activities. For
instance, Koopmans, Doornbos and van Eekelen (2006) identified five general learning
activities: regular job, application of something new, information seeking, exchange of
information, and thinking about work. Collin (2002) distinguished six categories: learning
through doing the work itself, learning through cooperation and interaction with
colleagues, learning through the evaluation of work experience, learning through taking
over something new, learning through formal education, and learning from extra work
contexts. For the purpose of this study the classification made by Berings et al. (2008)
will be used. This classification is deemed most appropriate, as it is the most recent one;
it has been validated and has overcome overlaps that previous classifications had
(Berings et al., 2008). These authors have identified five learning activities:
7
Learning by doing one’s regular job– This activity involves learning by the execution of
daily tasks, contact with clients and helping others to learn (Berings et al., 2008).
Learning by applying something new in the job – This activity involves broadening one’s
tasks. Employees might do this by doing other people’s tasks and searching for new
situations (Berings et al., 2008). Next to that, employees might also engage in job
rotation, where the employee works in different departments within the organization or
execute a colleague’s job, for a short term, within their own department (Berings et al.,
2008).
Learning through social interaction – This learning activity occurs when shared
interaction between actors has a central role during cooperation and/or discussion (van
der Pol, 2011). Social interaction can occur through consulting colleagues and learning
from their experiences, asking for advice, giving feedback and considering issues at
team meetings (Collin, 2002; Berings et al., 2008).
Learning through theory – Learning through theory involves checking media, going to
conferences, participating in courses and workshops (Berings et al., 2008).
Learning through critical reflection – This type of learning activity involves employees
posing questions to themselves as well as to others. An employee’s reflection is needed
to change perspective (Berings, Poell & Simons, 2008). Employees can do that by
either engaging in single-loop learning, which involves examining actions leading to
results, or in double-loop learning, which allows examining underlying assumptions that
guide actions (Argyris & Schön, 1978).
For the purpose of this study all different learning activities mentioned above will be
treated as one variable – learning activities.
Research suggests that the relationship between LOC and the motivation to
learn is strong. This indicates that individuals with an internal LOC tend to have a higher
motivation to learn (Colquitt, Lepine & Noe, 2000), thus a higher participation in learning
activities. LOC can be seen as a personality trait that predicts the belief of an
individual’s ability to reach desirable goals and outcomes (Ng et al., 2006). Hence,
employees with an internal LOC believe that they have control over their achievement
and have more motivation to engage in learning activities than those with an external
LOC. Furthermore, individuals with an internal LOC are more likely to believe that their
8
effort will lead to a better professional development than those with an external LOC.
When employees participate in learning activities they develop professionally and are
most likely to feel better about themselves and about their job. Employees engaging in
learning activities are more likely to have positive work attitudes like job satisfaction.
Furthermore, the study of Johnson, Hong, Groth, & Parker (2011) has shown that there
is a clear association between learning and development activities and work attitudes,
like job satisfaction. Thus, employees with an internal LOC believe that the effort of
engaging in more learning activities will lead to professional development, in turn higher
job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Learning activities mediates the relationship between LOC and job
satisfaction.
Social learning context
Social learning context represents with whom employees are learning, interact
while engaging in learning activities (Poell & van der Krogt, 2003). As suggested earlier,
employees organize their professional development based on their views and interests.
Furthermore, employees, to a large extent, decide with whom they will share and
develop their knowledge (Poell & van der Krogt, 2003). Work-related learning can be
distinguished in direct and indirect learning with different partners (Doornbos, Bolhuis&
Simons, 2004). The common way of learning from others at work is through
collaboration and consultation with immediate colleagues. Beyond the immediate work
environment, individuals look for information and advice from other people within the
organization and from people outside the primary workplace, for instance, clients and
suppliers (Collin, 2002; Doornbos et. al., 2004). Interaction partners that are in a higher
hierarchical position in the organization are believed to improve employee learning, as
the employee with a higher position is simply more knowledgeable (Doornbos et. al.,
2004). Colleagues with a peer position can improve employees’ learning in several
ways, through discussion, reflection, evaluation and supervision (Doornbos et al., 2004;
Collin, 2004). Furthermore, research has also shown that an employee can learn from
his/her new colleagues and interns (Fuller & Unwin, 2004). This means that employees
can also learn from individuals who hold a lower position in the organizational hierarchy.
9
Finally, also people outside the primary workplace play a valuable role in work-related
learning. These people could be employees’ family members, friends, clients and
suppliers (Collin, 2002; Collin, 2004; Eraut, 2004). Based on the above presented
research findings about who might play a role in employee work-related learning, this
study will distinguish in social learning context between the following actors that can
influence learning within the workplace: (1) colleagues with a peer position, (2)
colleagues with a higher position, (3) colleagues with a lower position, and external
environment - (4) clients, (5) family and friends.
Research has emphasized the importance of social context for work-related
learning (Collin, 2002). Social interactions with different partners affect the acquisition of
new knowledge (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). For instance, working with clients involves
learning about new ideas that might arise from joint consultation between employees
and clients (Eraut, 2004). An employee’s daily job tasks might involve communicating
with clients (Berings et al., 2008). Furthermore, employees could also learn from
meetings, consultations and discussions with their colleagues (Collin, 2002).
Consequently, different learning activities involve interactions with different interaction
partners.
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between learning activities and
social learning context.
Employees with an internal LOC may be more active than externals in creating
and maintaining relationships with others. For instance, internal LOC is positively
related to social experiences including social integration and relationships with
supervisors (Ng et al., 2006). It could be said that internals are more socially successful
than externals and therefore enjoy more communication with others (Ng et al., 2006).
This means that individuals with an internal LOC are more likely to communicate with
different types of interaction partners than those who have an external LOC. Learning
together and interaction with different partners might make the employee experience
better attitudes towards his/her job. For instance, solving problems together with
colleagues will lay off stress as the employee will know he/she is not left alone to cope
with difficulties at work (Collin, 2002). Furthermore, employees need their peers,
10
subordinates and higher position colleagues to give opinions on their ideas. This will
allow employees to choose the best solutions to problems or the best way to do things
(Collin, 2002), in turn also relieve job stress. Research has found that job stress is
negatively related to job satisfaction (Fogarty, Machin, Albion, Sutherland, Lalor, &
Revitt, 1999). Therefore, it is assumed that interaction with more different partners while
learning might relieve stress and in turn influence one’s job satisfaction. There is scare
evidence in literature that relates these variables as this is first time these three
variables are linked together.
Hypothesis 4: Social learning context mediates the relationship between LOC
and job satisfaction.
Supervisor Support
Organizations need to promote a learning environment to support employees’
professional development. It has been stated that the promotion of workplace learning is
an essential task of managers (Ellström, 2012). Researchers have studied the influence
of the perceived presence of supervisor support on engagement in learning activities.
For instance, the study of Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd and Kundisch (1995)
showed a positive link between manager support and the motivation to learn. When
organizational support is present it might influence employee intentions to learn next to
employee’s personality role. Meaning the intentions to learn and engage in learning
activities might be stronger for employees with LOC when there is the presence of
supervisor support. Furthermore, the results of Colquitt, LePine and Noe’s (2000) metaanalysis revealed that supervisor support was positively related to the motivation to
learn. Moreover, Major, Turner and Fletcher (2006) found that there was a positive
relationship between motivation to learn and development activities. Based on the
above findings it can be concluded that supervisor support for the development of
employees might be a key aspect in the work context that facilitates employee
participation in professional development. Employees are likely to be more motivated to
engage in professional development activities if their manager is willing to have
discussions and help them with development and career related issues, as well as if the
manager supports them in setting professional development goals (Noe, 1996). Thus,
when an employee experiences supervisor support, he/she is more likely to participate
11
in more learning activities. For employees with LOC this means that their motivation to
participate in learning activities could increase as they have support from their
supervisor. Consequently, the relationship between internal LOC and engagement in
learning activities is likely to be stronger when supervisor support for professional
development within the organization exists.
Hypothesis 5: The positive effect of LOC on engagement in learning activities will
be affected by supervisor support, whereby the relationship will be stronger when there
is more supervisor support.
Control Variables
The control variables that are included in this study are age, gender, and position
and education level. Age has been chosen because research suggests that it is
negatively related to employee participation in career-related activities (Cleveland &
Shore, 1992). Gender has been chosen because research on gender and LOC has
reported inconsistent results (Itzhaky & Ribner, 1999; Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004).
Next to that, the results of Muhonen and Torkelson’s (2004) study indicate that LOC
was a significant predictor of job satisfaction for women only. Therefore, this indicates
that gender might influence the indirect effect of LOC on job satisfaction. Furthermore,
employee position has been chosen as past research suggests that employees in
technical/professional positions showed more developmental behavior than managers
(Noe, 1996). Finally, education level was chosen as Maurer, Weiss and Barbeite(2003)
associated this variable with learning activities.
12
Conceptual Model
All variables and relations that will be investigated in this study are illustrated in Figure 1.
Supervisor
Support
H5
H2
Locus of
Control
H4
Learning
Activities
H2
H3
H4
Job
satisfaction
Learning
Context
H1
Figure 1: Representation of the conceptual model of this study
Methods
Research Design
In order to test the conceptual model presented in Figure 1, a quantitative study
was conducted. The questionnaire for the purpose of this study was composed out of 4
validated scales, which cover the different concepts and two tailor made questions that
cover the social learning context concept. Furthermore, the questionnaire contained
more scales than ones used for this study. Since the data was collected at one moment
in time, the study is cross-sectional. Moreover, as relations between personality trait
and learning activities and social learning context have not been researched before, this
13
study has an exploratory nature. This study focused on the perceptions of employees
and for that reason individual level data was collected.
Procedure
The data was collected during the year 2014. The student researchers
communicated with the contact person of organizations and obtained approval for
distributing the questionnaire. Next, student researchers distributed electronic
questionnaires to organizations. In addition to the questionnaire, a cover letter was
included that explained the content and goals of the study as well as instructions on
how to complete the questionnaire. In the cover letter it was stated that participation in
the study was confidential and anonymous as researchers distributed and collected
questionnaires themselves. Furthermore, all respondents were informed about voluntary
participation. Once an employee gave the consent to participate only then did they
receive the questionnaire.
Population and sample
Data was gathered from three different organizations, two of them represented
fast-moving consumer goods industry (FMCG) and one transport industry. The sample
consisted of employees working in various departments, for example Human Resources,
Financial, Security and Marketing departments. For purpose of this study the
convenience sampling method was used. The sample included 149 employees working
within Netherlands and Latvia. The average age of the sample was 31.3 years (SD=
8.82), ranging from 21 to 63 years. From 149 respondents 29.5% were in managerial or
higher position, 61.7% were in non-managerial position, while rest 8.7% in other
position, like junior or graduated position. The sample consisted of 66.4% women and
33.6% men. With regard to education, 52.3% had University degree and 46.3%
completed high school/ secondary school.
Measurement
One scale was created for the study and four existing scales were used as
measures in this research. A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to
14
check construct validity as well as to check whether factor loadings identified the
dimensions found in previous research. In the PCA the rule was used – eigenvalue
should be greater than one. In order to check the reliability of the scales Cronbach’s α
was used. A scale was considered reliable when it had α> .70 (Pallant, 2010). Next to
that, in all cases attention was given to content validity to check if the item fit the scale
and measured variable well.
Locus of control was assessed with Lanchman and Weaver’s (1998) Sense of Control
scale. The scale consist of two subscales – Mastery (4 items) and Perceived constraints
(8 items). An example question was: “I can do just about anything I set my mind to”
(Mastery) and “I have little control over the things that happen to me” (Perceived
Constraints). The answer scale provided seven categories, from 1=’strongly disagree’ to
7=‘strongly agree’. The two subscales together measure one construct – LOC. Higher
scores on Mastery and on Perceived constraints reflect internal LOC; while lower scores
reflect external LOC. For both subscales PCA was performed and analysis identified
single factor solution referring to the rule that eigenvalue should be greater than one.
Cronbach’s α for Mastery subscale was .7 and for Perceived Constraints subscale was
.73.
Learning activities were assessed using Berings et al. (2008) 18-item scale. This scale
capture all different learning activities introduced in the theoretical framework in one
construct. An example question was: “I, as an employee, learn while performing my job”.
The answer scale provided four categories, ranging from 1= ‘never’ to 4= ‘always’.
Higher score reflects higher participation in learning activities. Cronbach’s α was .85.
Analysis showed a five factor model based on the rule of thumb.
Social learning context was assessed using two questions: “Who do you interact with
when you participate in learning activities” and “Who influences you when you
participate in learning activities”. Answer categories for both questions were following:
Colleagues with a peer position; colleagues with a higher position; colleagues with a
lower position; clients; family and friends; other. These questions were specifically
15
created for this study. To create a variable the scores were summed (the range was 06), higher score indicating more diverse learning context.
Supervisor Support was assessed using the 4-item scale by Rhoades, Eisenberger and
Armeli (2001), which refers to perceived supervisory support (PSS). This scale was
used in the present research as a check for the content validity of the items showed that
the scale is appropriate for the study purposes. An example question was: “My
supervisor strongly considers my goals and values”. The answer scale provided four
categories, ranging from 1=‘never’ to 4=‘always’. Higher score on perceived supervisor
support reflect more supervisor support. PCA identified single factor solution referring to
the rule and Cronbach’s α was .86.
Job satisfaction was assessed with the Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh (1979)
3-item scale. An example question was: “All in all I am satisfied with my job”. The
answer scale provided five categories, 1=’strongly disagree’ to 5=‘strongly agree’. The
lower score reflect higher job satisfaction. The PCA identified single factor solution
based on the rule and Cronbach’s α .89.
Control variables
Several control variables were included in this study to see if they contributed to
the prediction of learning activities, learning context and job satisfaction. Age is a
continuous variable and therefore was measured in years. Employee position was recoded into a dummy variable (1= managerial or higher position and 2= non-managerial
position, 3= other). Education level was re-coded into a dummy variable (1= high
school/ secondary school and 2=university degree, 3= other). Gender due to its
categorical nature was also measured with a dummy variable (1= male and 0= female).
Analysis of data
After data collection, the information was entered in the statistical data analysis
program SPSS version 20. Before execution of the PCA and reliability analyses the data
was checked for missing values, outliers and errors with the use of frequency and
16
descriptive tables (Pallant, 2010). The analysis did not reveal high numbers of
unexpected missing data for the research variables. To deal with these missing values
when performing statistical analysis the option pairwise exclusion was used. In order to
test hypotheses of this study sequential (also called hierarchical) regression analysis
was used to estimate the main effects, interactions, and the effects of control variables.
With this type of regression analysis the variables are entered into regression equation
one at a time in some order determined in advance by researcher (Pallant, 2010). In
order to test the mediation Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach of four steps was used.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and
correlations among all study variables. Results show that LOC was significantly
correlated with social learning context (r = .199, p < .05), indicating that internal LOC is
associated with more diverse learning context. Table 1 shows that supervisor support
was significantly correlated with job satisfaction, learning activities and social learning
context (r = .262, p < .01; r = .385, p < .01; r = .204, p < .05). Meaning that, higher
supervisor support can be associated with higher participation in learning activities as
well as more diverse learning context. The positive correlation between supervisor
support and job satisfaction means that higher supervisor support is associated with
higher job satisfaction. The results of the analysis did not show any other significant
correlations with job satisfaction. That in turn means that H1 is rejected as no significant
correlation was found between LOC and job satisfaction. Social learning context and
learning activities proved to be significantly correlated (r = .277, p < .01). This means
more diverse social learning context in associated with higher participation in learning
activities. Furthermore, gender had a negative significant association with learning
activities and LOC (r = -.282, p < .05; r = -.200, p < .05). Age, position and education
level were not correlated with any of the main variables in the study. As a result of that
and due to the small sample size, control variables were not included in the further
17
analyses as no significant correlations were found with both independent and
dependent variable - LOC and job satisfaction.
Table 1: Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
Job Satisfaction
2.623
1.010
2.
Learning Activities
2.511
.418
.065
3.
Learning Context
5.664
2.244
.008
.277**
4.
Supervisor Support
2.367
.465
.262**
.385**
.204*
5.
LOC
5.299
.651
.027
.043
.199*
-.010
6.
Gender a
.080
-.282*
-.122
-.047
-.200*
7.
Age
.157
.046
-.033
.001
-.050
-.029
8.
Position b
-.121
.016
-.023
-.006
.053
.010
9.
Educational level c
-.015
.115
.020
.163
.093
-.177*
31.30
8.818
7
8
.402**
.027
-.021
Note * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
a
Gender was coded 0(female) and 1(male)
b
Position was coded 1(managerial or higher position), 2(non-managerial position) and 3 (other)
c
Education level was coded 1(high school/secondary school) and 2(university degree)
Model test and hypotheses
The model that was tested had a LOC as an independent variable and job
satisfaction as a dependent variable, learning activities and social learning context as
mediator and supervisor support as a moderator. The conceptual model of this study
suggested the effect of LOC on job satisfaction, which was mediated by learning
activities and social learning context. Furthermore, the model suggested that the effect
of LOC on learning activities was affected by supervisor support.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that there is a positive relationship between LOC and job
satisfaction. Based on the results presented in Table 1,H1 was rejected, as the
correlation was not significant. No model test was executed to test this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that employees higher on LOC are likely to participate in
more learning activities, in turn that leads to higher job satisfaction of employees. To
test this mediation hypothesis the approach of the Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps
18
were used. In first step, job satisfaction was regressed on LOC, the relationship was
not significant (β = .027, p <.751). In second step, variable learning activities was
regressed on LOC, the relationship was not significant (β = .043, p <.615). In third step,
job satisfaction was regressed on learning activities and the results show that
relationship was not significant (β = .065, p <.448). As none of relationships in steps 1 to
3 are significant the analysis is not proceeded to step 4 and it can be concluded that the
mediation is not possible, thereby hypothesis 2 is not supported. This indicates that
learning activities do not mediate the relationship between LOC and job satisfaction of
an employee.
Table 2: Regression analysis H2
LOC
Learning activities
Job satisfaction
β
β
β
.043
.027
.024
Learning Activities
R²
0.2%
F
.255
Note * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
.065
0.1%
.101
0.4%
.580
Hypothesis 3 proposed that there is a relationship between learning activities and
social learning context. Based on the results presented in Table 1, H3 was supported,
as the correlation was significant. This indicates that there is a positive relationship
between learning activities and social learning context.
Hypothesis 4 aimed to examine whether employees higher on LOC are likely to
interact with more learning partners, in turn which leads to higher job satisfaction of
employees. In first step, job satisfaction was regressed on LOC (β = .027, p <.751). In
second step, social learning context was regressed on LOC, analysis showed that there
is a significant positive relationship between LOC and social learning context (β = .199,
p <.05). In third step, job satisfaction was regressed on social learning context, the
relationship between variables was not significant (β = .008, p <.919). As 2 out of 3
steps did not prove a significant relationship (Table 3) it can be concluded that the
19
mediation is not possible, thereby hypothesis 3 is not supported. This indicates that
social learning context is not mediating the relationship between LOC and job
satisfaction.
Table 3: Regression analysis H3
Learning context
LOC
Job satisfaction
β
β
β
.199*
.027
.026
Learning Context
R²
.008
4.0%
F
5.964
Note * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
0.1%
0.00%
.101
.010
Hypothesis 5 proposed that the effect of LOC on learning activities will be
affected by supervisor support, whereby the effect of LOC on engagement in learning
activities will be stronger when there is more supervisor support. In order to test
hypothesis 5, in first step, learning activities variable was regressed on LOC. In second
step, supervisor support was added to the equation. These variables explained 15.1
percent of variation in job satisfaction. In third step, interaction term (LOC x supportive
supervisor) was added to the equation. After adding the interaction term, model did not
lead to a statistically significant increase in explained variance in learning activities (F=
7.915, p =.932). Thereby hypothesis 5 is rejected and this means that the effect of LOC
on learning activities is not affected by supervisor support. Additional analysis revealed
that there is a positive direct significant relationship between supervisor support and
learning activities (β = .385, p <.001). Supervisor support accounted for 14.8% variance
in learning activities.
20
Table 4: Regression analysis H4
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction
β
β
LOC
.047
.078
Supervisor Support
.386***
.437
-.060
LOC X Supervisor Support
Δ R²
F
Note * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
15.0%
11.957***
.1%
7.915
Additional analyses
For additional analysis purpose the data was split to see whether there is
difference between two industries – Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) (N=66) and
transport (N=83). Regressions were run to see if there are any different results between
industries compared to whole data set. Interestingly, additional analysis results showed
support for hypothesis 5 within FMCG industry. LOC and supervisor support variables
explained 13.4 percent of variation in learning activities. In next step, interaction term
(LOC x supportive supervisor) was added to the equation. After adding the interaction
term, the model did lead to a statistically significant increase in explained variance in
learning activities (F= 6.184, p = 001). The model as a whole explained 25.6% of
variance in learning activities (Appendix A). This means that the effect of LOC on
learning activities is moderated by supervisor support.
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the learning activity,
LOC, job satisfaction and supervisor support scores for different social learning context
groups (those who while learning interact or does not interact with colleagues with peer
position, colleagues with higher position, colleagues with lower position, clients and
family and friends). The analysis showed that there was a significant difference in
learning activity scores for those who do not interact with clients (M= 2.41, SD= .37) and
who do interact with clients (M= 2.65, SD= .42; t (115) = -2.989, p= .003). Furthermore,
results showed that there was a significant difference in LOC scores for those who do
21
not interact with clients (M= 5.26, SD= .60) and who do interact with clients (M= 5.52,
SD= .58; t (116) = -2.153, p= .033). Also results showed that there was a significant
difference in supervisor support scores for those who do not interact with colleagues in
lower position (M= 2.27, SD= .46) and who do interact with colleagues in lower position
(M= 2.49, SD= .44; t (115) = -2.592, p= .011).
Conclusion and discussion
The goal of the study was to explore to what extent the effect of LOC on job
satisfaction is mediated by learning activities and social learning context. Furthermore,
to what extent supervisor support moderates the effect of LOC on learning activities. A
quantitative research design was used in order to collect and analyze data which
consisted of 149 employees selected by a convenience sample. Results of correlation
analysis revealed that there is no relationship between LOC and job satisfaction. A
sequential regression analysis showed that social learning context and learning
activities do not mediate relationship between LOC and job satisfaction. Furthermore,
results of analysis showed that supervisor support did not moderate the relationship
between LOC and learning activities. However, the correlation analysis showed that
there is an association between learning activities and learning context. Furthermore,
the analysis revealed that supervisor support has a positive association with learning
activities, learning context and job satisfaction.
Interpretation
The findings do not show support for the proposed positive relationship between
LOC and job satisfaction in hypothesis 1. This means that there is no association
between personality trait – LOC – and job satisfaction of an employee. Spector (1982)
has proposed that employees with internal LOC are likely to feel more job satisfied
compared to employees with external LOC, as internals are more likely to leave the
dissatisfying job. However, this might not be the case nowadays, due to the financial
crisis and global competition, people might feel higher insecurity and stay in their job
22
even if it is dissatisfying. It could be that the relationship between LOC and job
satisfaction is affected strongly by external environment, like job insecurity.
The suggested indirect relationship of LOC and job satisfaction through learning
activities in hypothesis 2 was not supported by the results of study. The findings of
study indicate that internal LOC does not influence the engagement in different learning
activities and in turn job satisfaction of an employee. Thus, the findings of the study
show that engagement and participation in different learning activities is not influenced
by individual’s belief whether their future is dependent on their behavior or is controlled
by external forces. It can be explained that engagement in different learning activities
might be influenced by other aspects in the environment. One of the aspects could be
the complexity, ambiguity and scope of problems that professionals need to deal with,
that might reduce the time and opportunities available for an individual to participate in
learning activities (Lohman, 2005).
As predicted the findings of study show support for the hypothesis 3, which
proposed that there is a relationship between learning activities and social learning
context. This indicates that social interactions with different partners might influence the
acquisition of knowledge through different learning activities (Karasek & Theorell, 1990).
The findings show that the more diverse social context of an employee can be associate
with engagement in more different learning activities. It means that employees who
communicate and interact with their colleagues from different hierarchical levels and as
well as people from external environment might acquire more knowledge through
different learning activities. Next to that, findings show that employees who participate in
different learning activities will engage in more diverse social context. Moreover,
additional analysis show that those employees who while learning interact with clients
have a higher participation in learning activities than those who do not interact with
clients. Future studies could explore deeper the difference in engagement in learning
activities between employees who interact with external environment and those who
does not.
Hypothesis 4 that proposed that employees higher on LOC are likely to interact
with more learning partners, in turn that would lead to higher job satisfaction of an
23
employee, was not supported by the results of the study. As already found that there is
no relationship between LOC and job satisfaction then social learning context does not
mediate the relationship. However, the findings show that there is a positive relationship
between LOC and social learning context. This indicates that employees, who score
high on LOC - are internals will have more diverse social learning context. Thus while
learning at workplace internals will interact with more different learning partners than
externals. It can be explained as suggested by Ng, Sorensen and Eby (2006) that
employees with internal LOC are more socially successful and therefore enjoy more
communication with others. Furthermore, additional analysis show that employees who
do interact with clients while learning have significantly higher score on LOC than those
who do not interact with clients. This means that internals are likely to interact with
external environment, like clients, while learning.
The results of analysis of the study did not find support for hypothesis 5. The
hypothesis did propose that the effect of LOC on learning activities will be affected by
supervisor support, whereby the effect of LOC on engagement in learning activities will
be stronger when there is more supervisor support. The findings did not show support
for the proposed relationship in hypothesis 5. Thus, this means that the effect of LOC on
learning activities is not moderated by supervisor support. This might be the case as the
relationship between LOC and learning activities could be affected by other aspects of
workplace context, like organizational culture (Ng et al., 2006). However, the additional
analysis revealed that there is a positive direct significant relationship between
supervisor support and learning activities. This means that if employee experience
higher supervisor support at workplace employee will be more likely to engage in
different learning activities to grow professionally. This relationship could be explored
closer in a future research.
For the purpose of the additional analysis data was split between two industries –
FMCG and transport. The analysis indicated that within the FMCG industry indirect
effect of LOC on learning activities is affected by supervisor support, whereby the effect
of LOC on engagement in learning activities is stronger when there is more supervisor
support. The explanation for these findings might be that companies representing
24
different industries are located in different countries – FMCG in Netherlands and
transport in Latvia - whish are in different development stage. Netherlands can be seen
economically as more developed than Latvia. Therefore it might be that companies in
Netherlands have more money to invest in developing leaders/supervisors in order to
create supportive management style than in Latvia. In order to clarify whether the
difference in results is due to countries or due to industries, future studies could explore
closer the differences between countries within the same industry companies.
Limitations and directions for future research
Like in any study, there are limitations in this research. Firstly, due to the time
limit the cross-sectional research design has been used and data has been collected at
one point in time. This does restrict the ability to make causal inferences among the
relationships between the variables of the study.
Next to that, the cross sectional
design is only a snapshot of a situation, the situation may provide differing results if
another time-frame had been chosen. However, for the study with an exploratory nature
it was decided that the cross-sectional research design is most appropriate to use.
Future studies exploring further the relationships researched in the current study could
use a longitudinal research design. Secondly, the only method used to collect data for
the study was questionnaires. The combination of different methods would make data
more accurate and reliable. It was decided that to test if there are any significant
relationships between variables of the study questionnaires method would be sufficient
and future research could combine different methods. Thirdly, as the data comes from
only three different companies, the range of the generalizability of the study is limited.
Future studies could approach more industries within different countries. Finally,
answers to question regarding the education level might be bias. Using words higher
education in the questionnaire might have caused the bias as Dutch people might have
assumed this to be higher vocational education and university together, but not the
secondary education.
Future studies might explore what other personality traits influence employee
engagement in diverse social learning context – interacting with diverse partners within
organization as well as in external environment. Next to that, future research could
25
explore closer the impact of the supervisor support on learning activities, as the results
of additional analysis of this study shows that there is a significant direct effect.
Furthermore, future research can study what other workplace environment factors, like
organizational culture, influence people engagement in learning activities and social
learning context. Finally, as indicated by the findings of additional analysis the results
might differ between countries. Therefore, it is important to emphasize as a
recommendation for future research, to study the differences of learning activities and
what affects engagement in learning activities in different countries. Furthermore, for
future research there are opportunities for methodological enhancements. It would add
value to explore the engagement in learning activities and social learning context on
team level and explore the differences. Finally, future study could set up longitudinal
research design that would provide possibility to make causal inferences among the
relationships.
Practical and theoretical implications
This study contributes to research of personal and contextual factor relationships
with learning at workplace. Furthermore, the findings add to the existing research of the
characteristics of work environment that promote the engagement in learning activities.
The association found between supervisor support and learning activities confirm that
supervisor support is a key aspect in work environment that influence employee
motivation to learn (Colquitt et al., 2000). Finally, the study also adds to the LNT with
empirical evidence that people differ in terms of engagement in learning activities and
learning context diversity. Next to that, the findings suggest that within learning path of
each individual the two elements – learning activities and learning context do have
associations between them.
In terms of practical implications this research on personality trait and its indirect
effect on job satisfaction through learning activities and social learning context have
practical relevance to both employees and HRD professionals. Nowadays employees
could benefit of better understanding how they can influence their own professional
development and the findings of the study suggest that individuals should look for a job
where they have supportive manager. The supportive manager will facilitate
26
engagement in more learning activities that might help employees to develop
professionally. Next to that, employees should not only ask support or advise to their
direct colleagues, they should also approach colleagues from different hierarchical
levels and also use their external connections, like customers and their family.
Furthermore, the engagement in interactions with diverse partners might lead to
acquisition of more knowledge.
There is also practical implications for the HRD professionals within
organizations. HRD professionals could make a contribution here, by creating within
organization the environment that is open and social. Furthermore, HRD professionals
could stimulate employees within organizations to have conversations with different
interaction partners so that they can acquire more knowledge. They also can play an
important role in creating the supportive management style in workplace, which in turn
will foster the employee engagement in different learning activities.
Conclusion
In summary, the findings of present study demonstrate that not all hypothesized
associations were confirmed. The findings showed that there is a positive relationship
between learning activities and learning context. Furthermore, employees who score
higher on LOC – internals – will engage with more diverse interaction partners for their
purposes to acquire more knowledge. The study does offer interesting avenues for the
future research. Differences do exist in between industries and countries and looking
into how these differences might affect employee engagement in learning activities and
social learning context might be interesting for future research.
27
References
Argyris, C., &Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizing learning: A theory in action perspective.
USA: Addison Wesley.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social
psychological
research:
Conceptual,
strategic,
and
statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173 1182. . doi: org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Berings, M. G. M. C., Gelissen, J. P. T. M., & Poell, R. F. (2008). On-the-job learning in
the nursing profession: Developing and validating a classification of learning
activities and learning themes. Personnel Review, 37(4), 442-459.
Berings, M. G. M. C., Poell, R. F., & Simons, P. R. (2008).Dimensions of on-the-job
learning styles. Applied Psychology, 57(3), 417-440. doi:10.1111/j.14640597.2008.00362.x
Cammann, C., Fichamn, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Mitchigan.
Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. M. (1992). Self- and supervisory perspectives on age and
work attitudes and performance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 469-484.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.469
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of
training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
85(5),
678-707.
doi:
10.1037//0021-
9010.85.5.678
Collin, K. (2002). Development engineers' conceptions of learning at work. Studies in
Continuing Education, 24(2), 133-152.doi: 10.1080/0158037022000020956
Collin, K. (2004). The role of experience in work and learning among design engineers.
International
Journal
of
Training
and
Development,
8(2),
111-127.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2004.00201.x
28
Doornbos, A. J., Bolhuis, S.,& Simons, P. R.(2004). Modeling work-related learning on
the basis of intentionality and developmental relatedness: A noneducational
perspective.
Human
Resource
Development
Review,
3(3),
250-274.
doi: 10.1177/1534484304268107
Ellström, E. (2012). Managerial support for learning at work: A qualitative study of firstline managers in elder care. Leadership in Health Services, 25(4), 273-287.
doi:10.1108/17511871211268919
Eraut, M. (2004).Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education,
26(2), 247-273. doi: 10.1080/158037042000225245
Fogarty, G.J., Machin, M.A., Albion, M.J., Sutherland, L.F., Lalor, G.I., & Revitt, S.
(1999). Predicting occupational strain and job satisfaction: The role of stress,
coping, personality and affectivity variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
54(3), 429-452.
Garsten, C., & Jacobsson, K. (2004). Learning to be employable: New agendas on work,
responsibility and learning in a globalizing world. Basingstoke : Palgrave
Macmillan.
Itzhaky, H., & Ribner, D. S. (1999). Gender, values and the work place: Considerations
for immigrant acculturation. International Social Work, 42(2), 127-138.
doi: 10.1177/002087289904200203
Johnson, A., Hong, H., Groth, M., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Learning and development:
promoting nurses’ performance and work attitudes. Journal of advanced nursing,
67(3), 609-620. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05487.x
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits–selfesteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability–with
job
satisfaction
and
job
performance:
A
meta-analysis.
Journal
of
AppliedPsychology, 86(1), 80–92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Koopmans, H., Doornbos, A. J., & van Eekelen, I. M. (2006). Learning in interactive
work situations: It takes two to tango; why not invite both partners to dance?
29
Human
Resource
Development
Quarterly,
17(2), 135–158.
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1166
Lachman, M. E., & Weawer, S. L. (1998).The sense of control as a moderator of social
class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(3), 763-773. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763
Lohman, M. C. (2005). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two
professional groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 16 (4), 501-527. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1153
Major, D. E., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and
the big five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 927-935. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.927
Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in workrelated learning and development activity: The effects of individual, situational,
motivational, and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 707-724.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.707
Muhonen, T., & Torkelson, E. (2004). Work locus of control and its relationship to health
and job satisfaction from a gender perspective. Stress and Health, 20, 21-28.
doi: 10.1002/smi.994
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L.T. (2006). Locus of control at work: a metaanalysis.
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior,
27,
1057-1087.
doi:
10.1002/job.416
Noe, R. A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development and
performance?
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior,
17(2),
119
-
133.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199603)17:2<119::AID-JOB736>3.0.CO;2-O
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using
SPSS (4th ed.). Australia: Allen & Unwin Book Publishers.
Poell, R.F. (1998). Organizing work-related learning projects: A network approach.
Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
30
Poell, R. F., & van der Krogt, F.J. (2010). Individual learning paths of employees in the
context of social network. In S. Billtet (Ed.), Learning through practice: Models,
traditions, orientations and approaches (pp. 1-9). Dordrecht: Springer.
Poell, R. F., & van der Krogt, F. J. (2013a). An empirical typology of hospital nurses’
individual
learning
paths.
Nurse
education
today,
34(3),
428-
433.doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.005
Poell, R. F., & van der Krogt, F. J. (2013b). The role of Human Resource Development
in Organizational Change: Professional development strategies of employees,
managers and HRD practitioners. In S. Billet, C. Harteis& H. Gruber,
International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the
organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-836.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28. doi:10.1037/h0092976
Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) (2012). 2012 Employee Job
Satisfaction and Engagement: How Employees are dealing with Uncertainty.
Printed in United States.
http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/documents/shrm-employeejob-satisfaction-engagement.pdf
Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of
control. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 482-497. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.482
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 29-51.
doi: 10.1080/13594320344000237
31
van der Pol, M. (2011). Learning motives of employees, the role of managers, and
employee satisfaction with manager role as antecedents of learning activities of
employees. (Master thesis; Degree granted by Tilburg University. FSW.
Personeelwetenschappen; Supervisor(s): R. Poell; 64 p.) Universiteit van Tilburg
32
Appendix A
Table 5: Regression analysis additional analysis (H4)
Learning Activities
Learning Activities
β
β
LOC
.065
2.207**
Supervisor Support
.365**
3.231**
LOC X Supervisor Support
Δ R²
F
Note * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
-3.465**
13.4%
4.260*
12.2%
6.184***
Figure 1: Plot of regression lines for additional analysis (H4)
33
Appendix B
Questionnaire
34
35
36
37
38
39