Development of Job Resources and Personal Resources among Job Newcomers

Inaugural dissertation submitted to the University of Bern in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By Anita Carola Keller Winterthur (ZH)

Selbstverlag, Bern 2013

Submitted to Prof. Dr. Norbert K. Semmer

(leading expert)

Prof. Dr. Achim Elfering

(second expert)

2

Table of Contents Long-term perspective on job and personal resources (p. 7)

Article 1: Core Self-Evaluations predict job resources (p. 47) Elfering, A., Keller, A.C., Berset, M., Meier, L.L., Grebner, S., Kälin, W., Monnerat, F., Tschan, F., & Semmer, N.K. (2013). Core SelfEvaluations predict gain in work resources following turnover. Manuscript under review.

Article 2: Reciprocal relationship between job and personal resources (p. 79) Keller, A.C., Meier, L.L., Gross, S., & Semmer, N.K., (2013). Gender differences in the association of high quality jobs and self-esteem over time: A multi-wave study. Revised manuscript under review.

Article 3: Joint development of job and personal resources and their changes as predictors (p. 135) Keller, A.C., & Semmer, N.K. (2013). Changes in situational and dispositional factors as predictors of job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 88-98.

3

4

Danke Über die Jahre der Entstehung dieser Dissertation haben mich viele Personen inspiriert und unterstützt. Dafür danke ich euch allen! Bei einigen Personen möchte ich mich besonders bedanken: Danke, Norbert Semmer, dass du mir die Gelegenheit zum Doktorat bei dir gegeben hast und mir in diesen Jahren viel Können, Wissen und Know-how beigebracht hast. Neben der fachlichen Unterstützung bin ich auch für die persönliche Unterstützung, dein Eingagement und das Geben von Perspektiven dankbar. Und schliesslich bist du eine der Personen, die mich mit dem Forschervirus angesteckt haben. Danke, Achim Elfering, dass du Resultate und Arbeiten mit mir ernst und humorvoll diskutiert hast und für deinen Optimismus in allen Lagen des Forschungsalltags. Ich danke dem ganzen TREE-Team für wertvolle Erfahrungen, die ich nicht missen möchte. Ich habe viel gelacht, gefriemelt und gelernt. Besonders bedanke ich mich bei Max Bergman (auch für die gemeinsamen Erfahrungen ausserhalb von TREE), Sandra Hupka-Brunner, Thomas Meyer, Christina von Rotz und Barbara Stalder. Auch danke ich Robin Samuel für die Arbeit an gemeinsamen Projekten und den Austausch über das akademische Schaffen mit einem Augenzwinkern. Ich danke dem ganzen AOP-Team dafür, dass ihr mich so offen ins Team aufgenommen habt und die vielen lustigen und produktiven Stunden, die wir gemeinsam verbracht haben. Danke Cora Bobst, Achim Elfering,

5

Christa Gfeller, Ivana Igic, Nicola Jacobshagen, Wolfgang Kälin, Rabea Krings, Maria Kottwitz, Céline Mühlethaler, Isabel Pfister, Cornelia RolliSalathé, Diana Romano, Norbert Semmer und Pascale Widmer. Ich danke insbesondere auch meinen Co-Autoren Norbert Semmer, Achim Elfering, Laurenz Meier und Sven Gross für Diskussionen und das gemeinsame Tüfteln an Artikeln. Schliesslich danke ich meiner Familie und meinen Freunden für den Ansporn, den Zuspruch und das Interesse über diese Jahre. Danke Ruth Keller, Heinz Keller, Daniel Keller, Denise Belloli, Zinette Bergman, Sabine Dändliker, Denise Lang, Céline Mühlethaler, Rahel Schuhmacher und Mariangela Schwerzmann, dass ihr mir das Vertrauen in mich selbst gegeben habt und mich daran erinnert habt, wenn ich es gerade etwas vergessen habe. Danke auch, dass ihr mir zugehört habt, mit mir gelacht habt, euch mit mir geärgert habt und mich abgelenkt habt, wenn es nötig war.

6

Long-term Perspective on Job and Personal Resources

Introduction Occupational health psychology has established theoretical models and empirical knowledge showing that poor work quality affects employee well-being, health, organizational costs and performance, private life, and society (e.g., Grebner, Berlowitz, Alvarado, & Cassina, 2010; Ramaciotti & Perriard, 2000; Sonnentag & Frese, 2013). The majority of research in occupational health psychology focuses on negative aspects of the relationship between people and their work (e.g., stressor-strain relationship) rather than how people flourish (e.g., De Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003; Sonnentag & Frese, 2013). Undoubtedly, it is crucial to investigate the consequences of stressors at work and their impact on well-being and health; however, the mere absence of job stressors may not lead to positive outcomes (such as good performance, intrinsic work motivation, and satisfaction) (cf. Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Many stress and job design theories discuss not only ways in that work can harm employees, but also positive outcomes of work such as learning experiences and satisfaction (Hacker & Richter, 1980; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Karasek, 1979; Warr, 2007). In recent years, positive aspects of work have become more popular, possibly

7

because the “positive psychology” movement (Fredrickson, 2001; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) found its way into organizational psychology. For this, often the umbrella term “positive organizational scholarship” is used (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008; Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Dewe & Cooper, 2012). Positive organizational scholarship focuses on positive states, traits, and processes within organizations and continues research on individuals’ needs for well-being, growth, and development (e.g., Hackman, 2009). Long-term Relations between People and their Work Based on the theoretical assumptions about positive aspects of work, this thesis focuses on development of resources and their relationship with a popular organizational variable, i.e., job satisfaction. In general, resources can be objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued (Hobfoll, 1989). This thesis aims to add knowledge to the interplay between two types of resources: instrumental 1 job resources such as autonomy, skill variety, and complexity, and personal resources such as Core Self-Evaluations (CSE). While longitudinal research in occupational health psychology is growing, studies that focus on job design still tend to be cross-sectional (e.g., Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007; Sonnentag & Frese, 2013), even though applying a longitudinal perspective seems appropriate as employees develop within and across positions and jobs (Fried, et al., 1

Some authors differentiate between instrumental job resources (e.g., autonomy) and social job resources (e.g., social support) (e.g., Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013).

8

2007; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Hall & Las Heras, 2010; Super, 1980). Therefore, this thesis explores the relationship between job and personal resources over time, i.e. several years. Job and personal resources may be linked to each other over time and mutually affect each other through several mechanisms: Firstly, people with positive self-evaluations tend to end up in jobs characterized by high job resources (e.g., Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005; Srivastava, Locke, Judge, & Adams, 2010) and, secondly, may be more prone to actively change their jobs according to their needs (e.g., Judge & Hurst, 2008; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). Thirdly, people who have high job resources are able to exert control, experience learning, and master challenges — experiences that may foster self-development (Bandura, 1997; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). The three studies of this thesis investigate these mechanisms. The first study investigates mechanisms one and two, i.e., the role of CSE when attaining work with high job recourses. The study showed that personal resources predict gains in job resources if people change their employer (Elfering, Keller, Berset, Meier, Grebner, Kälin, Monnerat, Tschan, & Semmer, 2013). The second study investigates whether personal resources predict job resources and also to what extent job resources predict personal resources. This study covers mechanisms two and three by testing a reciprocal relationship between job and personal resources over time (Keller, Meier, Gross, & Semmer, 2013). The third study then looks at

9

another form of mutual adaption between people and their work, i.e., codevelopment (mechanisms two and three). Concerning the meaning of adaption and changes, this study showed that changes in job and personal resources were better predictors of job satisfaction than mean levels (Keller & Semmer, 2013). The three studies of this thesis are based on two Swiss panel studies with young job newcomers 2. This population seems most appropriate to assess development and changes over time, as young adults are still in the process of adjusting to their work environments (De Witte, Verhofstadt, & Omey, 2007; Elfering, Semmer, & Kälin, 2000), early work experiences may set the tone for later job and personal development (Judge & Hurst, 2008), and results cannot be attributed to previous working experiences. 3

Job Design: The Role of Resources Job characteristics are crucial for employees’ well-being, health, and motivation (e.g., Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Morgeson, Garza, & Campion, 2013; Sonnentag & Frese, 2013). A meta-analysis found 14 job characteristics to explain more than 55 percent of variance in job satisfaction and 34 percent in performance (Humphrey, et al., 2007). Job characteristics can be classified into job stressors and job resources. Job stressors such as time pressure or social stressors refer to 2

Within this thesis the terms young adult or young employee refer to people between 20 and 24 years (Loughlin & Lang, 2005). 3 Nevertheless, it is possible that some socialization processes took place before young adults formally entered the labor market, i.e., via working experiences from close adults (e.g., parents) and own experiences (e.g., internship, vacation job).

10

characteristics that are likely to be appraised as stressful and require effort and are therefore associated with certain costs. 4 Job resources can be regarded as features of one’s work that are valued goods in themselves, are functional in achieving work goals, may reduce job stressors or facilitate dealing with them, and stimulate personal growth and learning. Examples of job resources are autonomy (also often referred to as job control), skill variety,

and

social

support

(Bakker,

Hakanen,

Demerouti,

&

Xanthopoulou, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Karasek, 1979; Semmer & Beehr, in press). Many stress and job design theories include job resources, among the most prominent ones are the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), the Job-Demands-Resources Model (Demerouti, et al., 2001), and the Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001). The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) proposes skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job to be a set of variables that foster well-being, motivation, and personal development (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Research supported the proposed relationship between these five job characteristics and job satisfaction, intrinsic work motivation, and, albeit weaker, performance and absenteeism (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Humphrey, et al., 2007). The Job-Demands-Resources model (JD-R), an extension of Karasek’s (1979) influential Demand-Control 4

Job demands, on the other hand, refer to aspects of one’s job that are not necessarily negatively appraised by employees (Semmer & Beehr, in press; Zapf, Semmer, & Johnson, in press).

11

model, represents another approach that includes the motivational potential of job design. The model comprises a variety of job resources such as support,

feedback,

autonomy,

and

opportunities

for

professional

development. Job resources are supposed to foster employees’ health, wellbeing, and motivation, both directly and indirectly via a buffering effect in the relationship between job stressors and well-being. The JD-R defines job resources as aspects of the job that may help reduce job stressors, support achievement of work goals, and lead to personal growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, et al., 2001). Conservation of Resources (COR) theory by Hobfoll (1989) defines resources as being either valued in themselves, or because they serve as a means of protecting or attaining valued resources (Hobfoll, 2001). COR theory assumes that possessing resources fosters the gaining of further resources (gain spiral), and a lack of resources makes people vulnerable to resource loss (loss spiral) (Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003).

Consequences of Job Resources: Job Satisfaction The theories discussed above stress the importance of job characteristics for various outcomes, among them job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is considered as “the most informative data an organizational psychologist or manager can have about an individual employee and his or her likely behaviors” (Hulin & Judge, 2003, p. 258). It refers to “a positive

12

(or negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one’s job or job situation” (Weiss, 2002, p. 175) and is associated with numerous organizational variables such as absenteeism, turnover, organizational commitment, and job performance (Carsten & Spector, 1987; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Glomb, & Ahlburg, 2005). Job satisfaction can also contain an assessment of fit between an employee’s personal resources, needs, and abilities and the opportunities the work environment offers to satisfy those needs (Dawis, 2002; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Besides the factors discussed so far (i.e., job characteristics), job satisfaction is also affected by personal resources such as self-esteem or self-efficacy (Dormann, Fay, Zapf, & Frese, 2006; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Stumpp, Hülsheger, Muck, & Maier, 2009). The next chapter discusses personal resources and their relationship with job resources and job satisfaction.

Personal Resources In general, personal resources are understood as aspects of the self that refer to an individuals’ sense of their ability to control and impact their environment (Hobfoll, et al., 2003). Self-esteem and self-efficacy are especially prominent among these personal resources, and they therefore are part of Core Self-Evaluations (CSE), an often researched higher-order construct, consisting of self-efficacy, self-esteem, neuroticism, and locus of control (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). People with positive self-

13

evaluations tend to come to more positive conclusions about their work (Dormann, et al., 2006; Judge & Hurst, 2007) because positive selfevaluations have important consequences. Firstly, they influence the way individuals perceive and process information about their work environment (Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Judge & Hurst, 2007), and, secondly, they influence what type of environment people are in; the latter determines their experiences at work, which are a source of job satisfaction (Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Judge & Hurst, 2007). People with positive self-evaluations tend to have higher aspirations and apply for more complex and challenging jobs (self-selection) (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Best, et al., 2005; Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Srivastava, et al., 2010); furthermore, they may present themselves as being competent, capable, and motivated, and these behaviors may increase chances of getting hired (selection) (Furnham, 1992; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997; Locke, Lewis-McClear, & Knight, 1996; Pinquart, Juang, & Silbereisen, 2003). These people also differ in on-the-job actions, as they take action to make a job more rewarding (Judge, et al., 2000; Judge & Hurst, 2007, 2008; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011; Judge, et al., 1997) and to improve the situation for themselves (cf. proactive behavior or job crafting; Parker, 1998; Parker & Ohly, 2008; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). If current working conditions do not match their needs and abilities, employees not only react with dissatisfaction (Dawis, 2002; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) but may also consequently

14

engage in job crafting, i.e., self-initiated change behaviors with the goal to align their jobs with their own preferences (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Besides changing their work situation within an organization, people may change employer in order to attain a more satisfying situation (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Semmer & Schallberger, 1996). Turnover is a form of job mobility5 characterized by a change of employer (Ng, et al., 2007) and can be voluntary or involuntary, dysfunctional or functional, and avoidable or unavoidable (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). Changing employer has repeatedly been found to improve wellbeing and job satisfaction (e.g., Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005; Semmer & Schallberger, 1996). As described above, personal resources may be a factor that increases the chances of improvement during turnover processes. The first study tested this assumption, comparing the lagged effect of personal resources on job resources for young employees who stayed with those who left their employer (see box 1; Elfering, et al., 2013).

The aim of the study “Core Self-Evaluations Predict Gain in Work Resources Following Turnover” was to investigate the cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between personal resources (CSE), job resources (autonomy, decision latitude, complex tasks), and job satisfaction during an 5

Job mobility is characterized by the three dimensions status (upwards, lateral, downwards), function (same or changed), and employer (internal or external) (Ng, Sorensen, Eby, & Feldman, 2007).

15

occupational transition: Young adults completed Vocational Educational Training and either stayed with their employer or changed the organization. We used data from 513 participants of the ÆQUAS (Work Experience and Quality of Life in Switzerland: Work, Stress, and Personality Development) project, a longitudinal study that follows young employees in five occupations over 10 years. In a structural equation model, CSE predicted job resources and job satisfaction cross-sectionally with job resources mediating the relationship between CSE and job satisfaction. We did not find these effects with a one-year time lag. However, using turnover as a moderator variable, we did find lagged effects for employees who changed their organization: people with higher CSE tend to attain more job resources after changing their employer, implying that CSE may be a resource that helps attaining job resources that are in line with one’s needs and abilities. Box 1: Teaser for article 1 (CSE and turnover).

Job Design: Opportunities for Personal Development The results so far showed that personal resources affect job resources. The opposite direction, i.e., job resources affecting personal resources, may be plausible too. The models discussed above include aspects of personal growth, which is characterized by professional learning, personal accomplishment, mastering challenges, and positive development of the self; in a similar vein, self-development is among the criteria put forward for well-designed jobs in German-speaking countries (e.g., Ulich, 2011).

16

According to the JCM, if the motivating potential of one’s job is high (i.e., high levels of the five core features) opportunities for personal learning and growth at work are enriched, and employees tend to report being personally satisfied with such learning opportunities (cf. growth satisfaction; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Humphrey, et al., 2007). Also, Karasek (1979) assumed combinations of job design features to foster learning: personal growth through skill development may occur if job demands and control are high (cf. learning hypothesis; De Witte, et al., 2007; Karasek, 1979). The JD-R explicitly specifies that job resources (among other functions described above) lead to personal growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, et al., 2001). Such development of personal resources may be fostered by opportunities at work to experience and affect self-evaluations (Kohn & Schooler, 1983; Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Siegrist, 2002). Such forces may be: 1) the degree of structure in one’s environment and opportunities to exert control, 2) messages from significant others in one’s social environment, and 3) individual’s feelings of efficacy and competence based on direct personal experiences (Bandura, 1997; Korman, 1970, 1976; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). For example, work characterized by high autonomy and skill variety may allow

employees

self-regulating,

expressing

themselves

in

their

organizational role, and exerting control — factors that may foster a personal image of being capable of independent action. These job characteristics may also be interpreted as a signal of the organization of

17

being competent and trusted. Resources at work such as autonomy, complexity, and variety give employees the opportunity to acquire new skills and master new responsibilities and allow them to attribute successful performance to themselves, which makes it more likely that self-evaluations are affected (cf. Bandura, 1997; Parker, 1998; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Empirical research showed personal resources may be affected by job characteristics such as the level of autonomy (Schooler & Oates, 2001; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009) but not by general working conditions such as income or occupational status (KammeyerMueller, Judge, & Piccolo, 2008), implying that the opportunity to exercise control may be a key factor for personal growth. As shown above, most job design theories assume job resources may play a role in facilitating personal growth; showing such a relationship empirically would have theoretical and practical implications: If job resources positively affect self-evaluations then having job resources is relevant beyond facilitating coping with job stressors. Having positive selfevaluations is not only relevant in the work domain but also in private life. For example, self-esteem was associated in a study by Orth and colleagues (2012) not only with job satisfaction, occupational status, and income, but also with relationship satisfaction and better health. This knowledge is also important for organizations as career theorists claim that today’s employees strive for personal fulfillment, and employees may remain with their organizations as long as they see opportunities for personal

18

development (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Hall & Las Heras, 2010). The second study tested to what extent job resources would foster development in personal resources and also to what extent personal resources would enable positive development in job resources (see box 2; Keller, et al., 2013).

For the second study " Gender Differences in the Association of High Quality Jobs and Self-esteem over Time: A Multi-wave Study" we drew on a subsample (n=325) of the TREE (Transition from Education to Employment) panel study to investigate the reciprocal relationship between job resources (autonomy and skill variety) and personal resources (selfesteem). Using four measurement points, we found a lagged effect from self-esteem to job resources but only indication of a lagged effect from job resources to self-esteem. Based on literature and previous research, we assumed men and women might differ in this relationship because they use different bases for self-esteem (Cross & Madson, 1997; Josephs, Markus, & Tafarodi, 1992) and react differently to job resources (Sonnentag, 1996; Wiesner, Windle, & Freeman, 2005). A multi-group structural equation model revealed the same results for women that we had already observed for the whole sample: self-esteem predicted job resources one year later but job resources were not significantly associated with self-esteem. For men, job resources predicted self-esteem while there was only a weak lagged effect from self-esteem on job resources. These results imply that men are able to benefit from resources at work in terms of boosts to their self-esteem

19

while women attain jobs characterized by high levels of job resources if they have high levels of self-esteem, which then may allow them to further increase their job resources (e.g., via job crafting). Box 2: Teaser for article 2 (reciprocal relationship between job and personal resources)

Joint Development and Predictive Value of Changes When applying a long-term perspective to work, it becomes clear that things change over time: employees change their jobs, positions, attitudes, goals, needs, and behaviors (Fried, et al., 2007; Kälin, Keller, Tschan, Elfering, & Semmer, 2013; Nicholson, 2010; Semmer & Schallberger, 1996; Semmer, Tschan, Elfering, Kälin, & Grebner, 2005). Also in our two previous studies, we showed that job resources may develop to the better, especially if personal resources are high (Elfering, et al., 2013; Keller, et al., 2013). However, little is known about the meaning of such changes. At least three types of research questions would be relevant to learn more about the meaning of changes: 1) What are predictors of changes in resources? 2) Is there a predictive value of such changes (as opposed to levels)? 3) Are these changes correlated with other changes?

20

The first type of research focuses on how variables evolve over time and how these changes can be predicted. In the work context, a popular finding is not concerned with job or personal resources but job satisfaction; there is some evidence that job satisfaction tends to decline before job change and increases immediately afterwards (e.g., honeymoonhangover-effect; Boswell, et al., 2005; Boswell, Shipp, Payne, & Culbertson, 2009; Semmer & Schallberger, 1996). The second type uses changes as predictors. Only a few studies followed such an approach; however, they found changes in predictors to predict outcome variables, e.g., changes in job stressors and job resources predicted burnout (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009), and changes in job satisfaction predicted CSE (Wu & Griffin, 2012). Salmela-Aro and Nurmi (2007) showed that increases in self-esteem predicted exhaustion and work engagement but not job satisfaction (Salmela-Aro & Nurmi, 2007). The third type investigates if personal development and changes at work may be related with each other. Scollon and Diener (2006) found such correlated change with personality; their study showed that changes in extraversion and neuroticism are correlated with changes in job satisfaction. Most researchers agree that job satisfaction is influenced by job resources and personal resources (Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Elfering, et al., 2000; Judge, et al., 2000). However, no study has investigated if job satisfaction, is better predicted by mean levels or changes in resources.

21

Changes may be relevant for job satisfaction as part of developmental tasks (e.g., gaining more control over the self and the environment; Erikson, 1985; Havighurst, 1972). As part of normative development, job characteristics may change for the better and self-evaluations may become more positive (e.g., Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002; Semmer, et al., 2005): When just entering the labor market, one’s job may be characterized by close supervision and lower levels of autonomy and skill variety, etc. Young employees may accept these characteristics as part of their training and socialization. With time, supervision should become less close and autonomy should increase. Acquired job and personal resources may then be compared with the resources other peers have. Alternatively, as young employees gain experience, routine, and skills required for their jobs, job resources that were adequate in the beginning may not suffice any longer (cf. Fried, et al., 2007; Nicholson, 2010). Such improvements may be expected as part of career advancement and signals of trust in one’s abilities by the organization. If such expectations do not match with actual development, young employees may perceive a misfit between their needs and abilities and the opportunities their job offers to them, resulting in a drop in job satisfaction. Therefore, the third article investigated the (correlated) changes in job and personal resources and the predictive value of these changes for job satisfaction (see box 3; Keller & Semmer, 2013).

22

For the third study "Changes in Situational and Dispositional Factors as Predictors of Job Satisfaction" we used data from a subsample (n=1'145) of the TREE panel study. We applied latent growth modeling, a technique which allows investigating intraindividual change (Duncan, Duncan, & Strycker, 2006; Hancock & Lawrence, 2006), to observe changes in job resources (autonomy) and personal resources (CSE), their relationship with each other, and their effect on job satisfaction. Over the observed five years, participants reported linear increases in autonomy and CSE. These changes were positively correlated with each other, implying a co-development between job and personal resources. Job satisfaction in the last wave was better predicted by changes in autonomy and CSE than by their mean levels. Further analysis revealed that if job control remained stable and not increase over the observed time period, job satisfaction would drop (by 1/4 standard deviation). These results imply that changes in job design features and personal resources may be at least as important for wellbeing, attitudes, and health as mean levels. Box 3: Teaser for article 3 (changes as predictors)

Discussion In sum, the studies included in this thesis showed that job resources and personal resources are changing over time and these changes tend to be associated with each other. To some extent the studies showed stronger evidence for the link from personal resources to job resources; however,

23

the reversed effect only applied to particular subgroups. Specifically, Keller et al. (2013) found a lagged effect of personal resources only for women, and Elfering et al. (2013) found such an effect only for employees who changed their employer. These results suggest that some phenomena, even if theoretically plausible, may only apply to certain groups; it therefore is necessary to systematically analyze subgroups (Taris & Kompier, 2003). These subgroups may be characterized by individual characteristics (e.g., gender), behavior (e.g., changing employer), or by different types of exposure to certain job characteristics (e.g., continued lack of autonomy versus increasing autonomy) (cf. Frese & Zapf, 1988; Taris & Kompier, 2003). Alternatively, having high job resources may become too demanding for employees with less positive self-evaluations (e.g., high complexity; Warr, 2007). In this sense, people with high personal resources would be more likely to benefit from job resources in terms of boosts to their self-evaluations. This would be in line with Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) notion of individual differences (in form of growth need strength and job-relevant knowledge and skill) and, in the case of reciprocal effects, in line with Hobfoll’s (2003) gain spirals. Overall, employees do actively change their job characteristics using different methods; changing the employer is one of them (Elfering, et al., 2013), job crafting may be another (Keller, et al., 2013; Keller & Semmer, 2013).

24

The focus of the first two articles was to predict changes in job and personal resources (Elfering, et al., 2013; Keller, et al., 2013). The third article successfully used changes in job and personal resources to predict job satisfaction (Keller & Semmer, 2013). We replicated the finding for skill variety (i.e., changes in skill variety predict job satisfaction over and beyond initial level of skill variety) and extended the prediction through changes for health complaints (Keller, Semmer, & Elfering, in prep.). As shown above, there is not much of this type of research, but it seems important when explaining employees’ well-being and health. Therefore, using changes in job characteristics as predictors for attitudes, well-being, and health should be further elaborated.

Further Research and Theoretical Advancements All three studies in this thesis included instrumental job resources, however, social resources such as feedback or social support may be worth investigating as well (Morgeson, et al., 2013; Tims, et al., 2013). Social support is included in many stress and job design theories (Hobfoll, 1989; Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Morgeson, et al., 2013; Siegrist, 2002) and has empirically been shown to be related to well-being (e.g., Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). However, the relationship between the social environment at work and personal resources over time may be complex; one may interpret positive feedback from others and social support as being liked, which in turn would foster the development of personal

25

resources such as self-esteem (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Alternatively, social support may imply that one is not capable. If stressors are high (e.g., high workload), support offered by colleagues may be interpreted as display of others’ distrust in one’s abilities to successfully manage (Semmer, Jacobshagen, Meier, & Elfering, 2007), an interpretation which may impair personal resources (e.g., self-esteem). Because employees are not exposed to isolated job characteristics but constellations of them, future research should not only expand indicators of job resources but also include job stressors. Job stressors are crucial for employees’ well-being and the self ( De Lange, et al., 2003; Semmer, et al., 2007). Including job resources and job stressors would give a more complete picture of the relationship between people and their work. Also, including both could be a first step towards learning more about job characteristic patterns, their long-term development, and their relationship with well-being, health, and the self — a part of job design to date that less is known about. In sum, future research should investigate instrumental job resources, social job resources, and job stressors simultaneously using longitudinal studies. The studies of this thesis used data from two panel studies with young job newcomers. Research with young people has the advantage that effects may not be due to previous working experiences; however, the results may also be specific to this age group and career stage. As people advance in their careers and grow older, different job design features may become (more) relevant and employees may have different expectations

26

about how their job characteristics may develop in the near future. Further research should investigate the interplay between job and personal resources with different populations, i.e. middle age and old age. Currently, we assume that employees’ expectations about their future job characteristics and advancements play an essential role for explaining the predictive value of changes in job design features (Hall & Chandler, 2005; Keller & Semmer, 2013; Keller, et al., in prep.). In this context it may also be relevant to know to what extent employees see themselves causing changes in job characteristics, as would be the case if they engage in job crafting (Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). To my knowledge, there is no study assessing changes in job characteristics over time as well as employees’ expectations of these changes and behaviors possibly causing such changes. Besides some developmental or life-span theories, there are not many theories available to explain development, changes, and stability in the work context. While within job design theories, changes over time are only discussed in certain aspects, the focus of career theories is on development over time. Opportunities for personal growth as included in job design theories relate to the claim of career theorists that today’s employees strive for personal fulfillment as opposed to status (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Hall & Las Heras, 2010). Therefore, some career theories may be well suited to explain changes in job design and their impact on attitudes, self, and behavior. For

27

example, Fried and colleagues (2007) suggested a circular model with stimulating job characteristics affecting attitudinal reactions, attitudinal reactions affecting job crafting, and job crafting affecting job characteristics. Among others, this mechanism is supposed to be altered by career stage, expected career advancement, norms, and growth need strength (Fried, et al., 2007). Future research may use such combinations of job design and career theories to investigate change and stability in job characteristics. However, theoretical advancements should link changes and stability in job characteristics to its antecedents (e.g., job crafting or turnover), and to its consequences (e.g., well-being).

Practical Implications Previous research showed that having job resources is important to successfully cope with job stressors (De Lange, et al., 2003). Our results showed that positive self-evaluations support attainment and shaping of job resources, and we also found co-development between job and personal resources. Young adults with positive self-evaluations seem to be able to attain job resources that fit their need and abilities. Young adults with less positive self-evaluations may benefit from social support (e.g., from teachers or career counseling) to apply for jobs with higher job resources. Those job resources may in turn boost positive self-evaluations, at least for men. Based on our results, special attention should be placed on gender differences as men and women seem to react differently to job resources.

28

While for men autonomy and skill variety are beneficial in terms of selfesteem, women do not benefit in terms of personal growth. Women on the other hand need to have high self-esteem to be able to attain high levels of job resources and to craft their jobs. Based on our results, it seems important to encourage especially young women with lower levels of personal resources to seek jobs with adequate job resources (as they are at least important to cope with job stressors) and to provide men with opportunities for skill advancement, and to let them plan and execute tasks on their own. Also, trainings to enhance self-efficacy may help young adults to apply for jobs characterized with high job resources or enabling them to craft their jobs according to their needs (Bandura, 1997). Such trainings may be offered during compulsory school classes or career counseling sessions. Career theorists claim that unlike previous generations, today’s young employees strive for personal fulfillment and personal growth. To prevent costly turnover, organizations should offer opportunities to learn, acquire new skills, and take on responsibilities. Creating such opportunities, of course differs across occupations. However, learning opportunities may include concrete opportunities for advanced training or small additional projects (e.g., planning a team event). Our first study also revealed that more than half of the apprentices change their employer after Vocational Educational Training (Elfering, et al., 2013). Possibly, many of these changes are involuntary for both the young adult and the training firm (especially among smaller companies that

29

do not have the resources to hire more staff). However, companies may benefit if the apprentice stays, but they should also ensure that the former apprentice will be able to leave the apprentice role behind and become a regular and equal staff member. Overall, our results also suggest that transition from Vocational Educational Training to the labor market is rather smooth (as already reported in previous studies; Semmer, et al., 2005; Stalder & Nägele, 2011). Our results clearly showed that having a certain level of job resources is not enough; resources also need to develop, at least for job newcomers (Keller & Semmer, 2013; Keller, et al., in prep.). In the beginning, it is certainly important to offer close supervision to job newcomers, but if close supervision continues, it may hinder job crafting (Elfering, et al., 2013; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Especially for young employees who remain with their employers after Vocational Educational Training, opportunities for job crafting should be provided, enabling development towards fit between persons and their environment. Overall, it seems important that for young employees’ resources such as autonomy, skill variety, and complexity increase over time.

References Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 48-64.

30

Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 177-202. Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274-284. Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Contexts of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147-154. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better perfomance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44. Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core selfevaluations and job burnout: the test of alternative models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 441-451.

31

Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 882-892. Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 844-858. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler. Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction and employee turnover: a meta-analytic test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 199-212. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37. Dawis, R. V. (2002). Person-environment-correspondence theory. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 427-464). New York: Wiley & Sons. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesolta Press. De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). "The very best of the millennium": Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282-305.

32

De Witte, H., Verhofstadt, E., & Omey, E. (2007). Testing Karasek's learning and strain hypotheses on young workers in their first job. Work & Stress, 21, 131-141. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. Dewe, P., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Well-being and work: Towards a balanced agenda. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Dormann, C., Fay, D., Zapf, D., & Frese, M. (2006). A state-trait analysis of job satisfaction: on the effect of core self-evaluations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 27-51. Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilites. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 483-504. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elfering, A., Keller, A. C., Berset, M., Meier, L. L., Grebner, S., Kälin, W., Monnerat, F., Tschan, F., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Core selfevaluations predict gain in work resources following turnover. Manuscript submitted for publication. Elfering, A., Semmer, N. K., & Kälin, W. (2000). Stability and change in job satisfaction at the transition from vocational training into real work. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 59, 256-271.

33

Erikson, F. H. (1985). The life cylce completed: A review. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs subjective measurements of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 375-411). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287322. Fried, Y., Grant, A. M., Levi, A. S., Hadani, M., & Slowik, L. H. (2007). Job design in temporal context: A career dynamics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 911-927. Furnham, A. (1992). Personality at work: The role of individual difference in the workplace. London, UK: Routledge. Grebner, S., Berlowitz, I., Alvarado, V., & Cassina, M. (2010). StressStudie 2010. Stress bei Schweizer Erwerbstätigen. Zusammenhänge zwischen Arbeitsbedingungen, Personenmerkmalen, Befinden und Gesundheit [Stress study 2010. Stress in Swiss employees. Associations between working conditions, person characteristics,

34

well-being, and health] Bern, Switzerland: Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (seco). Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488. Hacker, W., & Richter, P. (1980). Psychologische Bewertung von Arbeitsgestaltungmassnahmen - Ziele und Bewertungsmassstäbe. Spezielle Arbeits- und Ingenieurpsychologie. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. Hackman, J. R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 309-319. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hall, D. T., & Chandler, D. E. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 155-176. Hall, D. T., & Las Heras, M. (2010). Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just good jobs but smart jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 448-462. Hancock, G. R., & Lawrence, F. R. (2006). Using latent gowth models to evaluate longitudianal change. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling. A second course. Greenwich, UK: Information Age Publishing.

35

Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Longman. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY: Wiley. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nestedself in the stress process: Advancing Conservation of Resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337-421. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307-324. Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632-643. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Stress and burnout in the workplace. In R. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 41-60). New York, NY: Dekker. Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, d. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol.12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-

36

analytic summary and theoretical extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356. Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and selfesteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391-402. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237-249. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized selfefficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710. Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one's advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 12121227. Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): relationship of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 849-863. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Implications of core selfevaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 331-341. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job saitsfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.

37

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job

performance

relationship:

A

qualitative

and

quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 376-407. Kälin, W., Keller, A. C., Tschan, F., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Work experiences and well-being in the first years of professional work in Switzerland: A ten-year follow-up study In A. C. To appear in: Keller, R. Samuel, M. M. Bergman & N. K. Semmer (Eds.), Psychological, educational and sociological perspectives on success and well-being in career development: Springer. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Selfesteem and extrinsic career success: test of a dynamic model. Applied Psychology, 57, 204-224. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., & Ahlburg, D. (2005). The role of temporal shifts in turnover processes: It's about time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 644-658. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308. Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Keller, A. C., Meier, L. L., Gross, S., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Gender differences in the association of resourceful job design and self-

38

esteem over time: A multi-wave study. Manuscript submitted for publication. Keller, A. C., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Changes in situational and dispositional factors as predictors of job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 88-98. Keller, A. C., Semmer, N. K., & Elfering, A. (in prep.). Changes in skill variety predict job satisfaction and psychosomatic complaints. Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 479-486. Korman, A. K. (1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1, 50-63. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: a meta-analysis of personjob, person-organization, person-group, and person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342. Locke, E. A., Lewis-McClear, K., & Knight, D. (1996). Self-esteem and work. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 132). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

39

Loughlin, C., & Lang, K. (2005). Young workers. In J. Barling, K. E. Kelloway & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 405430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgeson, F. P., Garza, A. S., & Campion, M. A. (2013). Work design. In N. W. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychlogy (pp. 525-559). New York: Wiley. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., Eby, L. T., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Determinants of job mobility: A theoretical integration and extension. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 363-386. Nicholson, N. (2010). The design of work: An evolutinary perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 422-431. Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463-479. Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem and its effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1271-1288. Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 620-634.

40

Parker, S. K., & Ohly, S. (2008). Designing motivating jobs. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future: A SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series volume: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based selfesteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591-622. Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 329-346. Ramaciotti, D., & Perriard, J. (2000). Die Kosten des Stresses in der Schweiz [The costs of stress in Switzerland]. Bern: Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft (seco). Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J. L., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 423-434. Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2007). Self-esteem during university studies predicts career characteristics 10 years later. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 463-477. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917.

41

Schooler, C., & Oates, G. (2001). Self-esteem and work across the life course. In T. J. Owens, S. Stryker & N. Goodman (Eds.), Extending self-esteem theory and research: Sociological and psycholgical currents (pp. 177-197). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Unversity Press. Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2006). Love, work, and changes in extraversion and neuroticism over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1152-1165. Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5. Semmer, N. K., & Beehr, T. A. (in press). Job control and social aspects of work. In M. Peeters, J. de Jonge & T. Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., & Elfering, A. (2007). Occupational

stress

research:

The

"stress-as-offense-to-self"

perspective. In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre (Eds.), Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, education and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 43-60). Castelo da Maia, Portugal: ISMAI Publishing. Semmer, N. K., & Schallberger, U. (1996). Selection, socialization, and mutual adaptation: Resolving discrepancies between people and work. Applied Psychology, 45, 263-288.

42

Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Elfering, A., Kälin, W., & Grebner, S. (2005). Young adults entering the workforce in Switzerland: Working conditions and well-being. In H. Kriesi, P. Farago, M. Kohli & M. Zarin-Nejadan (Eds.), Contemporary Switzerland (pp. 163-189). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Siegrist, J. (2002). Effort-reward imbalance at work and health. In P. P. L. & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and wellbeing (Vol. 2. Historical and current perspectives on stress and health, pp. 261-291). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. Sonnentag, S. (1996). Arbeitsbedingungen und psychisches Befinden bei Frauen und Männern. Eine Metaanalyse. [Working conditions and well-being in women and men. A meta-analytic study]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 40, 118-126. Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2013). Stress in organizations. In N. W. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 560-592). New York: Wiley. Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., Judge, T. A., & Adams, J. W. (2010). Core self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction: The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 255265. Stalder, B. E., & Nägele, C. (2011). Vocational education and training in Switzerland: Organisation, development and challenges for the future. In M. M. Bergman, S. Hupka-Brunner, A. Keller, T. Meyer

43

& B. E. Stalder (Eds.), Youth transitions in Switzerland: Results from the TREE panel study (pp. 18-39). Zürich, Switzerland: Seismo. Stumpp, T., Hülsheger, U. R., Muck, P. M., & Maier, G. W. (2009). Expanding the link between core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes.

European

Journal

of

Work

and

Organizational

Psychology, 18, 148-166. Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 282-298. Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. (2003). Challenges in longitudinal designs in occupational health psychology. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 29, 1-4. Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 19. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Ulich, E. (2011). Arbeitspsychologie [Work psychology] (7th ed.). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314-334.

44

Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194. Wiesner, M., Windle, M., & Freeman, A. (2005). Work stress, substance use, and depression among young adult workers: an examination of main and moderator effect model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 83. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201. Wu, C. H., & Griffin, M. A. (2012). Longitudinal relationships between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 331-342. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235-244. Zapf, D., Semmer, N. K., & Johnson, S. (in press). Qualitative demands at work. In M. Peeters, J. de Jonge & T. Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

45