Influential factors of sustainable employability

Transcription

1 Influential factors of sustainable employability A quantitative study in a healthcare setting Master Thesis Organization Studies 2017 Student: Name: Rick P. M. N. Kooter ANR: Supervisors: Academic supervisor: dr. R.P.J.H. Rutten Second reader: dr. R.S. Mannak

2 Abstract Due to the aging labour market and decreasing opportunities for early retirement workers sustainable employability (SE) is of growing concern for an individual employee. For organizations a sustainably employable workforce is important as well, as it decreases turnover, decreases burnout and disease and increases a workers performance. SE can be defined as the possibility for employees, to continually in their working lives, dispose of actually realizable possibilities and the needed conditions to continue functioning in current and future work, while maintaining health and well-being (Van der Klink et al., 2011, p. 8) and consists of three indicators; these are work ability, employability and vitality (De Lange & Van der Heijden 2011; Van Vuuren et al., 2011). This study proposes five factors that in the literature have been considered to influence the level of SE. These are supervisor support, work-based learning, job complexity, workload and an individual s health. Multiple regression analysis has been executed with data collected in a healthcare organization to test whether the proposed factors predict the perceived level of SE, as well as each indicator of SE separately. As differences in working activities could impose differences in results additional analyses have been conducted that makes a distinction between client-oriented workers and nonclient-oriented workers. This leads to the following research question: To what extent do perceived supervisor support, work-based learning, job complexity, workload and health influence the level of SE of an employee? If no distinction between labor activities is made all influential factors significantly predict the perceived level of SE. The distinction between client-oriented and nonclient-oriented work explains that both perceived workload as well as perceived health significantly predict the perceived level of SE of an employee whatever the working activities might be. Therefore perceived workload and perceived health are generalizable predictors of the perceived level of SE. Perceived supervisor support and perceived job complexity on the other hand only predict the perceived level of SE of a non-client-oriented employee and it is indicated that perceived workbased learning is only a significant predictor of the perceived level of SE of client-oriented employees. Therefore perceived supervisor support, perceived work-based learning and perceived job complexity are contextual predictors of the perceived level of SE. 2

3 Table of Contents Abstract Research Problem Research Question Relevance Theory The level of SE Influential Factors Conceptual model Method Research context Research design Data collection Data Analysis Sample Strategy Research Quality Indicators Results Correlations The perceived level of SE as dependent variable Indicators of SE as dependent variable Distinction between client-oriented and non-client-oriented labor Correlations Regression analysis Control variables Summary of the results Conclusion Discussion General Discussion Methodological Discussion Practical Implications Limitations Future research References Appendix A: Operationalization Table Appendix B: Transformation of data and calculation of score Appendix C: Factor Analysis 66 Appendix D: Survey.. 71 Appendix E: Regression results

4 1 Introduction 1.1 Research Problem Worldwide, the ageing of the labour market (Philips & Siu, 2012), combined with decreasing opportunities for early retirement, has resulted in an increased need to protect workers sustainable employability (SE) (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009; Van der Heijden et al., 2016). As workers are destined to work until retirement age, due to societal and demographic changes, workers should maintain their SE to remain employed, as SE is a measure of the likelihood of finding suitable work (Clarke & Patrickson, 2008; Forrier et al., 2001). Due to the changing natures of careers and the erosion of job security, being sustainably employable should be a continual pursuit for every individual (Clarke & Patrickson, 2008). From an organizational perspective a sustainably employable workforce is beneficial as well, as sustainably employable employees are ought to have up-to-date skills to perform and are less likely to turnover, experience disease and burnout (Van der Heijden et al., 2016). SE means that throughout their working lives, workers can achieve tangible opportunities in the form of a set of capabilities. They also enjoy the necessary conditions that allow them to make a valuable contribution through their work, now and in the future, while safeguarding their health and welfare. This requires, on the one hand a work context that facilitates this for them and, on the other, the attitude and motivation to exploit these opportunities (Van der Klink & Van der Wilt., 2016, p. 74). Currently this is the only attempt that has been made in the international scientific literature to define sustainable employability. But the accuracy and correctness of this definition is questioned. Fleuren et al. (2016) argue for instance that this definition does not include which elements of the work situation constitute SE and that SE in this definition is treated as a characteristic of both the job and the individual at the same time. Although the job and work context may predict an individual s ability to be sustainably employed, they can never be aspects of SE (Fleuren et al., 2016). Instead, SE is an individual characteristic of an employee that consists of three indicators; these are work ability, employability and vitality (De Lange & Van der Heijden 2011; Van Vuuren et al., 2011). This research treats SE as an individual characteristic that is an outcome of the complex relationships between SE and individual, job and organizational characteristics (Fleuren et al., 2016) and aims to explain these complex relationships quantitatively as no previous literature has done before. The level an employee is sustainably employable can be influenced by factors based on the individual employee, like health for instance (Burdorf et al., 2008), but is also defined by factors linked to organizational and job aspects. Therefore an organization and job should be designed in order to guard the level of SE, as a beneficial organizational and job design can disable stressors that 4

5 are detrimental to the level of SE (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Existing research acknowledges several organizational and job factors that influence SE. Organizational factors that have been considered to influence the level of SE of an employee are the amount of supervisory support (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bossink, 2011) and having the opportunities to learn within an organization (Berntson, Sverke & Marklund, 2006), from this point forward called work-based learning. Supervisor support in this context can be explained as the extent to which leaders value their employees contributions and care about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2001). Work-based learning is defined as the processes by which employees acquire new or develop further their existing KSAO's through engaging in workplace participatory practices (Nikolova et al., 2014). Job factors that influence the level of SE are the complexity of the job (Van der Berg, 2010) and the workload an employee experiences (Burdorf, 2007). Job complexity increases when the information load, the information diversity, and the rate at which information changes, i.e., the degree of uncertainty increase (Schroder et al, 1967), and workload is the level of demand associated with the different tasks of someone s job. An increase in the demands of work is ought to decrease the vitality and work ability of an employee. And as been mentioned an individual factor which should indicate a high level of SE is good health (Burdorf et al., 2008). As organizations often do not have the resources to provide extensive programs that focus on workers SE (especially in the healthcare sector), an organization should recognize which factors might need to be redesigned to protect their workforces SE. Although the literature does acknowledge these factors to influence the perceived level of SE and its indicators, no empirical results exist of the effects these influential factors have on the level of SE of an employee. Therefore this study is an addition to the literature concerning SE and could strengthen or question the propositions that have been made in preceding studies. This is achieved by conducting multiple regression analysis, in which all employees of a Dutch healthcare organization had the possibility to fill in a survey that asks for the perceptions of the proposed influential factors as well as the indicators of SE. This study is particularly suited for such an organization as an imminent (upcoming) shortage of employees in the Dutch healthcare sector threatens these organizations bron. Protecting a worker s SE could aid these organizations in retaining their employees, as well as diminishing sickness and absence, which helps in contesting these upcoming shortages. As all respondents were asked about their perceptions on each item all variable names should be preceded by the word perceived. Although to improve the readability of this study the author has chosen not to mention perceived in every instance one of the variables is mentioned. This study does not solely examine the effect of the proposed influential factors on SE but does also analyze the effects of these influential factors on the indicators of SE independently. 5

6 Therefore analyses have been conducted that treat each indicator of SE, namely vitality, employability and work ability separately to attain in depth understanding of the relationship between the influential factors and the level of SE. After these analyses another distinction has been made. As the total workforce of a healthcare organization will be questioned many differences can occur in the kind of labor one respondent performs. To test the external validity and to protect the internal validity of this research additional analyses have been executed in which the research population has been divided into two subpopulations. These groups are on the one hand client-oriented workers and on the other hand non-client-oriented workers. Client-oriented workers in this context are specialized in the care, treatment, counseling and support accompaniment of youth with often a (minor) mental disorder and additional complex, often psychiatric problems, or the care, treatment, counseling, and support of people with severe mental and / or physical constraints, often combined with unconventional behavior. A proposition can be made that this accompaniment of clients is mentally demanding (Hertting, 2003; Pelissier et al., 2014). Therefore these client-oriented working activities can induce differences between the level of SE of these employees in comparison to non-client-oriented workers. Non-client-oriented workers in this context are workers that are not directly related to the care of clients, therefore respondents in this subpopulation perform largely differentiated working activities. Respondents in this subpopulation can for instance be executives, secretaries or ITprofessionals, just to name a few. As the research population is divided into two subpopulations an argument can be made whether propositions made on the level of SE can be generalized, whatever an employee s working activities might contain. 1.2 Research Question The five factors that have been proposed in the previous chapter, supervisor support, workbased learning, job complexity, workload and health will be empirically tested to examine the influence these factors have on the level of sustainable employability. Therefore the following research question will be answered in this study: To what extent do supervisor support, work-based learning, job complexity, workload and health influence the level of SE of an employee? To answer this research question this study will also examine the effects of the proposed influential factors on each indicator of SE solely. Another aid in answering the research question is dividing the research population into two groups, as this method tests whether the relationships are generalizable for all employees or if only contextual predictions can be made. 6

7 1.3 Relevance Practical relevance Increasing the SE of an employee has a practical urgency as organizations strive for a workforce that is vital, has the work ability and has the employability to be profitable. As these sustainably employable workers have up-to-date skills to perform and are less likely to turnover, experience disease and burnout (Van der Heijden et al., 2016). This study examines several factors that explain the level of perceived SE. Most of these factors are related to organizational or job features that can be positively altered to increase its workforce s SE. Therefore this study examines whether the proposed influential factors separately explain the perceived level of SE. Therefore this study could guide organizations in adjusting their organizational and job designs in such a manner that workers SE is positively stimulated. This study also examines whether these findings can be generalized for all employees, by comparing the output of two subpopulations, namely clientoriented and non-client-oriented employees. So organizations that are willing to increase their workforce s SE could use this research as a guideline in designing work and work contextual factors for client-oriented as well as non-clientoriented employees to hand their employees the possibility to be sustainably employable. This aids these organizations as well as SE ensures the performance of their employees, and sustainable employable employees are less absent and more likely to remain at their organization (Van der Heijden et al., 2016). Scientific relevance Instead of focusing on each indicator of SE separately this research focuses in contrast to the existing literature on the overarching concept sustainable employability. This research strengthens the current knowledge on this concept by providing quantitative analysis on the relationships between several individual, work and work contextual factors and SE without neglecting the effects these factors have on the work ability, employability and vitality of an employee. Another addition to the literature is distinguishing two subpopulations to test whether the results of this study and earlier propositions are generalizable for all employees or if some influential factors have a contextual nature. The empirical results of this study therefore either strengthen or question the previously made propositions on the research topic, as these propositions have been made without quantitative substantiation (Fleuren et al., 2016). 7

8 2. Theory In this chapter the most important concepts in this research will be discussed, these are the level of sustainable employability and its three indicators, work ability, employability and vitality. Besides these concepts the influential factors are discussed as well, these factors are ought to have a direct effect on the level of sustainable employability. As been mentioned these influential factors are: supervisor support, work-based learning, job complexity, workload and health. This chapter explains these concepts and by examining existing literature hypotheses are proposed for the effect of each factor on the level of SE. 2.1 The level of SE SE means that throughout their working lives, workers can achieve tangible opportunities in the form of a set of capabilities. They also enjoy the necessary conditions that allow them to make a valuable contribution through their work, now and in the future, while safeguarding their health and welfare. This requires, on the one hand a work context that facilitates this for them and, on the other, the attitude and motivation to exploit these opportunities (Van der Klink & Van der Wilt, 2016, p. 74). This is currently the only international scientific definition that has been proposed. As previously mentioned an argument has been made about the correctness of this definition. It has been argued that this definition does not include which elements of the work situation constitute SE and that SE in this definition is treated as a characteristic of both the job and the individual at the same time (Fleuren et al., 2016). Earlier Van der Klink et al. (2011) have defined SE differently: SE means that employees, continually in their working lives, dispose of actually realizable possibilities and the needed conditions to continue functioning in current and future work, while maintaining health and well-being (p. 8.). Although this definition does not mention how the work constitutes SE, this definition will be used further on as it treats SE as an individual characteristic. In addition to this definition three indicators of SE have been proposed, these are work ability, employability and vitality (De Lange & Van der Heijden, 2011; Van Vuuren et al., 2011). The first indicator of SE is vitality, this is a combination of characteristics; as vital employees should feel energetic at work, have to be strong and fit at work, should have the willingness to work and have the motivation to carry out the work as well as being able to work long and tireless, as well as being mentally resilient and being naturally able to work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2007). Employability, the second indicator is defined as the continuous fulfilling, acquiring or creation of work through the optimal use of competences. The third indicator of SE, work ability can be defined as the degree to which individuals are physically, mentally and socially able to work (Gould et al., 2008; Ilmarinen et al., 2005). In this research the level of SE will be explained by combining the three indicators of SE 8

9 into one concept (De Lange & Van der Heijden, 2011; Van Vuuren et al., 2011). These three indicators are more thoroughly explained in the following section Indicators of sustainable employability Work ability Work ability is defined as the degree to which individuals are physically, mentally and socially able to work (Gould et al., 2008; Ilmarinen et al., 2005). It is based on the interaction of the indicators of the work on the one hand but also the characteristics of the employee on the other. The house of work ability is developed by Ilmarinen (2004) to describe work ability. This house describes organizational as well as individual elements that are part of work ability. The ground floor of the house describes the basis, which consists of the physical, mental and social functional abilities of employees and their health. The first floor portrays the competences and qualifications of the employee, the second floor depicts the motivation and norms and values of the employees and the third floor stand for the physical and mental demands of work, the working conditions and the social environment. This house in itself is located in an environment that contains family, friends, acquaintances and the society, each of which are part of the ability to work. Although this environment is not really a part it can influence an employee s ability to work, as the environment might be detrimental for the operational abilities of workers (Ilmarinen, 2008). Another definition of work ability is the extent to which employees given their health, are able, physically as well as mentally, to meet the requirements of work (Van den Berg, 2010). This author mentions that health issues can lead to restrictions at work, although the demands of work and the nature of the health problems influence the employee s ability to function properly. Burdorf et al. (2008) confirm this statement by explaining that mental and physical capacities and knowledge and skills are needed to perform functions properly and that good work ability contributes to healthy and motivated employees Employability Employability is the second indicator of sustainable employability. Van der Heijden & Van der Heijde (2006) explain employability to be part of the sustainable employability of an individual as it is the continuous fulfilling, acquiring or creation of work through the optimal use of competences. In addition Van der Heijden & Van der Heijde (2006) mention that employability consists of several dimensions. These are balance, anticipation & optimization, corporate sense, personal flexibility and occupational expertise. Balance is the first dimension, which describes that employees should compromise their own interest with the interest of the employer. Anticipation and optimization is the preparation for future work changes in order to strive for the best possible job and career 9

10 outcomes. Corporate sense describes a part of employability as being part of an integrated team and the anticipation the organizational culture. Personal flexibility explains if an employee is able to adapt to changes that occur in the internal and external work and labor market environment. The last dimension that explains the employability of an employee is the occupational expertise, which describes whether an employee is in possession of the knowledge and skills to operate in their respective domain. A workers employability is a critical requirement for employees to be able to maintain and obtain work, as it is a critical requirement in creating career success at the individual level, but also to create competitive advantage at the firm level, as employable expertise with sufficient knowledge and skills in their specific domains enables productivity (Van der Heijden & Van der Heijde, 2006). Employability is often defined somewhat like sustainable employability, as employability is often defined as the ability to maintain and obtain work within the current internal or external labor market (Baruch, 2004; Forrier et al., 2001). But can also be defined as the adaptability of employees to identify and realize career opportunities in and between organizations (Fugate et al., 2004). Which explains the ability of a worker to identify and realize opportunities in their career within or outside their organization. Or the ability to fulfil various tasks and functions adequately, now and in the future, both in the current or another organization or sector (De Vries et al., 2001) Vitality The third component of sustainable employability is vitality. Schaufeli & Bakker (2007) define vitality as a combination of characteristics as vital employees should feel energetic at work, have to be strong and fit at work, should have the willingness to work and have the motivation to carry out the work as well as being able to work long and tireless, as well as being mentally resilient, being naturally able to work. 2.2 Influential Factors As mentioned five factors are proposed in this study that are ought to influence the perceived level of SE. These five factors are supervisor support, work-based learning, job complexity, workload and health. These variables will be thoroughly explained in this chapter, and their effects on the level of SE will be hypothesized Supervisor support Employees develop general views concerning the degree to which supervisors value their contributions and care about their wellbeing, which is called perceived supervisor support (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). Many researchers suggest that a supportive 10

11 supervisor positively influences SE (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bossink, 2011; Bossink & Wognum (2012); Gould et al., 2008; Ilmarinen et al., 2005; Nauta et al., 2008). Based on the job demandsresources (JD-R) model of Bakker & Demerouti (2007) support is an important job resource that positively influences the motivation and decreases the strain of an employee. Therefore the indicators vitality and work ability of SE are ought to be enhanced if a supervisor shows support towards its employees. Bakker & Demerouti (2007) add that the increased motivation might enable workers to engage in learning and developing activities, and therefore the indicator employability is ought to increase. Nauta, Dessing & Kooiman (2008) share this conclusion as employability is argued to be impossible without an effective dialogue between employee and its supervisor. Muschalla (2016) clarifies that not supportive interactions with supervisors are potentially anxiety provoking. This is due to the supervisor s hierarchical position with controlling and sanctioning functions. Regular communication across hierarchical levels and good transparency are suggested and may avoid unnecessary anxiety induction. Work-anxiety decreases the work ability and vitality of employees as such feelings affect the readiness for returning to work negatively during sick leave for instance. Because the three indicators of SE are ought to increase if a supervisor shows support, SE is ought to increase as well. H1: Perceived supervisor support positively affects the perceived level of SE Work-based learning Work-based learning refers to processes by which employees acquire new or develop further their existing KSAO's through engaging in workplace participatory practices (Nikolova et al., 2014). This concept consists out of four aspects, namely learning through reflection, learning through experimentation, learning from colleagues and learning from supervisors (Nikolova et al., 2014). Previous research has identified the positive relation between learning and employability as learning enables employees to maintain their performance levels as these workers have up-to-date skills and abilities (Berntson, Sverke & Marklund, 2006; Wittekind, 2007). Learning also increases the work ability of an employee. As being depicted in the house of work ability an individual s health (ground floor) carries the demands of work if the competences and qualifications (first floor) fit a worker s job (Gould et al., 2008; Ilmarinen et al., 2005). Therefore work-based learning enables an employee to create the competences needed to successfully being able to perform at work. In addition learning something new at work is significantly related with self-perceived vitality (Van Vuuren, 2011). Therefore it can be hypothesized that an increase in perceived work-based learning increases the SE of an employee. 11

12 H2: Perceived work-based learning positively affects the perceived level of SE Job complexity Job complexity increases as the information load, the information diversity, and the rate at which information changes, i.e., the degree of uncertainty increase (Schroder et al, 1967). Job complexity in itself is ought to decrease the work ability of an employee, as high mental job demands are associated with reduced work ability (Van der Berg, 2010). Although having too little autonomy explains a decrease in the work ability and vitality of an employee as well, as a worker is not able to perform at a level that is suited for him/her (Van der Berg, 2010). Van der Klink et al. (2011) add to the argument that the capacities of an employee and the complexity of the job have to be aligned, as they mention that an employee should maintain their knowledge and competences in width to keep options open for jobs. Physical and mental demands of work should be in conformity with the capacities of employees, otherwise the work ability of an employee is negatively affected (Van der Klink et al., 2011). Therefore arguments have been made that the indicators of the level of sustainable employability will increase if the job is complex, despite the fact that high job complexity indicates high mental job demands. Therefore the literature has indicated that job complexity has to be in accordance with ones capacities. It can also be predicted that a worker that has a more complex job is actually able to fulfill this job. This indicates higher employability, which enables the employee to cope with the complexity of the job. Therefore two arguments can be made: 1.) Perceived job complexity decreases the perceived level of SE, as high job complexity indicate high mental demands, or 2.) Perceived job complexity increases the perceived level of SE as workers in complex jobs are ought to be capable of that job, which indicates employability. Although the literature is quite ambiguous about the effect of job complexity this study will hypothesize that the second argument outweighs the first. Therefore perceived job complexity should increase the perceived level of SE. H3: Perceived job complexity positively affects the perceived level of SE Workload Smith & Bourke (1992) define workload as the level of demand associated with the different tasks of someone s job. An increase in the demands of work is ought to decrease the vitality and work ability of an employee. Hart and Staveland (1988) define perceived workload using six dimensions that explain this concept. These are: Mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort and frustration level. The level of these six dimensions determines the overall level of perceived workload (Hart & Staveland, 1988). Therefore if one of these six 12

13 dimensions is affected, the overall perceived workload rises or drops. Burdorf & Elders (2007) explain that heavy workload reduces work ability, but also psychosocial factors such as high work pressure decreases the work ability of employees. Van den Berg et al. (2010) also mention in their work ability index that an increased physical and mental workload decreases the work ability of an employee. The JD-R model explains that physical, emotional as well as mental aspects increase the job demands of an employee (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Based on the model an increase of job demands induces an expansion of the perceived strain an employee experiences. This increase in strain can be argued to negatively affect the vitality and work ability of a worker (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Therefore it can be hypothesized that perceived workload negatively relates to the perceived level of SE. H4: Perceived workload negatively affects the perceived level of SE Health Health can be defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity (WHO, 2006). Burdorf et al. (2008) have mentioned that poor health decreases the work ability; as poor worker s health increases absenteeism, disability, unemployment, earlier retirement and less productivity. In addition Burdorf & Elders (2007) conclude that disease has the largest influence on the work ability of an employee. Ryan & Frederick (1997) add that an employees experience of physical health impacts the subjective vitality of an employee. Mental health impacts the vitality of an employee as well, as personal well-being and the overall quality of mental health influences vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). As the vitality and work ability are affected by the personal mental and physical health of a worker it can be considered that the sustainable employability is positively related to the health of an employee. H5: An employee s perceived health positively affects the perceived level of SE. 2.3 Conceptual model These factors that can influence the level of SE and the causal mechanisms between these factors can be combined into the following conceptual model (Figure 1): 13

14 Figure 1 Conceptual Model 14

15 3. Method 3.1 Research context The context of this research is a Dutch healthcare organization Company X' consisting of ten separate establishments specialized in youth welfare, education and mental healthcare. Five out of ten establishments have committed to this research, although members of the other establishments could fill in the questionnaire as well, as these employees were given the opportunity to participate in an organizational announcement. Conducting this study in a Dutch healthcare organization is particularly suitable as an imminent (upcoming) shortage of employees in the Dutch healthcare sector threatens these organizations (Mandemaker, 2017). 3.2 Research design The hypotheses have been tested using multiple regression analysis. A survey has been conducted in which the proposed influential factors have been questioned as well as the perceived level of SE of the respondents. The perceived level of SE is operationalized by inquiring the three indicators of SE, vitality, employability and work ability. As this research explains whether the influential factors impact the level of SE of the workforce, as well as its indicators, this research is explanatory. 3.3 Data collection An online anonymous survey has been conducted in which the factors that influence the SE of workers have been questioned as well as the perceived level of SE of the employees. The HRmanager of each establishment has been asked whether its organization wants to participate in this research. Out of ten establishments five have reacted willingly to participate in this research. With these admissions the overall research population is around 1500 employees. Thereupon the invitation to participate to this research has been sent to the employees of these five establishments. 419 respondents eventually filled in the questionnaire, therefore N = 419. Although most of these responses were complete not all questionnaires have been filled in fully. Pairwise deletion has been used to treat these missing values as this method protects the most data. The dependent variable, the perceived level of SE has been measured using the method derived from Schoppers (2014). In this method the indicators of SE, which are vitality, employability and work ability are merged into one construct. Work ability is measured using the Work Ability Index (WAI) derived from Gould & Ilmarinen (2005), which measures work ability on 7 items. Employability, the second indicator of SE, is measured using the scale developed by Heijde & Van der Heijden (2006). This scale measures employability by asking for its 5 dimensions, these are 15

16 anticipation & optimization, personal flexibility, balance, corporate sense and openness to experience. In total this measure consists of 47 items. The results on each of these 5 dimensions will be computed into one score for employability. The third indicator of SE, vitality, is examined using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) by Schaufeli & Bakker (2003), which measures work ability based on 7 items. As been mentioned the results on these instruments will be merged into one score that explains the overall level of perceived sustainable employability. How this score has been computed is more thoroughly explained in Appendix A and Appendix B. All independent variables have been measured using existing scales as well. The first independent variable perceived supervisor support is measured using the perceived organizational support scale from Eisenberger (1986), this scale consists of 8 items in which the word organization has been replaced with supervisor. This measure is validated and used in studies by Eisenberger (2002) and Rhoades et al. (2001). The second independent variable work-based learning is measured with the Learning Potential of the Workplace scale by Nikolova et al. (2014), this measure consists out of 12 items. Job complexity has been measured using the task complexity scale by Maynard & Hakel (1997), for this measure the term task has been altered into the word job. The fourth independent variable workload is determined by the NASA-TLX scale by Hart & Staveland (1988) that measures workload on 6 items. The last independent variable health is measured using one item derived from Kaplan & Camacho (1983). As been mentioned all of these scales have been tested on reliability and validity, although this study does also verify whether these research quality indicators are acceptable. The operationalization of these independent variables is more thoroughly described in Appendix A. Also several control variables have been included in this study, these control variables are: age, gender, if the employee performs client-oriented work and the working hours per week. 3.4 Data Analysis The data from the survey have been analyzed using multiple regression analysis. First reliability analysis has been executed to check for internal consistency. The data adapted from the reliability analysis have been used to conduct regression analysis over two models. The first model only tests the explanatory value of the control variables in regard to the perceived level of SE. The second model will add the independent variables to the regression analysis. These two models are depicted in Table 1. 16

17 Table 1 Regression models Model Predictors 1 Age, gender, client-oriented and working hours 2 Age, gender, client-oriented, working hours, perceived supervisor support, perceived learning opportunities, perceived job complexity, perceived workload and perceived health This study will also examine whether the proposed influential factors influence each indicator of SE separately. Therefore separate regression analyses have been executed to indicate the effects of the influential factors on these indicators. Although no additional hypotheses have been proposed in explaining these relationships, analyzing the results of these regression analyses aids in understanding the mechanisms between the influential factors and the perceived level of SE. These regression analyses do also consist of the models as depicted in Table 1. This study also aims to explain whether results are generalizable, whatever an employee s working activities might contain. This is achieved by splitting the research population into two separate subpopulations. One subpopulation only contains workers that perform client-oriented work; the other subpopulation includes all other possible jobs. For client-oriented work the total number of respondents is 256 and for non-client-oriented work 163 respondents have filled in the questionnaire. These regression analyses consist out of the models depicted in Table 1, although the control variable client-oriented has obviously been dropped, as this question is the distinction criteria. 3.5 Sample Strategy The whole workforce of Company X has been asked to fill in the questionnaire as the research aims to identify which factors of SE influence the level of SE of an employee. Therefore no specific sample strategy has been used. 3.6 Research Quality Indicators To ensure the validity of this research, existing measuring instruments have been used as well as using an operationalization scheme. Some of these existing scales have been altered before the distribution of the questionnaire to protect the response to this research as some items might contain sensitive subjects or are formulated vaguely. These items are occupational expertise 13 and 14 and work ability item 4. In addition reliability analysis has been executed to test the internal consistency. Also one item has been dropped after the reliability analysis due to a lack of internal consistency of all used scales, namely workload item 4. A full description of the calculation of score 17

18 as well as the dropped items is given in Appendix B. Especially since this construct for sustainable employability has only been used once, it is particularly important that this construct confirms to be internally consistent. The results of these reliability analyses are depicted in Table 2. Table 2 Reliability analysis SE and indicators Variable Cronbach s alpha α Sustainable Employability,714 Vitality,879 Employability,735 Occupational Expertise,915 Anticipation and Optimization,880 Personal Flexibility,793 Corporate Sense,865 Balance,883 Work Ability,772 The Cronbach s alpha exceeds 0,7 for every scale and therefore the used scales are reliable and internally consistent. The independent variables have been tested on internal consistency as well. Results from these analyses are depicted in Table 3. Table 3 Reliability analysis influential factors Variable Cronbach s alpha α Perceived Supervisor Support,938 Perceived Work-Based Learning,838 Perceived Job Complexity,867 Perceived Workload,603 The reliability of the independent variable perceived health has not been tested as this variable only consists out of one item. Although the Cronbach s alpha of perceived workload does not exceed 0,7 this scale still has been used. An explanation for this lack of internal consistency is the divergence of the items in this scale, as this measure of perceived workload not only measures physical workload but also mental aspects. Another explanation for this lack of internal consistency is the used range of this scale. As workload has not been questioned by using a 7-point Likert scale, but by using a scale that ranges between 0 and 100 internal consistency could more easily be harmed. One item of this measure has been deleted to increase the internal consistency, α =,563 increased to α =,603 due to this intervention. All variables and items have been inspected whether 18

19 the internal consistency would increase if an item is deleted, the author has chosen not to further delete any items, as no significant positive differences have been noticed. Although the reliability analysis indicates that all used measurement instruments except the scale that measure workload are internally consistent, and these instruments are derived from existing studies, the author has chosen to conduct factor analysis as well to explore congruence between the scales. This could also aid in interpreting the findings of the multiple regression analyses. The results of this factor analysis are depicted in Appendix C. The lack of internal consistency on the workload scale is again salient in the factor analysis. The same explanation of the lack of consistency can be used, as this scale measures several dimensions of workload spanning from mental to physical aspects, therefore the scale that measures workload is not altered in this study. Another conspicuous finding of this analysis is the congruence between supervisor support and some items related to work-based learning, namely whether a supervisor aids in the possibility to learn at work. Although Coetzer (2007), Taverniers (2011) & Nikolova et al. (2014) made explicitly clear that an aspect of work-based learning is learning from supervisor, which can be ought to. As these studies continuously indicate the aid of the supervisor as an aspect of work-based learning this study does not estrange these items from the scale. Therefore the factor analysis commemorates the author of the congruence between supervisor support and one of the aspects of work-based learning. Another aspect in the scale that measures work-based learning becomes particularly salient in the factor analysis, this is the aspect learning from colleagues. These items are not regarded in the same component as the other aspects of work-based learning although this component does not intertwine with other components in contrast to the aspect learning from colleagues. The factor analysis does also indicate similarities between scores on perceived health and the indicator work ability. This indicates that these variables are part of a latent/underlying variable that includes both items of work ability and health. Although this research will not exclude perceived health as an independent variable as the author wants to describe the relationship perceived health has with the indicators employability and vitality. Although in explaining the relationship between SE and perceived health the author is aware of the coherence between the indicator of SE work ability and the variable perceived health. The factor analysis does not indicate further oddities in the used scales. To check whether the above mentioned anomalies affect this study negatively an additional check for multicollinearity has been conducted. The results of this analysis are depicted in Table 4. As all variance inflation factors are around 1,5 multicollinearity the author is not overly concerned about predicting overlap between the used variables. 19

20 Table 4 Multicollinearity statistics Tolerance VIF Perceived Supervisor Support,604 1,655 Perceived Work-Based Learning,568 1,760 Perceived Job Complexity,827 1,209 Perceived Workload,715 1,399 Work Ability,682 1,465 Employability,539 1,857 Vitality,595 1,681 20

21 4. Results This chapter will discuss the results derived from the regression analyses. Therefore this chapter will indicate which hypotheses are supported. In addition to the hypothesis testing the results on the analyses that treat each indicator independently as well as the analyses that make a distinction between client-oriented and non-client-oriented employees are exposed. 4.1 Correlations From the correlations table, that is depicted in Table 5 can be derived that all independent variables except perceived job complexity strongly correlate with the perceived level of SE as well as with all its indicators (p <,001). It is especially visible that perceived job complexity does not correlate with work ability, which explains that perceived job complexity does not correlate that strongly with SE. Perceived supervisor support is strongly correlated with perceived work-based learning, an explanation for this correlation is in one of the underlying aspects of perceived workbased learning, which is learning from supervisors. Perceived supervisor support does also correlate positive and strongly with perceived health and whether an employee does not perform clientoriented work. Perceived work-based learning correlates significantly negative with the perception of workload, so if an employee perceives its workload to be low, he or she has the possibility to learn at the workplace. Perceived work-based learning does also correlate positively with perceived health and if an employee performs non-client-oriented work. Job complexity the third proposed factor is significantly correlated to perceived workload and the amount of hours an employee works per week. Perceived workload does also negatively correlate with the perception of health as well as if an employee performs non-client-oriented work, therefore the workload of non-client-oriented workers appears to be higher for non-client-oriented employees in comparison to client-oriented workers. Perceived health, the last independent variable does also significantly with the hours an employee works, therefore a worker that works more hours is ought to be healthier than an employee that is working less. Finally the control variables age, hours a week and whether an employee performs non-client-oriented work do all positively correlate with the perceived level of SE, gender on the other hand does so negatively. The correlations of these control variables with the indicators of SE do indicate similar findings, except for the absence of correlation between age and gender with the work ability of an employee. 4.2 The perceived level of SE as dependent variable First a regression analysis has been ran that consists only out of the control variables in the model, these control variables are age, gender, client-oriented, and how many hours the employee works per week. The results of this regression analysis are depicted in Model 1 in Table 6. 21

22 Table 5 Pearson correlations table SE WA Emp Vit PSS PWBL PJC PWL PH Age Gender Hours a week SE 1 WA,755*** 1 Emp,798***,397*** 1 Vit,850***,430***,589*** 1 PSS,397***,242***,398***,310*** 1 PWBL,430***,229***,459***,356***,602*** 1 PJC,130* -,002,173**,149** -,005,048 1 Clientoriented PWL ,183** -,101 -,308*** 1,296***,402***,223***,188*** PH,560***,573***,361***,389***,233***,226***,043-1,228*** Age,128* -,002,116*,215***,016,052 -,013 -,139** -,022 1 Gender -,145* -,098 -,147** -,097*,091,008 -,083,043 -,092 -,156** 1 Hours a,308***,208***,262***,244***,032,098,230***,000,159**,120* - 1 week,453*** Clientoriented,181**,202**,254***,155**,202***,249*** -,057 -,283**,080,214*** -,109*,245*** 1 Note: *p<,05, **p<,01 ***p<,001. SE = sustainable employability, Emp = employability, WA = work ability, Vit = vitality, PSS = perceived supervisor support, PWBL = perceived work-based learning, PJC= Perceived job complexity, PWL = perceived workload, PH = perceived health.

23 Analyzing the results of Model 1 in Table 6 it is shown that the hours an employee works per week is a significant predictor of the perceived level of sustainable employability. It can also be interpreted that an employee s gender is not related to the perceived level of sustainable employability of these healthcare workers. The same can be told for age and if the employee performs client-oriented work. Both of these control variables do not significantly predict the perceived level of SE. Table 6 Regression table SE Model Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 64,844 2,830 22,915,000 Age,065,051,075 1,265,207 Gender,057 1,341,003,043,966 Client Oriented 1,778 1,088,098 1,635,103 Hours a week 1,879,448,276*** 4,195,000 2 (Constant) 35,906 4,431 8,104,000 Age,074,039,085 1,908,057 Gender -,294 1,017 -,014 -,289,773 Client Oriented -,798,871 -,044 -,917,360 Hours a week 1,276,349,187*** 3,654,000 Perceived Supervisor Support 1,664,507,180** 3,281,001 Perceived Work-Based Learning 3,089,964,178** 3,204,002 Perceived Job Complexity 1,086,433,118** 2,508,013 Perceived Workload -,118,031 -,189*** -3,844,000 Perceived Health 3,958,454,404*** 8,728,000 a. Dependent Variable: Sustainable Employability Note: *p<,05, **p<,01 ***p<,001 t Sig. In Model 2 the regression analysis includes the control variables and the independent variables, these independent variables are the factors that are ought to affect the perceived level of SE. The first influential factor that has been proposed is supervisor support. The regression results indicate a strong positive relationship between this factor and the perceived level of SE. Therefore H1 is (strongly) supported. The independent variable perceived supervisor support shares

24 a strong significant relation with the perceived level of SE (β =,180, p =,001) therefore perceived supervisor support is a strong significant predictor of the perceived level of SE; if the perceived level of supervisor support increases the perceived level of SE of the employee will increase as well. This is aligned with the predictions made in H1, namely that perceived supervisor support increases the perceived level of SE. In H2 is suggested that perceived work-based learning increases the perceived level of sustainable employability. The results confirm this suggestion, as the results from Table 6 indicate that perceived work-based learning strongly predicts the perceived level of SE (β =,178, p =,002). Therefore H2 is strongly supported as an increase in perceived work-based learning indicates an increase in the perceived level of sustainable employability. H3 is supported by the data from the regression analysis as well. Although the literature was ambiguous about the effects job complexity could have on the level of SE the regression results confirm the hypothesis that has been proposed. The hypothesis states that when job complexity increases the level of SE increases as well. Due to the vagueness off the literature a scatterplot of this relationship has been made depicted in Figure 2. This figure shows how respondents rated their job complexity and what their level of sustainable employability is. A regression line has been added to this scatterplot, which indicates the relation of perceived job complexity to the perceived level of Figure 2 Scatterplot relationship job complexity and SE 24