Good employees through good jobs. A latent profile analysis of job types and employee outcomes in the Belgian electricity sector
| Pages | 503-522 |
| Published date | 05 June 2017 |
| Date | 05 June 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2016-0034 |
| Author | Stan De Spiegelaere,Monique Ramioul,Guy Van Gyes |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Good employees through
good jobs
A latent profile analysis of job types
and employee outcomes in the
Belgian electricity sector
Stan De Spiegelaere
European Trade Union Institute, Brussels, Belgium, and
Monique Ramioul and Guy Van Gyes
HIVA, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to identify different job types in the Belgian electricity sector and
their relations with employee outcomes such as work engagement and innovative work behaviour (IWB).
Design/methodology/approach –This paper uses a combination of latent profile analysis and relative
operating characteristics (ROC) analysis.
Findings –Depending on the job resources and demands, five different job types are identified
corresponding largely to the Karasek and Theorell (1990) job types. Their relation with the outcomes is not
parallel with low-strain jobs performing best for work engagement, and active jobs for IWB.
Research limitations/implications –The combination of methods used in this study increases
significantlythe ease of communicationof the findings, yet an externalbenchmark for the ROC analysis would
be preferable.
Practical implications –To foster engagement and IWB with employees one should focus on the job
content and only increase demands if they are combined with sufficient resources.
Originality/value –This research is the first in its kind that relates latent job types with different employee
outcomes using a combination of latent profile and ROC analysis.
Keywords Employee behaviour, Work engagement, Innovative work behaviour, Latent profile analysis
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
According to much of the management literature, having motivated, engaged employees
and a company strategy focused on innovation helps to generate competitive advantage
(e.g. Kesting and Ulhøi, 2010; Pfeffer, 1995; Robinson and Schroeder, 2004). In this search for
the determinants of employee engagement and innovation, job quality and characteristics
are a key focus in the academic literature.
One of the main theoretical frameworks in this context is the job demand-control ( JD-C)
model of Karasek and Theorell (1990), which was later extended by Bakker and Demerouti
(2007) into the job demand-resources ( JD-R) model. Both models suggest that job characteristics
can be divided into two broad categories: job demands (all aspects of a job that require attention
and effort) and job resources (all characteristics of a job thatare instrumentalto performing the
job). According to both models, the interplay between the respective levels of demands and
resources is the key to determining employee outcomes in terms of strain and learning.
To date, studies that investigate the interplay between job demands and resources
have primarily used regression models that focus on the interplay between specific job
characteristics in relation to employees’engagement or innovative performance (e.g. Baer Employee Relations
Vol. 39 No. 4, 2017
pp. 503-522
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-02-2016-0034
Received 9 February 2016
Revised 27 October 2016
16 January 2017
Accepted 17 January 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The data for this research were collected in the context of a study commissioned by Vormelek/
Formelec. The authors would like to thank Lentic at the ULG for cooperating in the project.
503
Good
employees
through
good jobs
and Oldham, 2006; Chung-Yan, 2010; Hammond et al., 2011). Such an approach faces two
fundamental challenges. The first problem is that combinations of some job characteristics
that, theoretically, are optimal might not actually occur in the data or in reality. Second,
there is no definite understanding of what a “one-point difference in work engagement”
means in practice. Faced with these two methodological problems, this study uses an
observation-centred approach (latent profile analysis (LPA)) to identify different job types
that are based on combinations of job characteristics. These job types are then related to
employee outcomes. Using traditional methods from medical research (relative operating
characteristic (ROC) analysis), threshold values are computed which differentiate between
employees scoring “good”,“moderate”and “very bad”on a certain outcome. As such, this
research enables a better interpretation and communication of job characteristics, which can
help to foster employee engagement and innovative behaviour.
This study contributes to the literature by using established job design theoretical
frameworks and relating them to two topical employee outcomes: work engagement and
innovative work behaviour (IWB). Studying these outcomes together provides insights into
which job types are likely to foster work engagement and IWB simultaneously and which
ones are focused on only the one or the other.
Literature
Job types: Karasek and beyond
The JD-C model developed by Karasek (1979) is a leading model for studying the relation
between job characteristics and employee outcomes. According to this model, all jobs consist of
two main characteristics which affect the behaviour and attitudes of employees. On the one
hand, thereare the job demands, which refer to the workload–the amount of tasks demanded
of the employee in a given timeframe. On the other hand, there is the job control, the degree to
which the employee has control over how he/she organises his/her own job tasks.
Karasek and Theorell (1990) state that job demands are potentially harmful. They can
inflict stress which will reduce employee productivity, stymie learning and development and
even result in resignation. Job control is positive as it gives employees the necessary
instruments to perform the job, therefore contributing to high motivation and active
learning. However, Karasek and Theorell (1990) recognise the importance of the combined
effects of job demands and job control. Depending on the combination of high/low demands
and high/low control, employees will be employed in distinct job types which have distinct
effects on their behaviour and attitudes. Figure 1 provides an illustration of these different
job types. Jobs which combine low demands and low control are called passive jobs: these
are jobs in which employees are not expected to work hard, but also do not have the
instruments needed to work autonomously. Jobs in which the demands are low, but
the control is high, are low-strain jobs. In such jobs, there is low pressure and workload,
Job Control
Low-strain jobs
Passive jobs
Job Demands
High-strain jobs
Active jobs
Active learning,
new behaviour,
high motivation
Psychological
strain, low
motivation
Source: Karasek and Theorell (1990)
Figure 1.
Karasek model
504
ER
39,4
To continue reading
Request your trial