Advertisement

Work-Based Identity Model Testing

  • Francois Bester
  • Anita Bosch
  • Matthijs Bal
Chapter

Abstract

Given the background of the exploratory studies reported in the previous chapter, the first part of this chapter reports on the confirmation of the WI scale in a different (United Arab Emirates) context, where three work-identity subscales were first extracted from the 28 combined items of the instrument by means of a principal component analysis (PCA). These three subscales (work centrality, person–organisation fit, and value congruence) were then confirmed with a CFA procedure in a structural equation model (SEM). The internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach Alpha) of the three subscales were, respectively, .92 (14 items), .87 (5 items), and .77 (6 items) for the 25-item scale. In the first part of this chapter where the SEM was tested, it was established that JRs (need for organisational identity (nOID), organisational reputation, task resources, and remuneration perceptions) and JDs (breach of psychological contract and work–family conflict) significantly interacted to predict varying levels of WI which in turn resulted in increased work engagement or turnover intentions.

The second part of this chapter reports on the moderation effects of education levels and nationality groupings. It was found that these moderators have significant effects on paths in the SEM. It was further established that interactions between JRs and JDs significantly affected the level of WI which in turn impacted work engagement and turnover intentions.

Keywords

Moderation tests Person – organisation fit Structural Equation Model (SEM) Value congruence Work centrality Work-based identity conceptualization Work-based identity scale 

References

  1. Bester, F. (2012). A model of work identity in multicultural work settings. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  2. Bothma, F. C. (2011). The consequences of employees’ work-based identity. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  3. Bothma, F., Roodt, G., & Barkhuizen, N. (2010). Comparing work identity and work engagement as predictors of selected subjective and objective work outcomes. In 27th annual Pan-Pacific conference proceedings (pp. 121–123). Bali: Pan-Pacific Business Association.Google Scholar
  4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organisational membership: A field study of organisational identification. Communication Monographs, 50, 342–362. doi: 10.1080/03637758309390174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Braine, R. (2012). Predictors of work-based identity. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.Google Scholar
  7. De Braine, R., & Roodt, G. (2011). The job demands-resources model as predictor of work identity and work engagement: A comparative analysis. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 11 pages. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v37i2.88.
  8. Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. (1994). Organisational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263. doi: 10.2307/2393235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
  10. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in Survey Questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. doi: 10.1177/109442819800100106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanungo, R. (1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  12. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organisation fit: An integrative review of its conceptualisations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lawler, E., & Hall, D. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305–312. doi: 10.1037/h0029692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and organisational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organisation fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516. doi: 10.2307/256404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paullay, I., Alliger, G., & Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224–228. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Piasentin, K., & Chapman, D. (2007). Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person-organisation fit. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 80, 341–354. doi: 10.1348/096317906X115453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pryor, R., & Davies, R. (1989). A comparison of conceptualizations of work centrality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 283–289. doi: 10.1002/job.4030100308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Psychology and People ManagementUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.School of ManagementUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations