Lacking Resources: How Job Insecurity Impacts Psychological Capital and Perceived Employability Differently than Mindfulness

Transcription

1 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 1 Lacking Resources: How Job Insecurity Impacts Psychological Capital and Perceived Employability Differently than Mindfulness Master s Thesis Human Resource Studies Tilburg University, 5 December 2016 Name: Frances Maria Egan ANR: Theme: Job insecurity and employability Supervisor: Dr. B. Kroon Second supervisor: Prof. dr. J. Paauwe Period: April December 2016

2 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 2 Abstract Purpose. Job insecurity is detrimental to employability because it motivates employees to dedicate their resources towards remaining employed instead of enhancing employability. Building on Conservation of Resources theory, we propose that psychological capital is the mediating mechanism explaining the negative relationship between job insecurity and employability. Additionally, we suggest that mindfulness aids employee s psychological capital and hence enhances employability. Design/Methodology. Using survey data from 317 employees, Hayes process mediation analyses were performed. Results. The results indicated that quantitative and qualitative job insecurity negatively influence employability because they negatively influence psychological capital. Also, mindfulness positively influenced employability because it positively affects psychological capital. However, the relationships between qualitative job insecurity, mindfulness and employability were only partly mediated by psychological capital. The relationship between quantitative job insecurity and employability was fully mediated by psychological capital. Limitations. The results may be biased because of convenience sampling and common method variance caused by self-report measures. Additionally, causal relationships cannot be verified because of the cross-sectional design. Research/Practical Implications. Future research is needed to fully understand how quantitative and qualitative job insecurity affect employability and whether mindfulness could counteract these detrimental effects by improving psychological capital. Finally, practitioners should not merely rely on employees psychological capital to enhance their employability, particularly in times of job insecurity. Originality/Value. The research sheds light on an unexplored combination of job and personal resources providing insights regarding whether and how psychological capital and mindfulness benefit employability. Furthermore, the study contributes to understanding how job insecurity leads to decreased employability. Keywords: employability, psychological capital, job insecurity, mindfulness, conservation of resources theory, positive organizational behavior

3 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 3 Introduction Being employable - the ability to continuously fulfill, acquire and create work - is increasingly becoming a requisite personal resource for employees because of today s accelerated growth in job insecurity (De Cuyper, Mäkikangas, Kinnunen, Mauno, & Witte, 2012; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Hellgren, Sverke & Isaksson 1999; van der Klink et al., 2016). However, an employee s capability to become more employable depends on one s personal resources. Examples of personal resources, entailing personal characteristics determining how individuals comprehend, control and influence their environment, are psychological capital and mindfulness (Avey, Wernsing & Luthans, 2008; van den Broeck, van Ruysseveldt, Vanbelle, De Witte, 2013; Hyland, Lee, Mills, 2015; Newman, Ucbasara, Zhu & Hirst, 2014; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2007). Psychological capital is composed of the psychological resources self-efficacy, optimism, resilience and hope. Employees possessing high psychological capital are found to be better able to successfully bounce back from uncertainties, persevere and redirect paths and goals. An individual s psychological capital may be aided by high levels of mindfulness because mindfulness enables employees to preserve and/or develop other personal resources and since mindful employees are more aware of their resource availabilities (Avey et al., 2008; Kira, van Eijnatten & Balkin, 2010; Manuti, 2014). Mindfulness is an inner resource in which an individual is open, receptive and nonjudgmental towards the present. Being mindful is a cognitive skill which can be learned and subsequently applied to accomplish goals and personal development (Bishop et al., 2004; Hyland et al., 2015; Reb & Choi, 2014; Roche, Haar & Luthans, 2014). However, it remains unclear whether improved psychological capital and/or mindfulness unconditionally have a positive influence on employee attitudes, behaviors and resource enlargement. Specifically, employees may encounter difficulties in becoming employable since a job insecure environment is a rule rather than an exception for an increasing number of employees (Hobfoll, 2001; De Cuyper et al., 2012; Kira et al., 2014; Sender, Arnold, & Staffelbach, 2016; Sverke, Hellgren & Näswall, 2002). Job insecurity can be quantitative (e.g. actual job loss) and/or qualitative (e.g. change of job content or relations) and may negatively influence the development of one s employability

4 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 4 because it threatens one job resources, amongst others (van den Broeck et al., 2013; Hellgren et al., 1999; Hobfoll, 2001). Examples of job resources, which are job characteristics enabling individuals to achieve work-related goals and reduce potential costs associated with job demands (e.g. workload), are co-worker support, stable employment and job training (van den Broeck et al., 2013; Bal, Hofmans & Polat, 2016; Hobfoll, 2001). The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory suggests that both personal and job resources are needed to enhance supplementary personal resources, such as employability (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, 2001). Specifically, COR theory infers that individuals possessing high mindfulness will have more resource reservoirs to draw from in order to develop psychological capital and subsequently employability. In contrast, COR theory suggests that employees experiencing job insecurity reside in a resource lacking situation. Therefore, it can be expected that a job insecure environment will disable employees to manage psychological capital and subsequently employability gains since they have fewer resources available (Avey et al., 2008; De Cuyper, De Witte, Kinnunen, & Nätti, 2010; Hobfoll, 2001; Sverke et al., 2002). In order to enlighten the mechanism through which resource (in)adequacies influence employability, the present paper aims to answer the following research question: To what extent do quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and mindfulness relate to employability through affecting one s psychological capital? By probing the aforementioned research question, this paper aims to contribute to calls of further investigating the relationships between individual characteristics (i.e. psychological capital and mindfulness), environmental characteristics (i.e. job insecurity) and individual work outcomes (i.e. employability) (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Hyland, Lee & Mills, 2015; van der Klink et al., 2016; Newman, Ucbasara, Zhu & Hirst, 2014). By focusing on this relatively unexplored combination of resources, insights will be provided regarding whether psychological capital has unconstrained benefits within the work environment, particularly in terms of employability. Knowledge will be generated concerning whether and how employability is affected by psychological capital when job resources are absent/threatened (i.e. job insecurity) and when personal resources are present (i.e. mindfulness). Furthermore, examining the effects of quantitative and qualitative job

5 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 5 insecurity will lead to a better understanding of how job insecurity leads to (undesirable) employee work outcomes such as a decreased employability (Sverke et al., 2002; Sverke & Hellgren, 2002). Finally, gaining more knowledge on the relationship between psychological capital, mindfulness and employability is desirable from both the employee and employer s perspective as it provides a better understanding of whether investing in the development of psychological capital and mindfulness really is beneficial, even during job insecurity (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Newman et al., 2014; Roche et al., 2014). The next section will elucidate the conceptual model by defining quantitative and qualitative job insecurity, mindfulness, psychological capital and employability and by substantiating the relationships among those by means of COR theory. Theoretical Framework Employability and job insecurity. To determine whether the relationship between job insecurity and employability is conceivable, the present paragraph elucidates upon these two concepts by means of COR theory. First, employability is defined as the competency of (1) having plentiful occupational expertise, (2) having corporate sense regarding shared responsibilities, knowledge and goals, (3) being able to pro-actively anticipate to and optimize forthcoming occupational changes, (4) being personally flexible when adapting towards organizational change and (5) being able to find balance between opposing employer and employee interests. Individuals are considered employable when they are able to execute the aforementioned competences in an integrative manner during one s occupational tasks (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006). COR theory classifies personal characteristics (e.g. personality traits and skills) as personal resources. Employability can be considered a personal resource because it includes the proficiency of individual competences aided by personal skills, attitudes and behaviors (De Cuyper et al., 2012; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Hobfoll, 2001). Thus and in contrast to being able to turnover, being employable entails the utilization of personal resources to sustain performance

6 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 6 also within one s current career (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, Mhatre, 2011; Cuyper et al., 2008; De Cuyper et al., 2012). Second, job insecurity entails a sense of powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in a threatened job situation (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984, p. 438) and can either be quantitative (i.e. uncertainty regarding the future existence of one s job) or qualitative (i.e. uncertainty regarding resources associated with one s job) (Hellgren et al., 1999). Job insecurity is classified as both a job demand and a lack of job resources. Job demands are aspects of the job that require effort and are associated with physical and/or psychological costs potentially causing negative employee outcomes (e.g. impaired (psychological) well-being) while a lack job resources hinders employees to achieve goals and reduce costs induced by job demands. Thus, a lack of job resources may lead to negative employee outcomes as well (van den Broeck et al., 2013; Hobfoll, 2001; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). The present study categorizes job insecurity as a resource lacking situation because job resources such as career opportunity and stable employment are under pressure or even eroded (Hellgren et al., 1999; Hobfoll, 2001; Sverke et al., 2002). According to COR Theory, individuals must possess sufficient resources in order to protect against resource loss, recover from resource loss or to gain other resources. Therefore, those with scarcer resources will be less proficient in developing supplementary personal resources (Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll, 1989). Because individuals experiencing job insecurity lack resource availabilities, decreased capacity for employability development and a stimulus to save and protect employability resources emerges. Particularly during ongoing job insecurity, an employee s resource reservoirs may become too exhausted, resulting in immobilized, underdeveloped or decreased employability reserves (Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll, 1989). As a result and because there is uncertainty regarding what to prepare for, an employee may choose to scale back on employability investment by exhibiting undesirable behaviors (De Cuyper et al., 1012; Hobfoll, 1989; Sverke et al., 2002). For example, when employees experience insecurity regarding future career opportunities within their organization (i.e. qualitative job insecurity) they might refrain from applying newly acquired skills within their current function (i.e. employability anticipation and optimization) because they are uncertain whether this will actually

7 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 7 lead to a desirable result (e.g. receiving a promotion). Accordingly, previous studies have demonstrated that qualitative job insecurity particularly affects employee attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction and commitment) negatively and that quantitative job insecurity affects employee wellbeing negatively (Ashford, Lee, Bobko, 1989; De Cuyper et al., 2010; Davy, Kinicki, Scheck, 1997; Hellgren et al., 1999; Roskies & Louis-Guerin, 1990; Sender et al., 2016; Sverke et al., 2002). Therefore, the first and second hypotheses posit that: H1: Quantitative job insecurity is negatively related to employability. H2: Qualitative job insecurity is negatively related to employability. Employability and mindfulness. Within the present paragraph we will explain whether there is a relationship between employability and mindfulness; a concept which is recently found to have a major positive contribution within the workplace by positively influencing an employee s personal resources (e.g. resilience) and the ability to positively react to occupational changes (Hyland et al., 2015; Avey et al., 2008). Mindfulness is considered an inner resource by which individuals provide greater nonjudgmental awareness of one s internal (e.g. thoughts, feelings) and external (e.g. sounds, smells) environment by means of focusing on the here and now instead of the past and future. Mindful people are able to decouple their thoughts from reaction, take an open and accepting attitude and decrease automatic mental processes (Avey et al., 2008; Hyland et al., 2015; Reb & Choi, 2014, Roche et al., 2014). Because mindfulness is considered a personal skill determining how individuals understand, react to and influence their environment, it seamlessly fits the definition of a personal resource as utilized within COR theory literature (van den Broeck et al., 2015; Hobfoll, 2001; Hyland et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2014; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). COR theory posits that individuals are able to invest resources within the limits of their resource availabilities and that therefore those individuals possessing high degrees of resources will be better able to gain other resources. Furthermore, COR theory assumes that resources aggregate in so-called resource caravans since possessing one resource is often found to lead to the possession of other resources (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, 2001). High

8 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 8 mindfulness should therefore be linked with having other resources, such as employability, too. In accordance, mindful employees are found to be more open and flexible towards new ways of working, representing high degrees employability competences (Avey et al., 2011; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Hyland et al., 2015; Manuti, 2014; Kira et al., 2010). Hence, it is hypothesized that: H3: Mindfulness is positively related to employability. The mediating role of psychological capital. In the following paragraph we consider a mechanism which, on the one hand, explains the depletion of employability caused by quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and, on the other hand, explains the restoration of employability caused by mindfulness. Particularly, we posit that quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and mindfulness have the potential to affect psychological capital. Psychological capital is considered a personal resource as meant in COR Theory and enables individuals to (1) have confidence in being successful and of added value within their work environment (i.e. self-efficacy), (2) be able to successfully persevere and redirect paths and goals (i.e. hope), (3) be able to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty and increased responsibility (i.e. resilience) and (4) have positive future expectations about succeeding now and in the future (i.e. optimism) (Avey et al., 2008; Avey et al., 2011; Hobfoll, 2001; Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007; Roche et al., 2014). Psychological capital is found to be moderately flexible and therefore open for human resource development and performance management (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2007). Furthermore, employees high in psychological capital are found to be more perseverant regarding work-related challenges (e.g. job insecurities) and engage more in gaining resources (Avey et al., 2008; Luthans, 2007). Repetitively gaining resources is referred to as gain spirals, which means that initial resource gain will beget further resource gain because individuals with high degrees of resources will be better able to develop other resources. In accordance, COR Theory also theorizes that resources will aggregate in so-called resource caravans (Hobfoll 2001; Hobfoll, 1989). Specifically, possessing high mindfulness signifies more solid resource reservoirs aiding the ability for developing psychological capital.

9 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 9 Subsequently, individuals will have a positive, self-efficacious, hopeful and resilient attitude serving as an even more solid resource reservoir inducing the creation, protection and enhancement of employability reservoirs (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, 2001; Luthans et al., 2007). In support of this line of thought, research has shown that psychological capital positively influences desirable attitudes such as organizational commitment and staying intentions (Avey et al., 2008; Avey et al., 2011; Newman et al., 2014). Furthermore, it has been found that mindfulness leads to less depression and anxiety among managers across different hierarchical levels because mindfulness affects these managers psychological capital positively (Roche et al., 2015). Accordingly, the fourth hypothesis within the present study states that: H4: Mindfulness is positively related to employability, because mindfulness positively affects psychological capital which in turn leads to increased employability. However, a gain spiral may turn into a loss spiral, meaning that initial resource loss will engender future resource loss, when one s psychological capital is affected by quantitative and/or qualitative job insecurity (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, 2001). More specifically, COR theory posits that individuals must invest resources to offset further resource loss causing individuals to become increasingly vulnerable to ongoing loss once initial losses have occurred. Thus, the utilization of psychological capital resources in order to protect against and/or recover from a job insecure situation leads to the depletion of psychological capital reservoirs. Once psychological capital losses have occurred, individuals will have no resources left to invest when employability development is desirable (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, 2001). (Hobfoll 1989; Hobfoll, 2001). Instead, individuals will adopt even more resource-consuming undesirable attitudes and behaviors (De Cuyper et al., 2010; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, 2001; Sverke et al., 2002). To illustrate, during job insecure times employees are uncertain regarding whether their organization continues to need their competencies (i.e. qualitative job insecurity) and/or whether their job remains to exist within the future (i.e. quantitative job insecurity). However, employees do have to perform daily tasks at a sufficient level to prevent even greater quantitative and/or qualitative job insecurity or actual job loss. In order to do so, employees utilize their optimism and encourage themselves that they are successful in their job. Thus, one s psychological capital resources (i.e.

10 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 10 optimism and self-efficacy) are utilized in order to cope with quantitative and/or qualitative job insecurity and therefore are of limited availability for enhancing employability. When qualitative and/or quantitative job insecurity continues to exist and insufficient positive job prospects are provided, employees gradually become less optimistic and self-efficacious regarding whether the organization needs their competencies and whether their job remains to exist. Specifically, employees psychological capital decreases. This can lead to a motivation to refrain from sharing skills and experiences with colleagues because employees are becoming less confident regarding whether these skills and experiences are truly valuable for being successful within the organization. Moreover, employees may become less optimistic whether sharing their skills and experiences with their colleagues is actually beneficial when their colleagues jobs are uncertain as well. Thus instead of engaging in desirable helping behaviors which represent a form of employability, a loss spiral causes employees to become more cautious in exhibiting employability (De Cuyper et al., 2010; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Hobfoll, 2001; Sverke et al., 2002). Accordingly, quantitative and qualitative job insecurity are found to predict the deterioration of psychological well-being. Because psychological capital is characterized by the exact opposite, namely great psychological well-being, one can infer that quantitative and qualitative job insecurity predict impaired psychological capital (Dekker and Schaufeli, 1995; Hellgren et al., 1999; Luthans et al., 2007; Sverke et al., 2002). As such, the fifth and sixth hypotheses are as follows: H5: Quantitative job insecurity is negatively related to employability because quantitative job insecurity affects psychological capital negatively, which in turn leads to reduced employability. H6: Qualitative job insecurity is negatively related to employability because qualitative job insecurity affects psychological capital negatively, which in turn leads to reduced employability.

11 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 11 Figure 1. Conceptual model. Method Within the present section the research design, procedures, sample, measures, analyses and results of the study used to test the relationships between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity, mindfulness, psychological capital and employability are presented. Research design. The present research was conducted within a broader research project conducted within Tilburg University s School of Social and Behavioral Sciences. In October 2015, bachelor students Human Resource Studies (HRS) gathered cross-sectional convenience data from 627 respondents. In May 2016, master students HRS collected longitudinal data from 187 of these 627 respondents for their master s theses. The authors of the present paper were involved in developing the corresponding questionnaire and therefore had access to the dataset collected in However, no longitudinal data relevant for the current study was obtained because the variables employability, psychological capital, quantitative and qualitative job insecurity were not included in the 2015 questionnaire. Furthermore, following the advice from Tilburg University s Department of Methodology and Statistics an identical questionnaire was distributed among the master

12 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 12 students HRS network to enhance the statistical power of the data collected in Consequently, the present study is based on one total sample drawn from two smaller samples containing data collected in 2016 from: (1) respondents originally belonging to the 2015 sample (i.e. Sample 1) and, (2) respondents targeted through the network of Tilburg University s master students HRS (i.e. Sample 2). Procedure. A quantitative cross-sectional design was used to obtain a total sample which existed out of two smaller samples. First, data were drawn from a population belonging to the sample previously targeted through the network of bachelor students HRS at Tilburg University in Respondents (187) who indicated to be willing to participate in a supplementary study were approached by telephone to verify whether they were still willing to participate in a follow-up study. This part of the total sample is referred to as Sample 1. Additional data were collected through convenience sampling by master students also within Tilburg University s HRS. This second part of the total sample is referred to as Sample 2. Both samples received identical questionnaires which were distributed during May 2016 in Dutch through Qualtrics.com. A cover was sent along to (a) elucidate the aim of the study, (b) explain the procedure, (c) emphasize confidentiality and (d) point towards voluntary participation. After the data collection procedure was finished, Sample 1 and Sample 2 were merged into one dataset in order to gain improved statistical power. Sample. After the two samples were merged, listwise-deletion of missing values resulted in a final sample of 317 respondents. Appendix A presents the demographic characteristics of this sample. The age within the sample ranged from 19 to 64 years with an average of years (SD = 13.68). Furthermore, 41.9% of the respondents were male and 58.1% were female. Regarding educational level, 59.3% of the respondents were higher educated (possessing a higher vocational or an academic degree), 22% completed intermediate vocational education and 15% reported the completion of merely secondary school. The average organizational tenure ranged from 0 to 45 years, with an average of years (SD = 11.13). Additionally, 16% of the respondents were working in finance, 15.4% in healthcare, 9.2% in education, 8.7% in government and 6.4% in industry. Sample 1 and

13 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 13 Sample 2 slightly differed from each other regarding psychological capital (Table 1) and mindfulness (Table 2). Table 1 Contrast of Sample 1 with Sample 2 on psychological capital. Time 1 Time 2 95% CI Variable M SD M SD t(332) p LL UL Psychological capital Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. Table 2 Contrast of Sample 1 with Sample 2 on mindfulness. Time 1 Time 2 95% CI Variable M SD M SD t(330) p LL UL Mindfulness Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. Measures. All respondents were asked to rate themselves in terms of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity, mindfulness, psychological capital and employability. Before any statistical analyses were conducted, all measures were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) of which the results are presented in Appendix B. Employability. Employability was assessed with a shortened Dutch scale measuring: (1) anticipation and optimization (4 items) and (2) personal flexibility (4 items) (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006). Example items are: I consciously devote attention to applying my newly acquired knowledge and skills (anticipation and optimization) and I adapt to developments within my organization. All items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = very little, 6 = very great deal and 1 = not at all, 6 = to a considerable degree). Based on a single factor PCA solution, the overall internal consistency reliability for the employability measure was considered good (α =.787). Psychological Capital. Psychological capital was measured using 12 items of the Dutch Psychological Capital Questionnaire representing self-efficacy, resilience, hope and optimism

14 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 14 (Luthans, Avolio & Avey, 2007). The instrument included three items for each of the four constructs measured on a 6-point Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Example items are I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management (self-efficacy), I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals (hope), I usually take stressful things at work in stride (resilience) and I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job (optimism). Based on a single factor PCA solution, the overall internal consistency reliability for the psychological capital measure was considered good (α =.854). Quantitative and qualitative job insecurity. Quantitative and qualitative job insecurity were measured using seven items representing perceived threats to the continuity of the job itself and a threat to the continuity of important job features (Hellgren et al., 1999). Example items are I am worried about having to leave my job before I would like to (quantitative job insecurity) and My future career opportunities in [the organization] are favorable (qualitative job insecurity). The responses were obtained on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). All items were translated from English to Dutch using the translation back translation technique (Brislin, 1970). Before the items were subjected to PCA, the qualitative job insecurity responses were reversed. PCA revealed the presence of two components with the items designed to measure qualitative job insecurity loading on the first component, whereas the items designed to measure quantitative job insecurity loaded on the second component. The internal consistency reliability was good for both the quantitative ( =.826) and qualitative job insecurity ( =.712). Mindfulness. Mindfulness was measured using five items from the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) (Brown & Ryan, 2003). All items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 6 (almost always). An example item is I rush through activities without being really attentive to them. Before the items were subjected to PCA, the responses were reversed. PCA revealed one component and the internal consistency reliability was good ( =.743). Control variables. In line with previous studies on job insecurity, mindfulness, psychological capital and employability, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), level of education (0 = lower education, 1 =

15 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 15 higher education) and age (in years) were included as control variables in order to rule out any alternative explanations (Avey et al., 2008; De Cuyper et al., 2012; van der Heijden, de Lange, Demerouti & van der Heijde, 2009; Roche et al., 2014; Sender et al., 2016; Sverke et al., 2002). Furthermore, the initial sample to which the respondents belonged was included as a control variable to control for any differences (1 = Sample 1, 2 = Sample 2). We did not control for organizational tenure, because of its high correlation with age (r =.614, p <.001). Analysis. Firstly, correlation (Pearson s r) analysis was performed to assess the associations between the key concepts quantitative and qualitative job insecurity, mindfulness, psychological capital and employability. Moreover, whether the control variables correlated significantly with these concepts was assessed as well (Table 3). Secondly, Hayes process regression analysis was performed twice using model 4 within the PROCESS for SPSS macro (2016) to test the hypotheses. The output of these analyses are presented in Appendix C. Hayes process regression analysis was used because it provides an explicit estimation and inferential test of the indirect effect and acknowledges that a significant association between the independent and dependent variable is not a necessary requirement for mediation analysis anymore (Hayes, 2013). Furthermore, to determine whether inclusion of the control variables was necessary, the analyses were performed twice; once with and once without inclusion of control variables. Because significant differences in the effects appeared when the control variables were included, the models including the control variables are presented in the results section (Tables 4-6 & Figures 2-5) and Appendix C. When only one dimension of job insecurity was included as independent variable, the remaining dimension was included as covariate. Mindfulness was included as covariate when job insecurity was the main focus of interest and vice versa. Finally, all bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals were based on 1000 bootstrap samples. Results. Correlations and descriptives. Firstly, the correlational analyses (Table 3) indicate that both quantitative and qualitative job insecurity are negatively and significantly associated with psychological capital (r = -.35, p <.001; r = -.39, p <.001, respectively) and employability (r = -.20, p

16 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 16 = <.001; r = -.39, p = <.001, respectively). Secondly, mindfulness is significantly and positively related to psychological capital (r =.35, p <.001) and employability (r =.25, p <.001). Thirdly, psychological capital is significantly and positively to related to employability (r =.47, p <.001). Finally, the means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3.

17 Table 3 LACKING RESOURCES: HOW JOB INSECURITY IMPACTS PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 17 Correlation matrix with Cronbach s alpha, means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations (Pearson s r). Correlations (N=317) Variable α M SD Employability Psychological Capital ** 3 Quantitative job insecurity ** ** 4 Qualitative job insecurity ** ** 0.315** 5 Mindfulness ** 0.351** ** ** 6 Gender (% female) 58% ** ** 0.118* Higher education (%) 59% Lower education (%) 37% ** 9 Age (years) ** 0.232** ** ** * Sample (% Sample 2) 69% * ** ** ** ** Note. ** = correlation is significant at the.01 level (2-tailed); * = correlation is significant at the.05 level (2-tailed); α = Cronbach s Alpha; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; Higher education: 0 = other, 1 = higher vocational or academic education; Lower education: 0 = other, 1 = completed secondary school or intermediate vocational eduction; Sample: 1 = Sample 1, 2 = Sample 2.

18 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 18 Model tests. The results of the Hayes process regression analyses testing the influence of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity and mindfulness on employability through psychological capital are presented in the following paragraph. Quantitative job insecurity and employability. The results presented in Table 4 and Figure 2 indicate that employees experiencing higher levels of quantitative job insecurity perceived themselves to possess less psychological capital (a = -.11, p <.001), and that those employees who perceived themselves to possess higher levels of psychological capital perceived themselves to be more employable (b =.44, p <.001). The total effect of quantitative job insecurity on employability was negative, however not significant (c = ab + c = -.03, p =.416). Therefore, no support was found for hypothesis 1 which posited that quantitative job insecurity would influence employability negatively. Additionally, no evidence was found that quantitative job insecurity influenced employability independent of its effect on psychological capital (c =.02, p =.451). However, in support of hypothesis 5, quantitative job insecurity indirectly influenced employability significantly through its effect on psychological capital (ab = -.05) because the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effect excluded zero [-.04, -.01].

19 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 19 Table 4 Regression coefficients, standard errors, and model summary information for the psychological capital simple mediation Model A depicted in Figure 2. M(Psychological Capital) Consequent Y(Employability) Antecedent Coef. SE p 95% CI Coef. SE p 95% CI X (Ji quantitative) a <.001 [-0.16,-0.05] c [-0.04, 0.08] M (Psycap) b <.001 [0.33, 055] Constant i M <.001 [4.26, 5.30] i y <.001 [1.58, 3.06] Covariates Coef. SE p 95% CI Coef. SE p 95% CI Mindfulness <.001 [0.08, 0.24] [0.05, 0.21] Ji - qualitative <.001 [-0.31, -0.15] [-0.23, -0.06] Age [0.00, 0.11] <.001 [-0.02, -0.00] Sample [-0.18, 0.05] [-0.10, 0.14] Higher education [0.00, 0.21] [-0.08, 0.13] Gender [-0.28, -0.07] [-0.02, 0.20] R 2 =.33 F(7, 309) = 21.95, p = <.001 R 2 =.35 F(8, 308) = 20.92, p = <.001 Note. N = 317. M = mediating variable; Y = outcome variable; Coef. = coefficient; Psycap = psychological capital; - = no estimates obtained; Ji = job insecurity; Higher education = 0 = other, 1 = higher vocational or academic education; Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; Sample: 1 = Sample 1, 2 = Sample 2; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; R 2 = multiple correlation squared (measure of strength of association); F = F distribution, Fisher s F ratio. Figure 2. Model A.

20 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 20 Qualitative job insecurity and employability. The results in Table 5 and Figure 3 indicate that, hypothesis 2, which stated that qualitative job insecurity would positively influence employability, is supported. In line with hypothesis 6, qualitative job insecurity indirectly influenced employability through its effect on psychological capital (ab = -.10) because the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals of this indirect effect exclude zero [-.146, -.059]. Employees experiencing higher levels of qualitative job insecurity perceived themselves to possess less psychological capital (a = -.23, p <.001) while employees possessing higher levels of psychological capital perceived themselves to be more employable (b =.44, p <.001). In contrast to quantitative job insecurity s effect, the total effect of qualitative job insecurity on employability was significantly found to be negative (c = ab + c = -.24, p <.001). Furthermore, the results indicated that qualitative job insecurity did influenced overall employability independently of its effect on psychological capital (c = -.14, p <.001).

21 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 21 Table 5 Regression coefficients, standard errors, and model summary information for the psychological capital simple mediation Model B depicted in Figure 3. Consequent M(Psychological Y(Employability) Capital) Antecedent Coef. SE p 95% CI Coef. SE p 95% CI X (Ji a <.001 [-0.31, -0.15] c <.001 [-0.23, - qualitative) 0.06] M (Psycap) b <.001 [0.33, 0.55] Constant i M <.001 [4.26, 5.30] i y <.001 [1.56, 3.06] Covariates Coef. SE p 95% CI Coef. SE p 95% CI Mindfulness <.001 [0.08, 0.24] [0.05, 0.21] Ji - quantitative <.001 [-0.16, -0.05] [-0.04, 0.08] Age [0.00, 0.01] <.001 [-0.02, ] Sample [0.18, 0.05] [-1.0, 0.14] Higher education [0.00, 0.21] [-0.08, 0.13] Gender [-0.28, -0.06] [-0.22, 0.20] R 2 =.33 F(7, 309) = 21.95, p = <.001 R 2 =.35 F(8, 308) = 20.91, p = <.001 Note. N = 317. M = mediating variable; Y = outcome variable; Coef. = coefficient; Psycap = psychological capital; - = no estimates obtained; Ji = job insecurity; Higher education = higher vocational and academic education; Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; Sample: 1 = Sample 1, 2 = Sample 2; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; R 2 = multiple correlation squared (measure of strength of association); F = F distribution, Fisher s F ratio. Figure 3. Model B. Mindfulness and employability. The results in Table 6 and Figure 4 provide support for hypothesis 3 because employees experiencing higher levels of mindfulness significantly were found to

22 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 22 perceive themselves more employable (c = ab + c =.20, p <.01). Employees who perceived themselves to be more mindful were found to possess more psychological capital (a =.16) and employees possessing more psychological capital were found to perceive themselves to be more employable (b =.46). Furthermore, hypothesis 4 was supported because the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect excluded zero [0.03, 0.12]. Thus, employees who experienced higher levels of mindfulness were significantly found to perceive themselves more employable because mindfulness significantly influenced their psychological capital positively (ab =.07, p <.001). Finally, the effect of mindfulness on employability remained significant in a positive direction independently of mindfulness effect on psychological capital (c =.13, p =.003). Table 6 Regression coefficients, standard errors and model summary information for the psychological capital simple mediation Model C depicted in Figure 4. Consequent M(Psychological Y(Employability) Capital) Antecedent Coef. SE p 95% CI Coef. SE p 95% CI X (Mindfulness) a <.001 [0.08, 0.24] c [0.04, 0.21] M (Psycap) b <.001 [0.34, 0.57] Constant i M <.001 [4.21, 5.22] i y <.001 [1.39, 2.86] Covariates Coef. SE p 95% CI Coef. SE p 95% CI Job insecurity <.001 [-0.40, -0.24] [-0.18, 0.00] Age [0.00, 0.01] <.001 [-0.02, -0.01] Sample [-0.17, 0.06] [-0.86, 0.15] Higher [0.00, 0.21] [0.08, 0.13] education Gender [-0.28, -0.06] [-0.02, 0.20] R 2 =.33 F(6, 310) = 25.23, p = <.001 R 2 =.34 F(7, 309) = 22.32, p = <.001 Note. N = 317. M = mediating variable; Y = outcome variable; Coef. = coefficient; Psycap = psychological capital; - = no estimates obtained; Job insecurity = quantitative and qualitative job insecurity as one construct; Higher education = higher vocational and academic education; Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; R 2 = multiple correlation squared (measure of strength of association); F = F distribution, Fisher s F ratio

23 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 23 Figure 4. Model C. Figure 5. Overall results as presented in Models A, B & C (i.e. results conceptual model). Conclusion and discussion. The aim of this research was to examine whether and how qualitative and quantitative job insecurity on the one hand, and mindfulness on the other hand, influence employee employability

24 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 24 through one s psychological capital. Using COR theory we argue that individuals experiencing quantitative and/or qualitative job insecurity reside in a resource lacking situation. Therefore, quantitative and qualitative job insecurity are expected to influence one s psychological capital and subsequently employee employability negatively. On the contrary, we argue that mindfulness functions as a personal resource enabling employees to gain psychological capital and subsequently employability. Based on cross-sectional survey data from 317 employees the following results were found. First, both the total and the direct effect of quantitative job insecurity on employability were insignificant (H1), indicating that when employees perceive more quantitative job insecurity they not necessarily find themselves less employable as a consequence. However, the results did indicate that perceived quantitative job insecurity leads to decreased psychological capital reservoirs which subsequently lead to decreased employability (H5). Consequently, COR theory s corollary of loss spirals is supported by the present research because the perception of initial resource lack represented by quantitative job insecurity begets psychological capital inadequacies which subsequently lead to decreased employee employability. Furthermore, the present findings are in line with previous studies indicating that quantitative job insecurity negatively influences desirable employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g. job satisfaction and commitment) and positively influences undesirable employee outcomes (e.g. employee turnover). However, the present study adds value by showing that quantitative job insecurity does have a negative effect on one s employability and that the presence of a total and direct effect between quantitative job insecurity and employability is not a prerequisite for the mediating role of psychological capital. It could be that the total and direct effects between quantitative job insecurity and employability were not significant because the indirect effect via psychological capital accounts for most of the relationship between quantitative job insecurity and employability (Hayes, 2013). As a consequence, one could argue that psychological capital is the only mechanism at work explaining the relationship between quantitative job insecurity and employability. However, doing so might be too generalized because the present research does not examine the existence of other possible mediators. Nonetheless, underanalyzing the data was avoided because

25 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS 25 Hayes process mediation regression analyses were used. Hayes process mediation regression analysis offers the ability to detect that quantitative job insecurity does influence employee employability negatively through one s psychological capital, notwithstanding the insignificance of its total and direct effect. Second, the results indicated that the more employees perceive qualitative job insecurity the less they find themselves employable (H2). Additionally, employees perceive that high qualitative job insecurity hinders their psychological capital and consequently their employability competencies (H6). Therefore, the results of the present study confirm COR theory s principle stating that (a threat of) possessing insufficient resources (i.e. qualitative job insecurity) leads to hindered abilities to protect resource losses and/or gain other resources (i.e. psychological capital and employability). Furthermore, the results also supported COR theory s corollary of loss spirals as qualitative job insecurity led to less psychological capital which in turn caused decreased employability. However, the results within the present research merely indicated that the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and employability was partly mediated by psychological capital because both the total and the direct effect remained significant. As such, we have to acknowledge that a part of qualitative job insecurity s effect on employability has not been accounted for by the model within this research (Hayes, 2013). These distinct effects of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity are consistent with previous research indicating that quantitative and qualitative job insecurity have dissimilar effects on employee work outcomes (Hellgren et al., 2010; Sender et al., 2016). For example, quantitative job insecurity is found to be primarily related to stress symptoms (e.g. sleeping problems) while qualitative job insecurity is found to be more related to attitudinal work outcomes (e.g. employee turnover) (Hellgren et al., 2010; Sender et al., 2016; Sverke, 2002). Since the total and direct effect of qualitative job insecurity on employability remained significant while those of quantitative job insecurity did not, the present research demonstrates that distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative job insecurity remains useful. Furthermore, attention should be drawn to the finding that the association between qualitative job insecurity and employability (r = -.39, p = <.001) was much stronger than the association between quantitative job insecurity and employability (r = -.20, p = <

26 PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY DIFFERENTLY THAN MINDFULNESS ). We argue that these distinct results may be caused since qualitative job insecurity encompasses a more complex form of job insecurity than quantitative job insecurity. To illustrate, when employees experience quantitative job insecurity they primarily are uncertain about whether their job as such remains to exist. Preparing and/or finding solutions for this uncertainty might be relatively straightforward because it is more tangible what to prepare for (e.g. finding a more secure job). Consequently, employees have a greater opportunity to avoid employability exhaustion. In contrast, when employees experience qualitative job insecurity a more passive coping strategy might be adopted because it is more uncertain what to prepare for (Hellgren et al., 2010). For example, employees might choose not to invest resources in finding another job and remain in their current, far from ideal, job since the prospect of at least having a job (in which e.g. only training opportunities or pay increase might be inhibited) is better than the prospect of not having a job at all. However, they will probably be faced with threatened employability reservoirs. Other theories and/or mechanisms focusing on and explaining how employees respond towards their present job and associated qualitative insecurities may come into play to enlighten this process (e.g. job demands-resources model, demand-control-support model, action regulation theory, social exchange theory or distributive, procedural and interactional justice) (Peeters, de Jonge & Taris, 2013). To conclude, the present research attributes the different effects of quantitative and qualitative job insecurity on employability to the relatively more ambiguous consequences of qualitative job insecurity as compared to the more concrete consequences of quantitative job insecurity. Finally, the present research results indicate that employees who perceive themselves more mindful also find themselves more employable, both independently (H3) as well as dependently (H4) of mindfulness effect on psychological capital. Specifically, the results support COR theory arguing that possessing many resources enables individuals to remain and gain other resources as well. In addition, COR theory s principles of resource caravans and gain spirals are also supported because mindfulness is found to produce psychological capital and subsequently employability. These findings add to previous research findings indicating that mindfulness successfully combats, for example, employee anxiety and burnout because of its positive effect on psychological capital and showing that psychological capital is a successful facilitator of desirable employee attitudes and behaviors (i.e.