Personnel Review

Psychological climate predicting job insecurity through occupational self-efficacy

Jasmina Tomas, Darja Maslić Seršić, Hans De Witte,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jasmina Tomas, Darja Maslić Seršić, Hans De Witte, (2019) "Psychological climate predicting
job insecurity through occupational self-efficacy", Personnel Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/
PR-05-2017-0163
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2017-0163
Downloaded on: 28 February 2019, At: 22:41 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 77 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 34 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:573577 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PC predicting
Psychological climate predicting job insecurity
job insecurity through
occupational self-efficacy
Jasmina Tomas and Darja Maslić Seršić
Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, and
Received 30 May 2017
Hans De Witte Revised 23 November 2017
6 May 2018
Research Unit Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning, Accepted 4 July 2018
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and
Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University,
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

Vanderbijlpark, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesized mediation model that specifies psychological
climate dimensions as antecedents of job insecurity, while accounting for occupational self-efficacy.
Stemming from the conservation of resources theory, the authors hypothesize that job challenge, role
harmony, leader support and co-worker cooperation negatively relate to job insecurity due to its positive
correlation with occupational self-efficacy.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected with a sample of 329 white-collar employees from
the ICT sector who were employed full-time and for a period of at least six months in their current
organization. All hypotheses were tested via structural equation modeling using the bootstrap method to test
the significance of indirect effects.
Findings – Among the four work environment domains, only job challenge had a significant contribution in
explaining job insecurity variance. This relationship was fully mediated by occupational self-efficacy.
Research limitations/implications – The cross-sectional research design limits the ability to make
causality inferences, while the convenience sampling method limits the generalizability of findings.
Practical implications – The study results indicate that well-designed (i.e. challenging, autonomous and
important) job tasks may be advantageous in organizational interventions aimed at reducing job insecurity
due to their potential to strengthen employees’ efficacy beliefs.
Originality/value – The study results contribute to current knowledge regarding the relative importance of
work environment antecedents of job insecurity, as well as the prominent role played by occupational
self-efficacy in explaining some of these relationships.
Keywords Quantitative, Job insecurity, Psychological climate, Occupational self-efficacy,
Conservation of resources theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Job insecurity – a perceived threat of involuntary job loss (Sverke et al., 2002) – has been
identified among the most severe work stressors (De Witte, 2005). Its negative effects have
been previously demonstrated on a broad spectrum of individual and organizational
outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, mental health and turnover intention) ( for meta-analyses,
see Cheng and Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002; for a review of longitudinal effects, see
De Witte et al., 2016) and recent large scale studies indicate that the number of job insecure
employees in Europe includes several million people (cf. De Witte, 2005).
One of the most “harmful ingredients” of job insecurity concerns a feeling of uncertainty
about what might happen with one’s current job in the future. This feature makes job
insecurity a particularly cumbersome stressor to cope with, where not knowing whether job
loss will actually occur makes it difficult for an employee to take concrete actions and Personnel Review
prepare for the future (e.g. by starting to look for another job) (Smet et al., 2016). For this © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
reason, research aimed at understanding the job insecurity antecedents that might be DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2017-0163
 PR utilized for preventing or reducing the experience of job insecurity is important for
promoting employees’ well-being. Despite its potential benefit, such research still represents
an understudied area. To illustrate, the majority of studies included in Keim et al.’s (2014)
meta-analysis on the antecedents of job insecurity examined variables that are either
beyond the scope of influence (e.g. employees’ age and education) or represent rather stable
personality traits (e.g. locus of control).
In response, the present study aims to investigate job insecurity antecedents in the realm
of the employee’s work environment (WE) and the mechanism underlying these
relationships. We believe that knowledge about whether and how diverse WE variables
predict job insecurity represents a promising avenue through which this harmful stressor
might be reduced. Specifically, WE antecedents are susceptible to change and anchored to
the work context, both features that make them directly applicable in organizational
interventions and policies. The existing research encourages this line of reasoning by
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

demonstrating significant relationships between several WE dimensions (e.g. organizational

communication, role ambiguity, role conflict) and job insecurity (cf. Keim et al., 2014).
However, these studies have neglected two relevant issues that might provide a more
complete understanding of the role of WE in perceptions of job insecurity.
The first issue addresses the question concerning the relative contribution of diverse WE
variables in predicting job insecurity. In this regard, none of the existing studies departed
from a theoretically grounded model of WE, which would have enabled a simultaneous
analysis of variables representing distinct WE domains. Instead, most of these studies focused
on a single domain (e.g. role characteristics), while at the same time omitting to account for
other important domains (e.g. job characteristics) (e.g. Ashford et al., 1989). In response, the
present study utilized the psychological climate (PC) model derived from the seminal work of
James and colleagues (e.g. James et al., 2008; James and James, 1989). According to this model,
PC represents a molar construct composed of four dimensions: job challenge and autonomy,
role stress and lack of harmony, leader support and facilitation and work-group cooperation,
warmth and friendliness. Each dimension subsumes a comprehensive set of WE variables.
The second issue pertains to the question of how WE variables relate to job insecurity.
Although this topic has been alluded to in several studies (e.g. Vander Elst et al., 2010),
empirical inquiry into mediators of the relationships between WE dimensions and job
insecurity is still limited (e.g., see Richter et al., 2018; Smet et al., 2016). In response, we
introduce occupational self-efficacy as a potential mediator of the relationships between PC
dimensions and job insecurity.
To summarize, the present study aims to contribute to the current literature in two ways.
First, the PC framework enables an all-encompassing and theoretically driven investigation of
WE antecedents of job insecurity by allowing for a simultaneous consideration of four distinct
domains (i.e. jobs, roles, leaders and work-groups) that reflect how employees cognitively
organize the most salient WE variables ( James et al., 2008). Accordingly, the study examines the
relative importance of diverse WE antecedents of job insecurity. We believe this knowledge will
allow for a more accurate understanding that realistically reflects the multivariate nature of
WEs. Second, the present study offers a unique contribution to the literature by placing the
focus on occupational self-efficacy as the mediator of the relationships between dimensions of
PC and job insecurity. Although the specific mediating links between these variables have not
been examined to date, they may prove to be relevant in further developing theory and effective
interventions designed to reduce job insecurity perceptions.

Psychological climate
PC is defined as an individual’s psychologically meaningful cognitive representation of
relatively proximal WE attributes (Parker et al., 2003). James and James (1989)
conceptualized PC as a set of four higher-order factors that were empirically derived
 from extensive validation studies[1]. The authors started with an exhaustive literature PC predicting
review aiming to “develop a comprehensive measure of the perceptual domains that are job insecurity
psychologically meaningful and significant for most individuals in work environments”
( James and Sells, 1981, p. 281). As a result, they identified 35 a priori composites
(i.e. measures of WE attributes) and administered them across diverse samples (e.g. the US
Navy, ICT specialists, firefighters). Based on the results of exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses, the authors demonstrated that a comprehensive set of WE attributes can be
loaded onto factors that were defined by four situational referents (i.e. jobs, roles, leaders
and work-group) and conceptually corresponded to the four most relevant work-related
values (i.e. desire for challenge, independence and responsibility; desire for clarity, harmony
and justice; desire for work facilitation, support and recognition; and desire for warm and
friendly social relations – see Locke, 1976) ( James and James, 1989). For example, measures
of job challenge and variety, job importance and job autonomy invariantly loaded onto a
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

single factor called job challenge and autonomy. These results led authors to argue that PC
dimensions represent value-engendered schemas that individuals employ to evaluate job
tasks, with regards to their potential to enable autonomous engagement in challenging and
important assignments; roles, with regards to their potential to hinder the fulfillment of
one’s job responsibilities; leaders, with regards to the extent to which (s)he facilitates the
subordinate’s work and encourages him/her to participate in important decisions; and
work-groups, with regards to their cooperativeness and friendliness. In the present study,
we have drawn upon the conceptual core of PC dimensions and, for reasons of parsimony,
will refer to them as job challenge, role harmony, leader support and co-worker cooperation
from this point onwards[2].
We believe that the PC model is a particularly good fit with the aim of the present study
for two reasons. First, each higher-order PC factor reflects the conceptual similarities
between more specific WE attributes. As such, it represents a more generalized and
parsimonious conceptualization of the four WE domains, whose meaning is above
and beyond that of any particular sub-dimension. This is important because higher-order
abstractions of more specific dimensions should provide more predictive power
(cf. Fugate and Kinicki, 2008). Second, PC is an inherently subjective construct that
reflects the unique meanings employees impute to their jobs, roles, leader and co-workers
( James et al., 2008). We believe that the subjective interpretation of environmental stimuli,
rather than the objective environment per se, should allow for maximum prediction of
occupational self-efficacy and job insecurity, both of which are also highly subjective
phenomena (cf. James et al., 1978).

Occupational self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s confidence in his/her capabilities to successfully
fulfill various tasks and exercise influence over relevant events (Bandura, 1994).
This concept has been widely used in organizational research due to its potential to predict
relevant job-related outcomes, e.g., job performance and job satisfaction (cf. Judge and Bono,
2001). Bandura (2006) argued that prediction is best achieved if one utilizes a domain-
specific assessment of self-efficacy that matches the outcome of interest. We believe that
occupational self-efficacy serves this purpose well: while job insecurity refers to one’s
perceived probability of losing his/her job (Sverke et al., 2002), occupational self-efficacy is
defined as an individual’s confidence in his/her abilities to successfully perform a job and
master various job-related challenges (Schyns and von Collani, 2002).

PC and occupational self-efficacy as resources framed in a mediation model

The hypotheses of the present study are derived from the conservation of resources (COR)
theory, which defines resources as all entities that people centrally value or that serve as means
 PR to obtain these valued entities (Hobfoll, 2001). In line with this definition, stable employment has
been classified as a COR resource (cf. Hobfoll, 2001), where it not only provides a means of
survival (i.e. income), but also enables the acquisition of other resources (e.g. social networks and
status) ( Jahoda, 1982). Accordingly, job insecurity represents a perceived threat to a valuable
resource that consequently leads to strain (De Cuyper et al., 2012).
The COR theory postulates that people are motivated to protect the things that they
value. However, in order to do so, they need to invest resources they already possess. As a
result, those who possess more resources are generally more capable of protecting their
resources, while those with fewer resources are more vulnerable to resource loss
(Hobfoll et al., 2018). Building on these COR principles, we anticipate that employees will
be motivated to counteract the perceived threat of potential job loss. However, the extent
to which this is successful will depend on the level of available resources: those with more
resources may feel more secure about keeping their job, whereas those who are less
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

resource-endowed may experience higher levels of job insecurity (Holmgreen et al., 2017).
The present study places the focus on two distinct categories of employee resources that
might negatively predict job insecurity – PC and occupational self-efficacy – and frames
them in a mediation model. In particular, we hypothesize that each PC dimension has a
unique negative contribution to explaining variance in job insecurity and the relationship
between PC dimensions and job insecurity is partially mediated by occupational
self-efficacy. These assumptions are further elaborated in the following paragraphs.

PC and job insecurity

Stemming from COR principles, we suggest that employees working in resource-rich
environments may perceive less threat of a potential job loss. In this regard, each PC
dimension is assumed to function as an external resource that is linked to an employee’s WE
(Holmgreen et al., 2017). Indeed, the assumptions about dimensions of PC are consistent with
the definition of COR resources. First, because PC dimensions are presumably engendered by
work-relevant values, they encompass personally valuable aspects of WEs ( James et al., 2008).
Second, the dimensions of PC may be conducive for the attainment of other resources, such as
psychological well-being (cf. Parker et al., 2003). Accordingly, we postulate that each PC
dimension will negatively relate to job insecurity.
More specifically, job challenge may foster employees’ human capital and job performance
(cf. Hackman and Oldham, 1976), making them more valuable to the organization and less
vulnerable to potential job loss (De Cuyper et al., 2008). Because we are not aware of any
studies that have utilized higher-order PC factors in relation to job insecurity, we refer to a
reasonable proxy – results obtained on separate PC sub-dimensions – in the remainder of this
paper. In this regard, Mauno and Kinnunen (2002) found a negative relationship between job
control and job insecurity. In addition, Feather and Rauter (2004) demonstrated that job
insecurity negatively related to skill utilization and influence (two constructs that conceptually
correspond to job challenge and job autonomy), but failed to demonstrate a significant
relationship between job insecurity and variety. Taking into account these theoretical
arguments and empirical results, we hypothesize:
H1. Job challenge relates negatively to job insecurity.
Role harmony may facilitate employee fulfillment of prescribed roles, where employees who are
clear about and consistent with their job responsibilities should more easily complete these
responsibilities (Keim et al., 2014). In turn, these employees might feel less anxious about and
more in control over their future job situation (Ashford et al., 1989). Consistent with these
assumptions, Keim et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis revealed positive associations between both role
ambiguity and role conflict and job insecurity. Based on these results, we further hypothesize:
H2. Role harmony relates negatively to job insecurity.
 Support from workplace leaders may also facilitate job performance and indicate to PC predicting
employees that they are valuable members of their organization (Shoss, 2017). In this regard, job insecurity
Lim (1997) found a negative relationship between supervisor support and job insecurity,
while Probst (2005) reported a negative relationship between participative decision making
and job insecurity. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H3. Leader support relates negatively to job insecurity.
Cooperation among co-workers may reduce the possibility of competition and conflicts
among employees, both of which are conducive for the development of job insecurity
perceptions (Glambek et al., 2014). Evidence for this assumption can be found in studies
demonstrating a negative relationship between job insecurity and co-worker support
(Lim, 1997) and a positive relationship between job insecurity and exposure to bullying
behaviors (Glambek et al., 2014). In line with these theoretical and empirical arguments,
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

we hypothesize:
H4. Co-worker cooperation relates negatively to job insecurity.

PC and occupational self-efficacy

COR theory further states that employees who possess more resources are not only less
vulnerable to resource loss, but are also more capable of resource gain. Additionally, initial
resource gain begets further gain (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Self-efficacy has previously been
categorized as an internal COR resource (Holmgreen et al., 2017). In this regard, occupational
self-efficacy may be valuable to an employee because it furnishes him/her with feelings of
competence and facilitates the acquisition of additional resources, such as promotion and
pay raise (Bandura, 1994).
Consistent with COR theory, we postulate that employees with greater access to WE
resources may be more able to build on their internal resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Therefore,
we expect to find a positive relationship between each PC dimension and occupational
self-efficacy, delineated along three sources of self-efficacy beliefs: enactive mastery (i.e. repeated
performance success), vicarious experience (i.e. modeling by effective models) and verbal
persuasion (i.e. realistic encouragement of performance) (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). The fourth
category, physiological arousal, has been omitted because it is less relevant for the present study.
Job challenge may facilitate the accumulation of mastery experiences, a mechanism that
is considered the most influential source of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). As outlined in both
job characteristics theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1976) and the job demands–resources
model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), job characteristics subsumed by this PC factor
(i.e. job challenge and variety, job importance and job autonomy) have a motivational
potential that stimulates the willingness of employees to invest effort and stay committed to
meeting work-related goals. As a result, these characteristics increase the likelihood of
successful task completion and goal attainment (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Because
repeated performance success might more readily occur when employees perceive many
opportunities to autonomously perform challenging and important tasks, we contend that
job challenge will positively relate to occupational self-efficacy. This line of reasoning has
been empirically substantiated by studies reporting positive correlations between efficacy
beliefs and variables that conceptually correspond to job autonomy (e.g. Parker, 1998), job
challenge (e.g. Schaubroeck et al., 2001) and job importance (e.g. Jex and Bliese, 1999). To
summarize, we hypothesize:
H5. Job challenge relates positively to occupational self-efficacy.
A similar line of reasoning may be applied to an examination of the relationship between
role harmony and occupational self-efficacy. Namely, mastery experiences might more
readily accumulate when employees are clear about and congruent with their assignments.
 PR In this vein, role clarity has been framed as a resource that fosters the achievement of work
goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Consistent with this assumption, Jex et al. (2001) found
a positive relationship between self-efficacy and role clarity. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H6. Role harmony relates positively to occupational self-efficacy.
Leader support may also facilitate mastery experiences, where repeated performance
success may more readily occur when employees perceive that their leaders encourage good
performance and are receptive to their opinions and ideas. Additionally, leaders may serve
as effective models and a source of verbal persuasion. Bandura (2009) argued that
empowering leadership represents one of the ways an organization might influence
employee’s efficacy beliefs system. Indirect empirical support for this argument was
provided by Schyns and von Collani (2002), who demonstrated a positive relationship
between occupational self-efficacy and leader-member exchange. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

H7. Leader support relates positively to occupational self-efficacy.

Finally, cooperation among co-workers may be conducive to mastery experiences, where
performance success may be facilitated by co-workers who provide work-related support
(e.g. offer help and share knowledge). As with leaders, co-workers may also use verbal
persuasion to encourage each other’s performance and serve as effective models, thus
contributing to one’s efficacy beliefs (Schyns and von Collani, 2002). In line with this
reasoning, Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between co-worker
support and general self-efficacy. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H8. Co-worker cooperation relates positively to occupational self-efficacy.

The mediating role of occupational self-efficacy in the relationships between PC dimensions

and job insecurity
Consistent with COR principles, we further contend that occupational self-efficacy will
negatively relate to job insecurity. As for the PC dimensions, occupational self-efficacy is
assumed to function as a resource that predicts the level to which employees are able to
counteract the threat of potential job loss. However, in contrast to the PC dimensions, we
regard occupational self-efficacy as a more proximal, internal resource that is to a certain
extent dependent on external resources (see above).
In particular, we suggest that, of all the available internal resources, occupational self-
efficacy may have a more pronounced role in shaping job insecurity perceptions. First,
efficacy beliefs influence the outcomes that people anticipate (Bandura, 2009). As such,
employees who are convinced of their ability to perform well in a job may perceive a lower
threat of losing that job. After all, those with high occupational self-efficacy will exhibit better
job performance (König et al., 2010). As a result, these employees will be more able to secure
their positions because employers are less likely to dismiss high performers. Second,
occupational self-efficacy may negatively relate to job insecurity even when job insecurity
arises from external, uncontrollable factors (e.g. economic crisis). In such circumstances,
efficacy beliefs might shape the manner in which employees interpret ambivalent information
and situations. Namely, those with strong beliefs in their ability to successfully master various
job-related challenges might also believe that they will successfully master a job insecure
situation, by either keeping the present job against all odds or finding a new one (De Cuyper
et al., 2012). The idea of negative relationship between occupational self-efficacy and job
insecurity has received empirical support (König et al., 2010; Schreurs et al., 2010).
To summarize, the pattern of assumptions presented here forms a basis for a mediation
model that specifies occupational self-efficacy as the explaining mechanism underlying the
negative relationships between PC dimensions and job insecurity. In line with COR
 principles, we assume that WE resources may be conducive for the development of PC predicting
additional control-based constructs (cf. Xanthopoulou et al., 2007), such as organization- job insecurity
based self-esteem (Pierce and Gardner, 2004) and optimism (Scheier et al., 1994). These
constructs, in turn, might negatively relate to job insecurity. Accordingly, we hypothesize a
partial mediation (Figure 1):
H9. The negative relationship between job challenge and job insecurity is partially
mediated by occupational self-efficacy.
H10. The negative relationship between role harmony and job insecurity is partially
mediated by occupational self-efficacy.
H11. The negative relationship between leader support and job insecurity is partially
mediated by occupational self-efficacy.
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

H12. The negative relationship between co-worker cooperation and job insecurity is
partially mediated by occupational self-efficacy.

Method
Participants and procedure
Data were collected in the Spring of 2016 as part of a larger research project examining WE
determinants of job insecurity and perceived employability. HR managers from one of the
largest ICT companies in Croatia were contacted and provided with information about the
purpose of the study. In exchange for participation, a report with climate analysis was
prepared for the organization. HR managers first launched a call via the company network
to inform employees about the study and emphasize the importance of participation for all
parties involved (e.g. providing the organization with anonymous feedback that could be
used for improvement of the WE). In the following step, an electronic questionnaire was
administered to 529 employees. The confidentiality of the data and the voluntary nature of
participation were emphasized. Following two reminders for questionnaire completion, a
total of 344 employees completed the survey (response rate ¼ 65 percent). Because
estimation of PC items requires individuals to recall and integrate information that has been

Job challenge

+
–

Role harmony
–
+ Occupational – Job insecurity
self-efficacy
+
Leader –
support

+ –

Figure 1.
Co-worker Hypothesized
cooperation mediation model
 PR collected over a certain period of time in a particular work setting ( James et al., 1978),
participants who were employed in the organization part-time or for a period of less than
six months were excluded. As a result, the effective sample size was 329 employees
(response rate ¼ 62 percent). This response rate is considerably higher than the average
response rate of 36 percent in organizational studies (see Baruch and Holtom, 2008), which
might be attributed to the high commitment of the HR managers who invested considerable
effort in motivating employees to participate.
The sample was composed entirely of white-collar employees and around two-thirds of
the participants were men (67.2 percent). The mean age was 36 years (SD ¼ 9.06), ranging
from 22 to 63 years. Most of the participants were highly educated (90.3 percent had an
MA level education or higher) and were employed on a permanent contract (97 percent).
The mean organizational tenure was 6.49 years (SD ¼ 5.43) and ranged from 6 months to
37 years. Finally, 71.4 percent of participants had no managerial position, 21 percent had
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

a lower-level position, 5.2 percent had a middle-level position and 2.4 percent had a
high-level position.

Measures
The measure of job insecurity used in the present study was readily available in Croatian
(Tomas and Maslić Seršić, 2015). The two remaining measures (PC questionnaire (PCQ) and
occupational self-efficacy scale) were subjected to a translation and back-translation
procedure (Behling and Law, 2000).
PC was measured with the adapted version of the PCQ, originally developed by James and
colleagues (cf. James and James, 1989). These authors generated questionnaire items from an
extensive literature review that encompassed various measures and conceptualizations of WE
attributes with relatively direct ties to individual experience (e.g. Blau, 1954; Hackman and
Lawler, 1971; Rizzo et al., 1970; Taylor, 1971; Vroom, 1960) (cf. James et al., 1979; Jones and
James, 1979). The PCQ developed by James and James (1989) consists of 17 sub-dimensions
(i.e. PC variables). However, more recent adaptations of this questionnaire encompass a fewer
number of sub-dimensions (cf. Baltes et al., 2002, 2009; Gagnon et al., 2009). Because shorter
measures are more readily applicable in organizational settings, we aligned with these more
recent versions in the present study. For that purpose, we conducted two preliminary
validation studies with two independent samples aiming to obtain a psychometrically sound
measure of PC that would be applicable in diverse organizations. As a result, the adapted PCQ
totaled 8 sub-dimensions measured by 37 items[3]. Due to the high correlation between role
harmony and leader support (r ¼ 0.89), suggesting that employees strongly attributed
characteristics of their pursued roles to their leadership, these two dimensions were merged
into a single dimension. Job challenge and autonomy was measured by three sub-dimensions:
job challenge and variety (five items; e.g., “My job challenges my abilities”), job autonomy (five
items; e.g. “I am allowed to schedule my own work”) and job importance (four items; e.g. “I feel
that my work is highly important”). Cronbach’s α for the total scale (14 items) was 0.82. Role
harmony and leader support was measured by four sub-dimensions: role clarity (four items; e.
g. “My work assignments are clearly defined”), role congruence (five items; e.g. “I have to do
things that should be done differently,” reversely coded) leader goal emphasis and work
facilitation (five items; e.g. “My supervisor emphasizes high standards of performance”) and
participative decision making (four items; e.g. “I can influence the decisions of my supervisor
regarding things which concern my job”). Cronbach’s α for the total scale (18 items) was 0.92.
The co-worker cooperation represented one dimension measured by five items (e.g. “There is a
feeling of cooperation among my colleagues”). Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.91. All
responses were provided on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Based on the content of the subscales, we feel confident in concluding that the adapted PCQ
reflects the conceptual core of original PC model ( James and James, 1989), in that it
 encompasses the perceived extent to which jobs are challenging, roles are harmonious, leaders PC predicting
are supportive and co-workers are cooperative. job insecurity
Occupational self-efficacy was measured with the short version of the occupational
self-efficacy scale, initially developed by Schyns and von Collani (2002) and subsequently
shortened by Rigotti et al. (2008). This scale is comprised of six domain-specific items
consistent with the work context (e.g. “Whatever comes my way in my job, I can usually
handle it”). Responses were provided on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 6
(completely true). Cronbach’s α for the occupational self-efficacy scale was 0.85.
Job insecurity was measured using a four-item job insecurity scale developed by
De Witte (2000) and validated by Vander Elst et al. (2014). Participants provided responses
on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The sample item is
“I think I might lose my job in the near future.” Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.90.
Control variables. In order to exclude alternative explanations for the obtained results, we
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

controlled for several demographic and work-related characteristics that relate to

occupational self-efficacy and job insecurity (e.g. Keim et al., 2014; Schaubroeck et al., 2001).
This included: gender (0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female), age (in years), education (recoded in two
dummy variables with MA degree as the reference group) and managerial position
(recoded in three dummy variables with no managerial position as the reference group).
Because 97 percent of participants were employed on a permanent contract, we did not
control for contract type.

Data analyses
The analyses were conducted within the structural equation modeling framework in R 3.2.3
(R Core Team, 2015) by means of the Lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). Because data did not
reveal any violations of normality (skewness indices were less than 3; kurtosis indices were
less than 10) or multi-collinearity (i.e. r W0.85), we used the maximum likelihood estimation
procedure (Weston and Gore, 2006).
In the first step, we ran the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to test the construct
validity of all study variables. For this purpose, we tested the hypothesized five-factor
measurement model with three PC dimensions (where job challenge and role harmony and
leader support were specified as second-order factors and co-worker cooperation was specified
as a first-order factor), occupational self-efficacy and job insecurity. All indicators were
allowed to load onto their respective factor and all factors were allowed to correlate. In
addition, we compared the hypothesized measurement model with theoretically plausible
alternative models using χ2-difference tests.
In the second step, we examined two hypothesized structural models. The first model
tested the unique contribution of each PC dimension in explaining variance in job insecurity
(addressing H1–H4), while the second model tested the hypothesized mediating role of
occupational self-efficacy in the relationships between PC dimensions and job insecurity
(addressing H5–H12). To test the significance of the direct and indirect effects, we used the
bootstrap method with 10,000 resamples and constructed 95% bias-corrected confidence
intervals (CI). This method represents the preferred method for testing the significance of
indirect effects as it does not impose normality assumptions of their sampling distributions.
As a result, it has higher statistical power than methods based on a ratio of the mediated
effects and the corresponding standard error (MacKinnon et al., 2007). The effect is
considered statistically significant if the CI for the corresponding effect does not contain 0
(Preacher and Hayes, 2008).
The overall goodness-of-model-fit was evaluated with a combination of the following fit
indices: standardized root mean square residual, comparative fit index and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a corresponding 90% CI. An acceptable fit
 PR between the hypothesized model and the observed data is indicated when values of SRMR
and RMSEA are close to or below 0.08, the upper RMSEA 90% CI is less than 0.10 and the
value of CFI equals or exceeds 0.90 (Bentler, 1990; Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Results
Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s α’s and correlations for all study variables are
presented in Table I.

Measurement model
The results of the CFA demonstrated that the hypothesized five-factor measurement model
fitted the data acceptably well (χ2(1017) ¼ 1,938.19, p o0.001, CFI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼
0.052, 90% CI [0.049–0.056], SRMR ¼ 0.067) and significantly better than each alternative
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

nested model: three four-factor models in which indicators intended to measure one of the
PC factors and occupational self-efficacy loaded onto one factor and the remaining
indicators loaded onto their respective factor; three four-factor models in which indicators
intended to measure one of the PC factors and job insecurity loaded onto one factor and the
remaining indicators loaded onto their respective factor; a four-factor model in which
indicators intended to measure occupational self-efficacy and job insecurity loaded onto one
factor and the remaining indicators loaded onto their respective factor; and a one-factor
model. The values of Δχ2 ranged from 742.68 to 3,994.83 and were all statistically significant
at p o0.001. A table presenting detailed findings of all CFAs is available upon request from
the first author.
In regards to the model parameters, all indicators were significantly and positively
related to the corresponding latent factor (standardized regression weights ranged from 0.58
to 0.92), all first-order PC factors loaded highly onto the corresponding second-order factor
(standardized second-order factor regression weights ranged from 0.72 to 0.90) and factor
correlations ranged from |0.13| to |0.74|. Standardized factor loading for items measuring
occupational self-efficacy and job insecurity are presented in Table AI. The model did not
include specified correlations between indicator error variances. The presented empirical
data thus substantiate previous claims regarding the construct validity of the study
measures (Brown, 2006).

Structural models
The first hypothesized structural model with specified direct effects of each PC dimension on job
insecurity provided an acceptable fit to the data (χ2(1,044) ¼ 1,834.47, po0.001, CFI ¼ 0.90,
RMSEA ¼ 0.048, 90% CI [0.044–0.052], SRMR ¼ 0.066). The model included two theoretically
meaningful error correlations between items that loaded onto the same dimension. The model
parameters pertaining to the study hypotheses are presented in Table II.
Consistent with H1, job challenge negatively related to job insecurity (B ¼ −0.32,
p o 0.05, 95% CI [−0.64, −0.00]). The remaining two PC dimensions – role harmony and
leader support (representing one higher-order factor) (B ¼ 0.11, p W 0.05, 95% CI [−0.35,
0.57]) and co-worker cooperation (B ¼ −0.15, p W 0.05, 95% CI [−0.32, 0.01]) – did not
relate to job insecurity. Accordingly, H2–H4 were not supported. Taken together, the total
effect of PC on job insecurity was statistically significant and negative (B ¼ −0.36,
p o 0.001, 95% CI [−0.59, −0.18]). This effect was due to a single PC dimension – job
challenge. In regards to the control variables, older employees perceived more job
insecurity (B ¼ 0.02, p o 0.001, 95% CI [0.01, 0.03]), while gender, education and
managerial position did not relate to job insecurity. All together, the amount of explained
variance in job insecurity equaled 17 percent.
 Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
a
1. Female – – –
2. Age 36.09 9.06 −0.10 –
3. High schoola – – −0.01 0.22** –
4. PhDa – – −0.10 0.16** −0.09 –
5. Temporary contracta – – 0.04 −0.13* 0.01 −0.05 –
a
6. Lower-level position – – −0.01 0.08 −0.07 −0.06 −0.09 –
7. Middle-level positiona – – −0.13* 0.14** 0.02 0.04 −0.04 −0.12* –
8. Higher-level positiona – – −0.03 0.21** −0.05 0.34** −0.03 −0.08 −0.04 –
9. Job challenge 3.64 0.56 0.01 0.17** 0.04 −0.01 −0.04 0.17** 0.16** 0.18** (0.90)
10. Role harmony and leader support 3.52 0.59 0.06 −0.01 −0.06 −0.09 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.60** (0.92)
11. Co-worker cooperation 3.99 0.73 0.01 −0.11* −0.03 −0.08 0.02 −0.05 −0.02 −0.01 0.34** 0.60** (0.91)
12. Occupational self-efficacy 5.01 0.56 −0.08 0.14* 0.07 −0.11 −0.11* 0.10 −0.01 0.01 0.38** 0.25** 0.10 (0.85)
13. Job insecurity 2.08 0.76 0.04 0.22** 0.14* 0.10 0.14** 0.01 −0.04 −0.06 −0.20** −0.22** −0.21** −0.32** (0.90)
Notes: aDummy variables: the reference groups are males, MA degree, MA degree, permanent contract, no managerial position, no managerial position, no managerial
position. *p o0.05; **p o0.01
job insecurity
PC predicting

Table I.

reliabilities (in
correlations and scale
Descriptive statistics,

parentheses)
 PR Bootstrapping
BC 95% CIa
Unstandardized Standardized
estimates estimates p Lower Upper

Results of the model testing direct effects of PC on job insecurity

Direct effects
Job challenge→JI −0.32 −0.26 0.048 −0.644 −0.003
Role harmony and leader support→JI 0.11 0.07 0.633 −0.348 0.573
Co-worker cooperation→JI −0.15 −0.15 0.068 −0.318 0.011
Job challenge + role harmony and leader
support + co-worker cooperation→JI −0.36 −0.35 o 0.001 −0.564 −0.165
Femaleb→JI 0.09 0.05 0.351 −0.093 0.263
Age→JI 0.02 0.23 o 0.001 0.009 0.030
High schoolb→JI 0.24 0.09 0.115 −0.057 0.527
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

PhDb→JI 0.31 0.11 0.073 −0.029 0.658

Lower-level positionb→JI 0.04 0.02 0.717 −0.174 0.253
Middle-level positionb→JI −0.16 −0.05 0.409 −0.554 0.226
Higher-level positionb→JI −0.53 −0.11 0.080 −1.123 0.064
Results of the model testing effects of PC on job insecurity through occupational self-efficacy
Direct effects
Job challenge→OCCSE 0.54 0.56 0.001 0.233 0.837
Role harmony and leader support→OCCSE −0.19 −0.16 0.334 −0.571 0.194
Co-worker cooperation→OCCSE 0.01 0.02 0.837 −0.114 0.140
OCCSE→JI −0.47 −0.34 o 0.001 −0.667 −0.269
Job challenge→JI −0.11 −0.08 0.562 −0.459 0.249
Role harmony and leader support→JI 0.04 0.03 0.859 −0.410 0.492
Co-worker cooperation→JI −0.15 −0.15 0.060 −0.309 0.007
Femaleb→OCCSE −0.16 −0.13 0.018 −0.294 −0.027
Age→OCCSE 0.01 0.10 0.116 −0.001 0.013
High schoolb→OCCSE 0.07 0.03 0.547 −0.149 0.280
PhDb→OCCSE −0.25 −0.11 0.055 −0.503 0.005
Lower-level positionb→OCCSE 0.03 0.02 0.728 −0.131 0.187
Middle-level positionb→OCCSE −0.18 −0.07 0.235 −0.467 0.115
Higher-level positionb→OCCSE −0.12 −0.03 0.588 −0.562 0.318
Female →JI
b
0.01 0.01 0.919 −0.164 0.182
Age→JI 0.02 0.26 o 0.001 0.013 0.032
High schoolb→JI 0.27 0.10 0.061 −0.012 0.546
PhDb→JI 0.20 0.07 0.244 −0.134 0.527
Lower-level position →JI
b
0.06 0.03 0.592 −0.149 0.260
Middle-level position →JI
b
−0.25 −0.07 0.200 −0.623 0.130
Higher-level positionb→JI −0.58 −0.12 0.046 −1.152 −0.012
Indirect effects
Job challenge→OCCSE→JI −0.25 −0.19 0.004 −0.420 −0.081
Role harmony and leader
support→OCCSE→JI 0.09 0.05 0.339 −0.093 0.269
Co-worker cooperation→OCCSE→JI −0.01 −0.01 0.837 −0.066 0.053
Table II. Notes: OCCSE, occupational self-efficacy; JI, job insecurity. aFor unstandardized values; bdummy variables:
Results of the the reference groups are males, MA degree, MA degree, no managerial position, no managerial position, no
bootstrap analysis managerial position

The second hypothesized structural model additionally included indirect effects of PC

dimensions on job insecurity through occupational self-efficacy. This model yielded an
acceptable fit to the data (χ2(1,044) ¼ 1,834.47, p o0.001, CFI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼ 0.048,
90% CI [0.044–0.052], SRMR ¼ 0.066). Five theoretically meaningful error correlations were
 specified between items that loaded onto the same (sub)dimension. The model parameters PC predicting
pertaining to the study hypotheses are presented in Table II and Figure 2. job insecurity
Job challenge positively related to occupational self-efficacy (B ¼ 0.54, po0.01, 95% CI
[0.23, 0.84]), thus supporting H5. Furthermore, the relationship between job challenge and job
insecurity was fully mediated by occupational self-efficacy (B ¼ −0.25, po0.01, 95% CI
[−0.42, −0.08]), thereby providing partial support for H9. Role harmony and leader support
did not relate to occupational self-efficacy (B ¼ −0.19, pW0.05, 95% CI [−0.57, 0.19]), refuting
H6 and H7. Consistent with these results, the relationship between role harmony and leader
support and job insecurity was not mediated by occupational self-efficacy (B ¼ 0.09, pW0.05,
95% CI [−0.09, 0.27]). Accordingly, no evidence was found for H10 and H11. The relationship
between co-worker cooperation and occupational self-efficacy was non-significant (B ¼ 0.01,
pW0.05, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.14]), refuting H8, as was the indirect effect of co-worker support on
job insecurity through occupational self-efficacy (B ¼ −0.01, pW0.05, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.05]),
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

thus refuting H12. In regards to the control variables, women expressed lower levels of
occupational self-efficacy than men (B ¼ −0.16, po0.05, 95% CI [−0.29, −0.03]).
Additionally, older workers perceived more job insecurity (B ¼ 0.02, po0.001, 95% CI [0.01,
0.03]), whereas employees with a higher-level position perceived less job insecurity than
employees with no managerial position (B ¼ −0.58, po0.05, 95% CI [−1.15, −0.01]). The
remaining control variables did not relate significantly to occupational self-efficacy or job
insecurity. All together, the amount of explained variance in occupational self-efficacy and
job insecurity equaled 26 percent.

Discussion
This study tested a hypothesized mediation model that specifies PC dimensions as
predictors of job insecurity via occupational self-efficacy. As such, it aimed to contribute

Job challenge
and variety 0.76***

0.72*** Job challenge

Job autonomy
0.72***

Job importance

–0.08ns
0.56**
Role clarity
0.88***
2
2
R = 0.26
Role congruence R = 0.26
Role harmony –0.16ns –0.34***
0.75*** Occupational
and leader Job insecurity
Leader goal self-efficacy
support
emphasis and work
0.90***
facilitation
0.03ns
0.82***
Participative
decision making
0.02ns
–0.15ns

PC 1

PC 2
Co-worker
PC 3
cooperation
PC 4

PC 5

Figure 2.
Notes: Presented are standardized values. Due to figure clarity, presented are only structural Structural model
effects and control variables are omitted. **p< 0.01; ***p <0.001
 PR new knowledge to the currently limited and fragmented understanding regarding the
relative importance of diverse WE antecedents of job insecurity. In addition, it aimed to
make a contribution to the almost non-existing knowledge regarding the specific
mechanisms explaining the relationship between WE variables and job insecurity.
Together, both contributions can be subsumed under a common denominator: they add to
the relatively understudied, yet relevant area of job insecurity research aimed at reducing
this phenomenon.
Our findings demonstrated that job challenge had a unique negative contribution in
predicting variance in job insecurity, a finding that aligns with the assumption that
employees with greater resources in terms of the synergistic combination of challenging,
autonomous and important tasks are less vulnerable to job insecurity (Hobfoll, 2001). This
finding is also indirectly consistent with research demonstrating negative relationships
between various lower-order job characteristics and job insecurity (where job control is the
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

most extensively studied proxy of job challenge; e.g., see Mauno and Kinnunen, 2002;
Schreurs et al., 2010).
Interestingly, the relationship between job challenge and job insecurity was fully
mediated by occupational self-efficacy. A possible explanation for why occupational
self-efficacy exerts such a prominent role in the job challenge–job insecurity relationship
might be found in social cognitive theory, in which Bandura (1994) argues that mastery
experiences are the most influential source of efficacy beliefs, particularly when success
results from perseverant effort. Arguably, individuals whose jobs allow them to
autonomously engage in challenging and important tasks are in a situation in which they
might continuously experience such effortful success. Indeed, our results demonstrated a
rather strong relationship between job challenge and occupational self-efficacy (β ¼ 0.56), a
finding that has been indirectly supported by previous research (e.g. Salanova et al., 2002;
Schaubroeck et al., 2001; Schyns and von Collani, 2002). Conditional upon the mediation was
also the observed negative relationship between occupational self-efficacy and job
insecurity (cf. Schreurs et al., 2010). This finding coincides with the notion that occupational
self-efficacy functions as an internal resource that promotes one’s feelings of being able to
influence and secure his/her job position (Bandura, 2009; Holmgreen et al., 2017).
In contrast to the job challenge dimension, the remaining PC dimensions (role harmony
and leader support and co-worker cooperation) did not predict job insecurity directly or
indirectly via occupational self-efficacy. The absence of significant direct effects is
somewhat surprising given that previous studies found significant relationships between
job insecurity and several role (e.g. Keim et al., 2014), leader (e.g. Kinnunen and Nӓtti, 1994)
and co-worker (Lim, 1997) characteristics. However, these studies focused mostly on one
subset of WE variables, without accounting for the effects of others. For example, Ashford
et al. (1989) placed the focus on role ambiguity and role conflict, while Kinnunen and Nӓtti
(1994) examined employee relationships with supervisors as antecedents to job insecurity.
In contrast, our study simultaneously accounted for variables from job, role, leader and
co-worker domains. Accordingly, while previous studies demonstrated that role, leader and
co-worker characteristics exert some effects on perceptions of job insecurity, our study
indicates that the relationship between job insecurity and these WE dimensions may be less
relevant than job characteristics themselves.
Arguably, this reasoning might also explain the non-significant indirect effects via
occupational self-efficacy, where role harmony and leader support and co-worker
cooperation may be less relevant for the development of efficacy beliefs in comparison to
job challenge. It is plausible that everyday job accomplishments are not as closely tied to
role, leader and co-worker characteristics as they are to the characteristics of job tasks
themselves. Furthermore, two other mechanisms that might play a role in these two PC
dimensions – vicarious experience and verbal persuasion – are generally less influential in
 shaping efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1994). Again, we are unaware of studies that PC predicting
simultaneously examined variables from all four WE domains in relation to occupational job insecurity
self-efficacy. However, consistent with our findings, Parker (1998) found that task control,
but not employee influence in decision making, significantly predicted change in role
breadth self-efficacy.
All together, the results of this study contribute to current knowledge in line with the
following. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that simultaneously tested
perceptions of jobs, roles, leaders and co-workers in relation to job insecurity, and thus had
more strength to decipher latent relationships that were not detectable in studies focusing
only on specific WE variables (cf. James et al., 2008). The results demonstrated that among
these four WE domains, challenging jobs have particular importance in predicting job
insecurity perceptions. This relationship was fully explained by occupational self-efficacy.
This finding not only contributes to unraveling the yet unexplored mechanisms underlying
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

the relationships between WE variables and job insecurity, but also demonstrates that
employee efficacy beliefs have a prominent role in this relationship.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

We acknowledge several limitations of the present study. First, a main limitation lies in the
cross-sectional research design, which limits the possibility for drawing unequivocal causal
conclusions. In positioning WE variables as the antecedents of occupational self-efficacy
and job insecurity, we were guided by the premise that changes in the person take place in
response to his/her WE (Speier and Frese, 1997). This idea is supported by longitudinal
studies demonstrating that WE variables predict both change in the level of one’s efficacy
beliefs (Parker, 1998) and job insecurity (Glambek et al., 2014). However, we cannot
completely rule out that the opposite is (also) true (e.g. that increased job insecurity
contributes to less cooperation among employees or that employees with higher
efficacy beliefs choose tasks that are more challenging and autonomous). We view these
alternative explanations (i.e. reversed and reciprocal causation) as fruitful venues for future
longitudinal studies.
A second limitation arises from the fact that all variables were measured by self-reports.
We believe this approach has both advantages and disadvantages. First, occupational
self-efficacy and job insecurity are highly subjective phenomena and therefore may
not be validly assessed by other raters. Second, an individual’s interpretation of his/her
environment and capabilities should more strongly influence individual outcomes than
more objective variables ( James et al., 1978). However, self-reports may also increase the risk
of a common method bias. In order to a priori diminish this possibility, we followed the
instructions proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) (e.g. confidentiality was emphasized, the
fact that there were no right or wrong answers was stressed, the proximal separation of
study variables was increased and all scale points (rather than just end points) were labeled).
Nevertheless, this methodological artefact might be eliminated in future studies by
obtaining measures of WE from other sources (e.g. key informants).
Another limitation arises from the possible bias of the sample on two levels. First, because
an incentive to participate in the study was provided via a report of the study results, the
organization that agreed to participate might have been generally more motivated to improve
the psychosocial WE of employees. Second, the employees who agreed to participate in this
type of research might also represent those more willing to express their opinions about their
WE (e.g. those with more positive attitudes). Although it was difficult to influence the bias at
the level of the organization, we attempted to influence employee bias by intensively
collaborating with the HR department in order to motivate each employee to participate. As a
result, while we are unable to rule out the first bias, the high employee response rate allows us
to fairly confidently rule out the second bias.
 PR Due to the high correlation obtained between role harmony and leader support, the PCQ
used in our study encompassed three PC factors. Although our measure did include
sub-dimensions of each PC factor corresponding to all four situational referents (i.e. jobs,
roles, leaders and co-workers), the results of our study are limited in terms of understanding
of the separate effects of the leader and role dimensions. The plausible reason for the high
overlap of the role and leader dimensions might be derived from role theory, which defines
roles as a pattern of behaviors that employees perceive as expected from them (cf. Tubre
and Collins, 2000). Accordingly, employees might perceive a link between their roles and
leaders, to the extent in which leaders are perceived to be the source of these expectations.
For example, a perception of a clearly defined role might be strongly related to the
perception of a transparent leader who clearly defines work goals and performance
expectations. This argument is supported by a study by House and Rizzo (1972), who
reported moderate to strong correlations between role (i.e. ambiguity and conflict) and
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

leader (i.e. supportive leadership and leader structure and standard setting) dimensions.
A final limitation arises from the fact that the results are based on a homogenous sample
of white-collar, highly educated and, on average, younger employees from the ICT sector.
Accordingly, the generalizability of results is limited and should be replicated among
various occupational groups.

Practical implications
Although the results of this study are not causal, the observed relationship between job
challenge and job insecurity via occupational self-efficacy indicates that well-designed jobs
might have even greater benefits beyond increased work motivation, job satisfaction and
job performance (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). Namely, such jobs might also facilitate the
development of employee efficacy beliefs that, in turn, make employees more resistant to
perceptions of job insecurity. Accordingly, organizations might reap multiple benefits from
investing in job redesign (e.g. job enrichment interventions). Through such initiatives,
employees might perceive higher levels of job challenge when given opportunities to
autonomously perform complex and variable tasks that contribute to the organization and
other organizational members (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Karasek, 1979). For example,
employees might be given more opportunities to perform tasks that provide new learning
opportunities, that are accompanied by a wider span of control over time and method of
accomplishment and that make a meaningful contribution to a broader scope of employees
or the entire organization. Importantly, because similarly designed jobs might not be
perceived as equally challenging by all individuals, these interventions should be tailored to
the individual ( James et al., 2008).
In conclusion, our study sheds light on another potentially fruitful, yet overlooked
direction for countering perceptions of job insecurity in which challenging jobs have the
potential to strengthen employee efficacy beliefs.

Notes
1. A more detailed list of references for these validation studies can be obtained upon request from
the first author.
2. The role stress and lack of harmony dimension has been reframed into a role harmony
dimension in order to reflect the WE resource and, as such, coincide with the terminology used
in the conservation of resources theory (as described in following paragraphs). Additionally, we
refer to co-workers instead of work-group in the present study. While this term does not
change the meaning of the dimension, it does increase its generalizability to more diverse
organizational structures.
 3. It should be noted that the exact number and specific names of PC sub-dimensions vary depending PC predicting
on the version of the PCQ used (Baltes, 2001). The selection of sub-dimensions in our study was job insecurity
based on a combination of theoretical and empirical criteria. In the first step, we selected the initial
list of 11 sub-dimensions that were judged to be most representative of the core psychological
meaning of the four PC factors and that were most frequently included in the currently used shorter
versions of the PCQ (cf. Baltes et al., 2002, 2009; Gagnon et al., 2009). These sub-dimensions were: job
challenge and variety, job autonomy, job importance, role clarity, role congruence, optimal workload,
leader goal emphasis and work facilitation, participative decision making, leader trust and support,
co-worker cooperation and co-worker friendliness and warmth. Based on empirical criteria, we
further excluded three sub-dimensions from this list, where two of them (i.e., leader trust and support
and co-worker friendliness and warmth) were shown as empirically redundant, i.e., highly
overlapping with the remaining sub-dimension(s) of the corresponding factor and one of them (i.e.,
optimal workload) loaded poorly onto the corresponding factor. A more detailed report about the
method and results of the validation studies is available upon request from the first author.
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

References
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1989), “Content, causes and consequences of job insecurity: a
theory-based measure and substantive test”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 803-829.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Baltes, B.B. (2001), “Psychological climate in the work-setting”, in Smelser, N.J. and Baltes, P.B. (Eds),
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 18, Elsevier/Pergamon,
New York, NY, pp. 12355-12359.
Baltes, B.B., Zhdanova, L.S. and Parker, C.P. (2009), “Psychological climate: a comparison of
organizational and individual level referents”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 669-700.
Baltes, B.B., Bauer, C.C., Bajdo, L.M. and Parker, C.P. (2002), “The use of multitrait-multimethod data
for detecting nonlinear relationships: the case of psychological climate and job satisfaction”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Bandura, A. (1994), “Self-efficacy”, in Ramachaudran, V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior,
Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 71-81.
Bandura, A. (2006), “Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales”, in Pajares, F. and Urdan, T. (Eds), Self-
efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 307-337.
Bandura, A. (2009), “Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness”, in Locke, E.A.
(Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behaviour, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY,
pp. 179-200.
Baruch, Y. and Holtom, B.C. (2008), “Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research”,
Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 1139-1160.
Behling, O. and Law, K.S. (2000), Translating Questionnaires and other Research Instruments: Problems
and Solutions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107
No. 2, pp. 238-246.
Blau, P.M. (1954), “Cooperation and competition in a bureaucracy”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 530-535.
Brown, T.A. (2006), Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Cheng, G.H.L. and Chan, D.K.S. (2008), “Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic
review”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 272-303.
De Cuyper, N., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., De Witte, H. and Alarco, B. (2008), “Employability and
employees’ well-being: mediation by job insecurity”, Journal of Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 488-509.
 PR De Cuyper, N., Makikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S. and De Witte, H. (2012), “Cross-lagged
associations between perceived external employability, job insecurity, and exhaustion: testing
gain and loss spirals according to the conservation of resources theory”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 770-788.
De Witte, H. (2000), “Arbeidsethos en jobonzekerheid: meting en gevolgen voor welzijn, tevredenheid en inzet
op het werk (Work ethic and job insecurity: assessment and consequences for wellbeing, satisfaction
and performance at work)”, in Bouwen, R., De Witte, K., De Witte, H. and Taillieu, T. (Eds), Van Groep
Naar Gemeenschap (From Group to Community), Liber Amicorum Prof. Dr Leo Lagrou,
Garant, Leuven, pp. 325-350.
De Witte, H. (2005), “Job insecurity: review of the international literature on definitions, prevalence,
antecedents and consequences”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1-6.
De Witte, H., Pienaar, J. and De Cuyper, N. (2016), “Review of 30 years of longitudinal studies on the
association between job insecurity and health and well-being: is there causal evidence?”,
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

Australian Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 18-31.

Feather, N.T. and Rauter, K.A. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status,
job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Fugate, M. and Kinicki, A.M. (2008), “A dispositional approach to employability: development of a
measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 503-527.
Gagnon, S., Paquet, M., Courcy, F. and Parker, C.P. (2009), “Measurement and management of work
climate: cross-validation of the CRISO psychological climate questionnaire”, Healthcare
Management Forum, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-65.
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211.
Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S.B., Hetland, J. and Einarsen, S. (2014), “Workplace bullying as an
antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: a 6-month prospective study”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 255-268.
Hackman, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (1971), “Employee reactions to job characteristics”, Journal of Applied
Psychology Monograph, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 259-286.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P. and Westman, M. (2018), “Conservation of resources in the
organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences”, Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 103-128.
Holmgreen, L., Tirone, V., Gerhart, J. and Hobfoll, S.E. (2017), “Conservation of resources theory:
resource caravans and passageways in health contexts”, in Cooper, C.J. and Quick, J.C. (Eds),
The Handbook of Stress and Health: A Guide to Research and Practice, Wiley Blackwell,
Chichester, pp. 443-457.
House, R.J. and Rizzo, J.R. (1972), “Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of
organizational behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 467-505.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Jahoda, M. (1982), Employment and Unemployment: A Social-Psychological Analysis, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
James, L.A. and James, L.R. (1989), “Integrating work environment perceptions: explorations into the
measurement of meaning”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 739-751.
 James, L.R. and Sells, S.B. (1981), “Psychological climate: theoretical perspectives and empirical PC predicting
research”, in Magnusson, D. (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional job insecurity
Perspective, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 275-295.
James, L.R., Gent, M.J., Hater, J.J. and Coray, K.E. (1979), “Correlates of psychological influence: an
illustration of the psychological climate approach to work environment perceptions”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 563-588.
James, L.R., Hater, J.J., Gent, M.J. and Bruni, J.R. (1978), “Psychological climate: implications from
cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 781-813.
James, L.R., Choi, C.C., Chia-Huei, E.K., McNeil, P.K., Minton, M.K., Wright, M.A. and Kim, K. (2008),
“Organizational and psychological climate: a review of theory and research”, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-32.
Jex, S.M. and Bliese, P.D. (1999), “Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

stressors: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 349-361.
Jex, S.M., Bliese, P.D., Buzzell, S. and Priemau, J. (2001), “The impact of self-efficacy on stressor-strain
relations: coping style as an explanatory mechanism”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86
No. 3, pp. 401-409.
Jones, A.P. and James, L.R. (1979), “Psychological climate: dimensions and relationships of individual
and aggregated work environment perceptions”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 201-250.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), “Relationship of core self-evaluations trait – self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job
performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Karasek, R.A. (1979), “Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job
redesign”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 285-308.
Keim, A.C., Landis, R.S., Pierce, C.A. and Earnest, D.R. (2014), “Why do employees worry about their
jobs? A meta-analytic review of predictors of job insecurity”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 269-290.
Kinnunen, U. and Nӓtti, J. (1994), “Job insecurity in Finland: antecedents and consequences”, European
Work and Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 297-321.
König, C.J., Debus, M.E., Häusler, S., Lendenmann, N. and Kleinmann, M. (2010), “Examining occupational
self-efficacy, work locus of control and communication as moderators of the job insecurity – job
performance relationship”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 231-247.
Lim, V.K.G. (1997), “Moderating effects of work-based support on the relationship between job
insecurity and its consequences”, Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health &
Organisations, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 251-266.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1350.
MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J. and Fritz, M.S. (2007), “Mediation analysis”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 58, pp. 593-614, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1077433
Mauno, S. and Kinnunen, U. (2002), “Perceived job insecurity among dual-earner couples: do its
antecedents vary according to gender, economic sector and the measure used?”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 295-314.
Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altmann, R.A., Lacost, H.A. and Roberts, J.E. (2003),
“Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic
review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 389-416.
Parker, S.K. (1998), “Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other
organizational interventions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 835-852.
Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2004), “Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review
of the organizational-based self-esteem literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 591-622.
 PR Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method bias in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Probst, T.M. (2005), “Countering the negative effects of job insecurity through participative decision
making: lessons from the demand–control model”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 320-329.
R Core Team (2015), “R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
statistical computing”, available at: www.R-project.org/ (accessed November 1, 2016).
Richter, A., Tavfelin, S. and Sverke, M. (2018), “The mediated relationship of leadership on job
insecurity”, Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

Rigotti, T., Schyns, B. and Mohr, G. (2008), “A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale:
structural and construct validity across five countries”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 238-255.
Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. and Lirtzman, S.I. (1970), “Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 150-163.
Rosseel, Y. (2012), “Lavaan: an R-package for structural equation modeling”, Journal of Statistical
Software, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 1-36.
Salanova, M., Peiró, J.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2002), “Self-efficacy specificity and burnout among
information technology workers: an extension of the job demand-control model”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Schaubroeck, J., Jones, J.R. and Xie, J.L. (2001), “Individual differences in utilizing control to cope with
job demands: effects on susceptibility to infectious disease”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 265-278.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S. and Bridges, M.W. (1994), “Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and
trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a re-evaluation of the life orientation test”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1063-1078.
Schreurs, B., van Emmerik, H., Notelaers, G. and De Witte, H. (2010), “Job insecurity and employee health:
the buffering potential of job control and job self-efficacy”, Work & Stress, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Schyns, B. and von Collani, G. (2002), “A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to
personality constructs and organisational variables”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 219-241.
Shoss, M.K. (2017), “Job insecurity: an integrative review and agenda for future research”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1911-1939.
Smet, K., Vander Elst, T., Griep, Y. and De Witte, H. (2016), “The explanatory role of rumours in the
reciprocal relationship between organizational change communication and job insecurity: a
within-person approach”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 631-644.
Speier, C. and Frese, M. (1997), “Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control
and complexity at work and personal initiative: a longitudinal field study in East Germany”,
Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 171-192.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J. and Näswall, K. (2002), “No security: a meta-analysis and review of job
insecurity and its consequences”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 242-264.
Taylor, J.C. (1971), “An empirical examination of a four-factor theory of leadership using smallest space
analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 249-266.
Tomas, J. and Maslić Seršić, D. (2015), “Job insecurity and health among industrial shift workers: the role
of organizational context”, Psychology of Human Resources Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 189-205.
 Tubre, T.C. and Collins, J.M. (2000), “Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: a meta-analysis of the PC predicting
relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance”, Journal of job insecurity
Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 155-169.
Vander Elst, T., De Witte, H. and De Cuyper, N. (2014), “The job insecurity scale: a psychometric
evaluation across five European countries”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 364-380.
Vander Elst, T., Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2010), “The role of organizational
communication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association with
work-related well-being”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 249-264.
Vroom, V.H. (1960), Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Weston, R. and Gore, P.A. (2006), “A brief guide to structural equation modeling”, The Counseling
Psychologist, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 719-751.
Downloaded by University of Sussex Library At 22:41 28 February 2019 (PT)

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), “The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-141.

Appendix

Cronbach’s α Standardized
Items coefficient factor loadings

Occupational self-efficacy 0.85

I can remain calm when facing difficulties in my job because I can
rely on my abilities 0.70
When I am confronted with a problem in my job, I can usually find
several solutions 0.79
Whatever comes my way in my job, I am can usually handle it 0.79
My past experiences in my job have prepared me well for my Table AI.
occupational future 0.59 Items measuring job
I meet the goals that I set for myself in my job 0.66 insecurity and
I feel prepared for most of the demands in my job 0.73 occupational self-
Job insecurity 0.90 efficacy with the
Chances are, I will soon lose my job 0.86 corresponding
standardized factor
I think I might lose my job in the near future 0.87
loadings from the
I feel insecure about the future of my job 0.92 five-factor model and
I am sure I can keep my job (R) 0.68 Cronbach’s α
Notes: R, reverse-scored. All standardized factor loadings are statistically significant at po 0.001 coefficients

Corresponding author
Jasmina Tomas can be contacted at: jasmina.tomas@ffzg.hr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com