1 / 20

Core Self-Evaluations and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance

Core Self-Evaluations and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance. Timothy A. Judge Joyce E. Bono Amir Erez Edwin A. Locke. Core Self-Evaluations (CSE). Represents the fundamental assessments that people make about their worthiness and competence Higher-order concept indicated by:

meadow
Download Presentation

Core Self-Evaluations and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Core Self-Evaluations and Job Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance Timothy A. Judge Joyce E. Bono Amir Erez Edwin A. Locke

  2. Core Self-Evaluations (CSE) • Represents the fundamental assessments that people make about their worthiness and competence • Higher-order concept indicated by: • self-esteem • locus of control • neuroticism (emotional stability) • generalized self-efficacy • The first three of these traits are the most studied in psychology

  3. Applications of CSE • CSE has been related to: • motivation (Erez & Judge, 2001) • job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001) • stress (Best, 2003) • leadership (Eisenberg, 2000) • The most commonly investigated criterion is job satisfaction

  4. CSE – Job Satisfaction End points indicate limits of 80% CV Notes: SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy; LOC=locus of control; ES=emotional stability Source: Judge & Bono (JAP, 2001)

  5. CSE – Job SatisfactionExplaining the Relationship • Research indicates that CSE – job satisfaction relationship is mediated by intrinsic job characteristics: High CSE people both attain more complex jobs, and perceive more challenge in jobs of equal complexity • As Judge, Bono, Erez, Locke, and Thoresen (2002) commented, “Other theoretical mechanisms will need to be studied”

  6. Self-Concordance • Research suggests that people who chose goals that are concordant with their ideals, interests, and values are happier than those who pursue goals for other (e.g., extrinsic or defensive) reasons (see Sheldon & Elliot, 1997) • Thus, one mechanism that may link CSE and job satisfaction is the motivation underlying goal pursuit

  7. Self-Concordance Model • Argues that individuals may pursue a goal for four (NME) types of reasons (Sheldon & Elliot, JPSP, 1998): • External—pursuing a goal due to others’ wishes, or to attain “indirect” rewards • Introjected—pursuing a goal to avoid feelings of shame, guilt, or anxiety • Identified—pursuing a goal out of a belief that it is an important goal to have • Intrinsic—pursuing a goal because of the fun and enjoyment it provides

  8. Hypothesized Model Job/life satisfaction Self-esteem Generalized self-efficacy Locus of control Neuroticism + + + Self-concordant goals Core self-evaluations Goal attainment + +

  9. Method • We conducted two studies • Study 1: Examine the mediating role of self-concordance and goal attainment with respect to the personal goals of a undergraduates • Study 2: Test a model parallel to that in Study 1, but focusing on work goals and job satisfaction (as opposed to personal goals and life satisfaction)

  10. Study 1 MethodParticipants and Measures • 240 undergraduates • Personality and self-concordance were measured at Time 1, and goal attainment and life satisfaction were measured at Time 2 (N=183) • Core self-evaluations was measured with four individual scales, which then were treated as indicators of a higher-order core self-evaluations concept

  11. Study 1 MethodMeasure of Self-Concordance • Participants recorded six short-term goals (goals that could reasonably be attained in the next 60 days) • After identifying their goals, participants reported their reasons for goal pursuit, for each goal separately • Following Sheldon and Elliot (1998): SC=(intrinsic+identified)–(external+introjected)

  12. Study 1 MethodOther Measures • Goal attainment. We used two items from prior self-concordance research (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999); participants responded to each of these items for each of their six goals, after two months (responses were averaged across items and goals) • Life satisfaction. Life satisfaction was measured with the five-item Satisfaction with Life Scale

  13. Results: Study 1 Life satisfaction Self-esteem Generalized self-efficacy Locus of control Neuroticism .95** .75** .66** -.61** .47** .25** .20** Core self-evaluations Goal attainment Self-concordant goals .24** .18† Notes: † p < .10. * p < .05; ** p < .01. 2=14.69 (df=10). RMSEA = .05. RMSR = .04. CFI = .99. IFI = .99.

  14. Study 2 MethodParticipants and Measures • Participants were employees of a large defense contractor (N=251) • Personality and self-concordance were measured at Time 1, and goal attainment and life satisfaction were measured at Time 2 • Core self-evaluations was measured with the same scale as in Study 1

  15. Study 2 MethodMeasures • Participants recorded six short-term work goals; otherwise the same measurement approach to self-concordance was followed • Goal attainment was measured in a manner comparable to Study 1 • Job satisfaction was measured with the short form of the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) job satisfaction scale

  16. Results: Study 2 Job satisfaction Self-esteem Generalized self-efficacy Locus of control Neuroticism .95** .76** .49** -.76** .36** .17* .10 Core self-evaluations Goal attainment Self-concordant goals .30** .22* Notes: * p < .05; ** p < .01. 2=21.82 (df=10). RMSEA = .07. RMSR = .04. CFI = .98. IFI = .98.

  17. Discussion • According to the hypothesized model, people with positive self-regard are more likely to have self-concordant goals. In turn, those with more self-concordant goals should be happier and more satisfied with their goals, themselves, and ultimately their lives • Results supported the model

  18. Discussion • One of the more important contributions of this research was to illuminate the effect of core self- evaluations on self-concordance and its consequences • In both studies, there were significant associations between core self-evaluations and self-concordance • Those with positive core self-evaluations were especially good in demonstrating this adaptability to select “self-concordant” goals that represent their implicit interests

  19. Discussion • Surprisingly, results involving goal attainment were relatively weak • Goal attainment did not mediate self-concordance – satisfaction relationship • This relationship may be complex • Whereas setting difficult goals is dissatisfying because they lead to low expectations for goal attainment (Mento, Locke, & Klein, 1992), the attainment of those goals (which is facilitated by the setting of difficult goals) should lead to satisfaction (Locke & Latham, 1990)--i.e., the results may be offsetting

  20. Implications • Results join increasing body of research that shows that individuals become more satisfied with job and life through one’s pursuits, if one picks the right goals and does well at them • People with positive core self-evaluations strive for the “right” reasons, and therefore get the “right” results, both of which in turn increase their levels of satisfaction • Moreover, such increases in satisfaction appear to last (both studies were longitudinal) and perhaps lead to even more positive changes in an “upward spiral” of positive outcomes

More Related