CC BY
73
Autonomy and competence as predictors of affective job insecurity
Section 1. Industrial and organizational psychology
Jasmina Knezevic, Master and Specialization in Psychology, High Vocational School for teachers and trainers, Subotica
E-mail: jmknezevic@gmail.com
Autonomy and competence as predictors of affective job insecurity
Abstract: The paperwork investigates the relationship between the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs — autonomy and competence and the affective dimension of job insecurity. The results speak in favour of the basic psychological needs as the predictors of the stress experience at work: with the greater satisfaction of the autonomy and competence, the feeling of the strength of the threat caused by job insecurity becomes weaker and, with the higher level of the satisfaction of the need for autonomy, the feeling of helplessness becomes smaller.
Keywords: basic psychological needs, job insecurity, threat.
Job insecurity cuses stress with potentially negative consequences for the employed person as well as for the company and may be regarded as the main source of stress at work. Such a certainty originates from the knowledge on stress which underlines the fact that the anticipation of stressful events is equally important, or it may even be a deeper source of anxiety compared to a real incident [1]. Different authors have defined the concept of job insecurity in completely different ways. Hartley and his associates determine it as a fissure between the level of security, which a person actually feels, and the level of security he prefers [2], while Davy, Kinicki and Scheck are of the opinion that it should be stated through the expectations connected with the continuity of the work situation [3].
In the Republic of Serbia the job insecurity is becoming an integral part of the actual job market and reality faced by each working person. In the beginning of the 1990s, Serbia, like other socialistic countries, entered the period of its transition — the process of transforming the past socialistic economy into the market economy, which created the new business surrounding and new institutiona l infrastructure and that meant that the privatisation of firms became the imperative, basic question [4]. The trend of lessening the influence of the trade
unions and an evident drop of the number of the organizations of trade unions additionally increased the vulnerability of employees compared to their bosses' positions and their decisions on sacking workers or on the changes which are in close relationship with the working roles.
The researches confirmed the role of the basic psychological needs in the perception of stress (threats), stress evaluation and ways of responding to stress in different life domains [5; 6; 7]. From the aspect of the Theory of Selfdetermination, the basic psychological needs represent the energetic potentials of a person; if they are fulfilled, they contribute to the menthal health, the person's integrity and characteristic self, but, if they are not met, they cause sickness and pathology [8]. The authors speak of three basic psychological needs: the need for authonomy, the need for competency and the need of relatedness. The competence relates to the feeling of success in optimally challenging tasks and to achieving wishfull results (for example [9; 10]); autonomy means the experience of choice and the person's feeling that he is the initiator of his behaviour and actions [11; 12]; the relatedness includes the feeling of mutual respect, worries and bonding/support of other people [13; 14]. The satisfaction of basic
3
Section 1. Industrial and organizational psychology
psychological needs has great impact onto the process of the person's estimate of demanding psychological situations since it forms “obvious reality of objective happenings” [5]. Skiner and Edge claim that in the accordance with the level of satisfaction of one's psychological needs, the stressfull situation may be judged in the way of challenge [5]. In the similar way, Ntoumanis and his associates point to the satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence, promoting the appraisal of control in the situation, more exactly, the secondary evaluation within the stressfull situation since individuals have the feeling of efficiency and ownership of goals that are important to them and toward which they head to [15]. Blaskovic with his associates [16] indicates that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs can encourage valuable psychological resources that contribute to a better assessment ofthe psychological state of the person and the psychological shaping of stressful situations in the direction of challenges, not threats. Mladenovic found that needs for autonomy and competence were the most significant needs in organizational context in Serbia [17]. Taking into consideration these findings, it is important to examine if there was a similar connection of needs for autonomy and competence with the intensive stres like job insecurity. In the accordance of the ruling statements and opinions in literature, it is expected that with the higher level of satisfied basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence, the strenght of threat and feeling of helplessness would be reduced. Therefore, the problem of this research is formulated in one single question: what is the connection like between the satisfaction of the autonomy and competence at work and the affective dimension of job insecurity? The aim of this research is to understand the role of the basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence in the affective dimension of the threat caused by job insecurity. Two hypotheses were formulated in this work: H1 It is expected that with the greater satisfaction ofthe autonomy and competence at work the feeling of helplessness, caused by job insecurity, will be smaller, and H2 It is expected that with the greater satisfaction of autonomy and competence at work the feeling of the strenght of threat caused by job insecurity will be smaller.
Method
Sample
The sample was created of 310 employees, 144 men (46.5%) and 166 women (53.5%) from 24 different companies (of various size, profile, structure and ownership), which had dissimilar working positions: workers (247; 79.7%) and managers (63; 20.3%). The chosen employees work in companies located in the northern part of Republic ofSerbia — Backa District (Subotica, Backa Topola and Mali Idos). After the authors received the approval of the companies management, the criterion for choosing employees to be questioned was their readiness to take part in this research.
Instruments
The Scale of the Perception of Job Insecurity (SPJI, [18] . was created according to similar scales ([19; 20]. The scale consists of 22 items, all of the items are expressed in Likert's scale of five degrees. The items which belong to subscales are those which, after the factor analysis, show the most saturation on the isolated factors. The perception of job insecurity was conceptualized as the accessibility of the working role for the employees for the certain time in the future, and it is made ofthree qualitative dimensions: the feeling of helplessness (affective dimension), the strength of the threats (affective dimension) and the evaluation of the possible job loss (cognitive dimension). The feeling of helplessness refers to the subjective judgement of feeling unable to prevent the expected job loss, the strength of the threat also includes the subjective judgement ofthe intensity ofthe threatening situation, while the possibility of the j ob loss represents the subjective estimation of the employee that he could lose his job, based on the personal resources of the employee. The Scale of the Satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs at Work [17]. The satisfaction of the basic psychological needs was worked out through the scale of 21 items of the five-degree scale, a type of Likert's scale. Marijana Mladenovic [17] translated and adapted this scale in Serbian language according to the original one created by Deci and his associates [21], for her researches within her doctorate dissertation [17]. Originally, seven items refer onto the need for autonomy, six for competence and eight for the need for relatedness. The used items are those which entered the pure three-factorial structure.
4
Autonomy and competence as predictors of affective job insecurity
Results
The first hypothesis was the following (Hi): It is expected that, with the higher level of the satisfaction of the autonomy and competence at work, the feeling ofhelplessness, caused by job insecurity, is going to be reduced. The multiple regressive analyses were done for the basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence as predictors and the feeling ofweakness as the criterium variable. The model which includes these variables, shown in table No. i, statistically is significant, F(3,227) = 8.62, p < .001, and within it, as an important predictor, only one variable stands out and that is the Need for Autonomy (ß = -.27, p < .01) As the feeling of the satisfaction of psychological need of autonomy grows, the feeling of helplessness drops, so it may be said that this hypothesis is partly supported. H2: It is expected that, with the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence at work, the perceiving strength of the threats caused by job insecurity should be weaker. The multiple regressive analyses were carried out, with the basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence as predictors, and the strength of threat as a criteria variable. The Model, which included these variables (shown in Table No. 2), was significant F(3,227) = 21.26, p < .001 and within it, as important predictors, both variables emerged as very important: the need for autonomy (ß = -.37, p < .001) and the need for competence (ß = -.19, p < .01) By increasing the satisfaction of these two needs, the feeling of the strength of threat becomes weaker, so we can conclude that this hypothesis is fully supported.
Discussion
The aim of this work was to understand the role of the basic psychological needs — preciselly, the need for autonomy and competence, in the affective dimension of job insecurity. The results of this research are in the line with the previous results which point to the important role of the basic psychological needs in shaping the judgement and evaluation of stress situations as well as the ways of overcoming them [5; 22]. This research show that the greatest effect, onto the experience of job insecurity has the satisfaction of the need for autonomy, and after that, the need for competence. These two needs distinguished themselves as important predictors of
the affective experience of the threat generated by job insecurity.
The results of this research also show that with the greater satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence, the feeling of the strength of the threats, generated by the job insecurity, becomes weaker. At the same time, with the higher level of the satisfaction of the need for autonomy, the feeling of helplessness becomes smaller. The term autonomy here is used for man's need that his behaviour and results should be self-determined, independent by other people, which must be distinguished from the controlled behavior which depends on the influence of other people or certain external factors. Competence is in relation to the person's need to feel active/productive and capable of performing tasks of different levels of complexity [8].
The satisfaction of the need for autonomy is pointed out as the most important factor in lessening the level of threat in perceiving job insecurity. The existence of choice, possibilities of planning and realizing activities which are self-initiated, made by free will, according to the wishes of the employeed person, creates the feeling of controlling the situation and lessens the threat of job insecurity as well as the feeling of helplessness. These findings are in accordance with the exploration of the relationship between the job instability and the psychological benefits at work where the lack of the possibility to be able to make choices and perform self-initiated activities, were most harmful effects of j ob insecurity [23; 24]. The satisfaction of the need for competence stimulates the feeling of skillfulness and control over the instable situation of an unsteady job and contributes to lessening the strength of threat.
Speaking generally, the satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence induces the psychological resources of the employed person by increasing his self-esteem, efficiency and the inner lokus of control which all together create important sources for overcoming stress. It also helps the person feel better about himself, empowering employees psychological state and shaping the stressful situation towards experiencing minor threats. Those employees, who feel capable to fight threats, who believe in themselves, think that they have some influence onto the job insecurity,
5
Section 1. Industrial and organizational psychology
so they will readily face the challenging situation. These findings are in accordance with the results of other theoreticians who speak of the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs as a factor of resiliency among workers [25] [5], and the influence of selfconfidence in estimating stress and reacting to it as if it were a challenge [26]. If a person has a high opinion on himself and thinks positively, it is very probable that he will see a stressful situation as a challenge, or a possibility for growth and development. Liflin and his associates [27] claim that high self-confidence mitigates the negative judgement of the stressor (the estimate of the threat and uncontrolling event).
Conclusion
This research gives an insight into different aspects of the experienced threat of employees caused by job insecurity and speaks in favour of the theory of self-determination as a relevant frame for understanding the perception of job insecurity and the basic psychological needs as the significant factors of the answer onto the stress at work. The main practical implications of this research may be seen in taking into consideration the possibility of creating social interventions at work in order to improve, make stronger the resistance to the stress caused by the job insecurity — activities aimed towards the satisfaction of autonomy and competence of those who work. In accordance with the theory of selfdetermination, it is possible to make affirmative adaptive aspects of the working encirclement which stimulate autonomy and competence. The support to autonomy means offering choices at
Tables
work and giving reasonal explanations to workers by managers, authorities (supervisors, leaders, and so on), respecting the opinions of the employees and recognizing their perspectives of employees in the interaction with high-ranking authorities as well as lessening the stress at work by using minimum control and reducing the pressure at work [28]. The second adaptive aspect is called structure, and it refers to the authorities, who should verbalize their expectations clearly, give optimal working encirclement and constructive feedback to employees [29].
The basic restrictions of this research refer to the source and way of collecting data. Namely, the selfestimated level of stress at work is influenced by the dispositional factors of the mood, so they certainly need to be controlled [30] [31]. The self-estimations of the questioned workers represent a sort of danger, in the form of the phenomenom known as common method bias (bias caused by the fact that all the data was gathered by self-estimated employees which may lead to the inflation of corelations among phenomenons). Also, this research did not take into the account the influence of the personal variables, such as optimism and positive affectivity. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt [23] suggest that such individual differences may have an important role when it comes to job insecurity perception. The applied longitudinal draft of the research could insure a better insight of the interaction of individual differences in the situation of job insecurity and overcome all the limitations connected to the selfestimations of the employees.
Table No. 1. - The Importance of the Model and the Partial Contribution of Predictors In Predicting the Feeling of Helplessness
Model Predictors ß t p
R2 =.10; F = 8.62; p <.001 Autonomy -.267 -3.260 .001
Connection -.140 -1.880 .061
Competence .069 .861 .390
Table No. 2. - The Importance of the Model and the Partial Contribution of Predictors In Forecasting the Strength of Threats
Model Predictors ß t P
R2 =.22; F = 21.26; p <.001 Autonomy -.374 -4.889 .000
Connection .097 1.405 .161
Competence -.194 -2.608 .010
6
Autonomy and competence as predictors of affective job insecurity
References:
1. Lazarus R. S. & Folkman S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.
2. Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B. & Van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity: Coping with Jobs at Risk. London: Sage.
3. Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A.J., & Scheck, C. L. (1997). A test of job security’s direct and mediated effects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
4. Cvijenovic, D., Mihajlovic, B. i Simonovic, Z. (2009). Tranzicija u Srbiji: efekti i ogranicenja. Transition, Vol.10 No. 21-22 April 2009.
5. Skinner, E., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, coping, and development. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 297-337). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
6. Hodgins, S. H., & Knee, R. C. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 87-100). Rochester, The University of Rochester Press.
7. Hodgins, H. S. (2008). Motivation, threshold for threat, and quieting the ego. In H. Wayment & J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending selfinterest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 117-124).Washing-ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. Ryan, M. R. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54-67.
9. Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
11. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.
12. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
13. Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
14. Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673-685.
15. Ntoumanis, N., Edmunds, J.& Duda, J., L. (2009). Understanding the coping process from a self-determination theory perspective, British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 249-260.
16. Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Tomaka, J., Salomon, K., & Seery, M. (2003). The robust nature of the Biopsychosocial Model Challenge and Threat: A reply to Wright and Kirby. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (3), 234-243.
17. Mladenovic, М. (2009). Uticaj globalne motivacione orijentacije i percepcije bazicnih psihickih potreba na motivaciju za rad. (Nepublikovana doktorska disertacija). Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Beograd.
18. Knezevic, J. i Majstorovic, N. (2013). Merenje percepcije nestabilnosti zaposlenja: konstrukcija i vali-dacija Skale percepcije nestabilnosti zaposlenja (manuskript). Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu, Novi Sad.
19. Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32 (4), 803-829.
20. Isaksson, K., Hellgren, J., & Pettersson, P. (1998). Strukturomvandling inom svensk detaljhandel: Up-pföljning av omorganization och personalminskning i KF/KDAB (Structural transformation in Swedish retail trade: Follow-up of a reorganisation and layoff in KF/KDAB). Stockholm: Stockholm University (Reports from the Department of Psychology, No. 97/1998).
21. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne', M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.
7
Section 1. Industrial and organizational psychology
22. Milyavskaya, M., Gingras, I., Mageau, G., Koestner, R., Gagnon, H., Fang, J., & Boiche, J., (2009). Balance Across Contexts: Importance of Balanced Need Satisfaction Across Various Life Domains, Personality and social psychology bulletin, Vol. 35 No. 8, 1031-1045.
23. Greenhalgh, L. & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 438-448.
24. Sverke, M. & Hellgren, J. (2002). The nature of job insecurity: Understanding employment insecurity on the brink of a new millennium. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51 (1), 23-42.
25. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum press.
26. Rector, N. A., & Roger, D. (1997). The stress buffering effects of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 23 (5), 799-808.
27. Lee-Flynn, S. C., Pomaki, G., DeLongis, A., Biesanz, J. C., & Puterman, E. (2011). Daily cognitive appraisals, daily affect, and long-term depressive symptoms: The role of self-esteem and self-concept clarity in the stress process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (2), 255-268.
28. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
29. Reeve, J. (2002). Self determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183-203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
30. Hellgren, J., Sverke, M., & Isaksson, K. (1999). A two-dimensional approach to job insecurity: Consequences for employee attitudes and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 179-195.
31. Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C., Fournier, C. (1993). Coping with job insecurity: How does personality make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 617-630.
8
