Core Versus Peripheral Positions: an Integrated Model

CORE VERSUS PERIPHERAL POSITIONS: AN INTEGRATED MODEL

LIXIN JIANG

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology

MAY 2013

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of LIXIN JIANG find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

Tahira M. Probst, Ph.D., Chair

Thomas M. Tripp, Ph.D.

John P. Garofalo, Ph. D.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Tahira Probst, for her trust, guidance, and support. She recognizes my potential, points me in the right direction, and respects my decisions. She brought me here from China in a mentorship when she barely knew me, guided me in taking various courses and studying cutting edge knowledge in my area when I was new to I/O Psychology, and gave me freedom to explore new areas when I decided to pursue this dissertation. She is not only a supportive mentor in my research, but also a wonderful mentor in my life. She was very generous to share her life wisdom with me when I was lost. She was the first person who taught me to make lemon bars, ski, and climb indoors. She was, is, and will always be my role model of how to balance work and family as a woman.

I am also deeply grateful to Dr. Thomas Tripp, who has always been there to listen and offer advice. His understanding, encouragement, and support helped me to overcome my inferiority and build my confidence. He is the best instructor that I have had in my life. He has inspired me in all aspects of my career development.

I value greatly Dr. John P. Garofalo’s help. He trusted me to teach various courses, made adjustments when necessary, and supported me through tough moments.

I am very thankful to have become a member of the Rance family. Whenever I needed it, they provided me with enormous help and shared their excitement, enjoyment, and American culture with me.

Friends I have met in the U.S. have helped me in every endeavor. I grew from a Chinese girl knowing nobody, into a holder of Ph.D. in I/O Psychology with many life-long friends. I could not do this without all people I have mentioned. I want to say thank you all.

iii

CORE VERSUS PERIPHERAL POSITIONS: AN INTEGRATED MODEL

ABSTRACT

by Lixin Jiang, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2013

Chair: Tahira M. Probst

The notion of core versus peripheral entities can be found in a variety of disciplines.

Common among various conceptualizations of core versus peripheral entities is the differentiation of power among countries, industries, and subunits. Yet, little research has examined the notion of core versus peripheral positions at the individual level. The purpose of my dissertation was to provide a unified definition of core versus peripheral positions in an organization. In short, core positions were defined as those that possess non-replaceable and critical resources with which an organization achieves its goals and missions, but without which many other organizational activities will stop immediately. To sum, employee position was assessed by criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy.

My dissertation also explored the advantages associated with being in core positions, including higher work, pay, and job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, power, job security perceptions, in-role performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), lower work stress and burnout, and fewer physical health complaints, as well as a disadvantage related to core positions, i.e., work overload. Last, I examined experienced meaningfulness (i.e., the work being done is meaningful) and perceived organizational worth (i.e., the organization values employee contributions) as the mechanisms explaining why core position linked to outcomes.

Study 1 with samples from the U.S. demonstrated the reliability and the convergent, discriminant, and incremental predictive validity of the core versus peripheral position scale.

Surprisingly, non-substitutability was not significantly related to criticality and negatively related to pervasiveness and immediacy. Study 2 with samples from various Chinese organizations cross validated the core versus peripheral position scale. I used structural equation modeling to examine an integrated model. The best-fitting model indicated that being in a core position linked to perceived organizational worth, which, in turn, resulted in experienced meaningfulness, which, in turn, led to work, pay, job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, job security perception, in-role job performance, OCBs, stress, burnout, health complaints, but not to power and work overload. Finally, I discussed theoretical implications of the findings regarding organizational psychology in general and positive organizational scholarship in particular, and practical implications for organizations and employees.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iii

ABSTRACT ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Conceptualization and Measurement of Core vs. Peripheral Positions ...... 3

The Outcomes of Core vs. Peripheral Positions ...... 17

Proposed Mediators Linking Core vs. Peripheral Positions and Outcomes ...... 31

STUDY 1: SCALE DEVELOPMENT METHODS...... 39

STUDY 1: RESULTS ...... 51

STUDY 2: HYPOTHESIS TESTING METHOD ...... 66

STUDY 2: RESULTS ...... 76

DISCUSSION ...... 90

REFERENCES ...... 105

APPENDIX A ...... 125

Validation of the Core vs. Peripheral Positions Questionnaire ...... 126

APPENDIX B ...... 148

Testing an integrated model of core versus peripheral positions in Chinese samples ...... 149

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Initial Items on the Core versus Peripheral Position Scale ...... 41

Table 2 Item Descriptive Statistics (N=609) ...... 52

Table 3 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis (N= 395)...... 56

Table 4 Model Fit Indices from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N=243) ...... 57

Table 5 Standardized Parameter Loadings (Standard Errors) from the Correlated Four-Factor

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model (N=243) ...... 59

Table 6 Correlations (Standard Errors) among criticality, non- substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy factors (N=243) ...... 59

Table 7 Cronbach’s α and item-total correlation of four dimensions of the Core versus Peripheral

Position Scale (N=609) ...... 61

Table 8 Bivariate Correlations Between Scores on the Core versus Peripheral Position Scale and the Validation Variables (N=609) ...... 62

Table 9 Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Predictions of Pay Satisfactin, Work Satisfaction, and Affective Commitment (N=609) ...... 64

Table 10 Descriptive Statistics of Variables ...... 76

Table 11 Zero-order Product-moment Correlations among Variables ...... 78

Table 12 Invariance Tests for the Core versus Peripheral Four-Factor Model...... 79

Table 13 Measurement and Structural Equation Model Tests ...... 80

Table 14 Standardized Factor Loadings for the Second-Order Measurement Model ...... 81

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Proposed General Model ...... 3

Figure 2. Alternative Model I allowing direct and mediating effects...... 71

Figure 3. Alternative Model II with experienced meaningfulness linking employee position and perceived organizational worth...... 73

Figure 4. Alternative model III with perceived organizational worth linking employee position and experienced meaningfulness...... 75

Figure 5. Structural model of Proposed Model...... 83

Figure 6. Structural model of Alternative Model I...... 85

Figure 7. Structural model of Alternative Model II...... 87

Figure 8. Structural model of Alternative Model III...... 88

viii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my family, especially…

to my Mom, Xiu, for teaching me to be a well-rounded individual,

to my Dad, Xingmin, for encouraging me to pursue my dream,

to my grandpa, Yuyao, for being an amazing role model, and

to my grandma, Tingxia, for being there for me all the time.

INTRODUCTION

The notion of core versus peripheral entities can be found in a variety of disciplines. For example, on the country level, economists have argued that a “core” of wealthy countries gain resources from a “periphery” of poor and underdeveloped countries, enriching the former at the expense of the latter (Baran, 1957). At the industry level, large and oligopolistic firms constituting the core sector control the majority of the market and control a great portion of the economy in general while smaller and single-product firms constituting the periphery have much less economic control (Kalleberg, Wallace, & Althauser, 1981; Zucker & Rosenstein, 1981).

Within an organization, psychologists have argued that core subunits possess relatively more power to the extent that they provide resources for the organization and to the extent that the resources provided are critical, important, or valued by the organization (Salancik & Pfeffer,

1974).

Common among these various conceptualizations of core versus peripheral entities is the differentiation of power among countries, industries, and subunits. Yet, little research has examined the notion of core versus peripheral positions at the individual level. The purpose of my dissertation was to integrate multiple divergent and largely independent streams of studies

(e.g., organizational technology, power, strategic contingencies theory, job design and structure, and human resources) and provide a unified definition of core versus peripheral positions in an organization, thereby making a theoretical contribution to the extant literature on organizational psychology and positive organizational scholarship.

Distinguishing the core from peripheral positions might demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages associated with core positions, thus providing employees with a reference to make decisions about their careers. For example, the advantages associated with being in core

positions were expected to include higher work, pay, and security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, organizational participation and perceived power, job security perception, in-role performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), lower work stress and burnout, and fewer physical health complaints while a disadvantage related to core positions was work overload. Meanwhile, by recognizing the importance of core positions, organizations could make improvements in return on assets and make better decisions when downsizing.

Although some research on the core versus peripheral distinction defined core versus peripheral positions as a function of the permanence of their relationship with the organization, i.e., core as binding/permanent/full-time positions and peripheral as nonbinding/temporary/part- time positions, it was imperative to define core versus peripheral positions beyond that. As

Rousseau (1998) has emphasized that “Not all full-time employees may be considered ‘core’” (p.

224). Indeed, whether employees were seen as playing a strategically critical role has been linked to the organization’s human resource strategy (Miles & Snow, 1984; Robinson & Rousseau,

1994; Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995). For example, in a university setting, both professors and staff may hold permanent positions. However, one might argue that the position of professor more closely aligns with the traditional mission of a university. Therefore, the permanence of a position may not capture the whole picture of core/peripheral positions. In this study, I argued that core positions were characterized by three components: criticality, non-substitutability, and centrality.

Based on this comprehensive definition of core/peripheral positions, I developed and validated a measure to assess three components of one’s position. Moreover, using Conservation of Resource theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the Environmental Vitamins model (Warr, 1987), the Job

Demands-Resources model (Karasek, 1979), and Role Episode model (R. L. Kahn, Wolfe,

Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) as theoretical foundations, I developed and tested a model delineating the benefits and potential drawbacks associated with occupying a core position (see

Figure 1). Finally, I tested the proposition that the relationships between core versus peripheral positions and the hypothesized job-related outcomes were mediated by employee experienced meaningfulness and perceived organizational worth. Therefore, my study might contribute to the extant literature by providing a more comprehensive definition of core versus peripheral positions; developing and validating a theoretically-sound measure of this construct; examining the potential consequences of occupying core versus peripheral positions; and exploring two untapped mediators which were predicted to link employee position with outcomes.

Experienced Work Satisfaction Meaningfulness Pay Satisfaction Job Security Satisfaction Affective Commitment Core vs. Job Involvement Peripheral Power Position Job Security Perception In-role Performance OCBs Perceived Stress Burnout Organization Health Complaints Worth Work Overload

Figure 1. Proposed General Model

Conceptualization and Measurement of Core vs. Peripheral Positions

Many different conceptualizations of the nature of core versus peripheral positions exist.

For example, early theorists (Emerson, 1962; Perrow, 1970; Thompson, 1967) noted that power is derived from dependence situations that are a function of the availability of alternatives and the importance of the resource or performance. Specifically, Emerson (1962) suggested that “The dependence of actor A upon actor B is (1) directly proportional to A’s motivational investment in goals mediated by B, and (2) inversely proportional to the availability of those goals to A outside of the A-B relation” (p.32). In other words, the power of A over B comes from control of resources that B values and that are not available elsewhere. In this account, power and dependence are simply the obverse of each other: B is dependent on A to the degree that A has power over B. In the case of the employee-employer relationship, the organization is dependent on the job position to the degree that the position provides critical and non-replaceable resources to the organization.

Pfeffer and Konrad (1991) defined peripheral employees as those, “for the most part, readily replaced, with few firm-specific skills and with little dependence of the firm on a specific employee” (p.391) while core employees as those with “firm-specific skills and knowledge”

(p.391) and with more dependence of the firm. Therefore, core employees have more influence compared to those peripheral ones. As such, core workers have more ability to bargain for higher wages, among other benefits. Indeed, in a large national sample of college and university faculty, they found that, controlling for individual, departmental, academic, field, and organization-level determinants of salaries, individual-level power (e.g., bringing in outside research grants) affected individual earnings.

Hulin and Roznowski (1985), adapted from Thompson (1967), proposed that an organization exists for the purpose of “the conversion or transformation process by which inputs are transformed into outputs” (p. 47). As such, “The technical system required in the conversion process defines the core operating system- the core technology- of the organization” (p. 41). All other components of organization exist to support this core activity. Therefore, organizations consist of a core technical system surrounded by peripheral systems designed to “protect the organization’s core technology from equivocality and uncertainty in the environment” (p. 44).

According to their theory, core positions in an organization are responsible for converting specified input into usable outputs while the function of peripheral positions is to support core positions.

Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni (1995) defined core employees as “those around whom the organization is built… [who] provide a focus for its activities based on their critical skills and expertise, and create a distinctive competitive advantage of the organization…are characteristic of work high in technical complexity…[who] know the ropes, including the organization’s priorities…[who] often cross-trained in a variety of jobs” (p. 308). In order to meet the demands of technological innovation or service competition among organizations, it is core employees who “develop technical capabilities and organization- and customer- specific knowledge regarding service delivery” (p. 308). In return, “they are rewarded for how they work as well as for what they produce” (p. 308). On the contrary, peripheral employees “typically are lower on technical and information complexity” (p. 310). Moreover, they proposed that “the core is supported by a host of peripherals with diverse temporary, networked relations” (p. 318).

Similarly, Handy (1989) conceived of core employees as those whose skills and competencies provide a recognized competitive advantage of the organization. Depending on the

human resource strategy of the organization (Miles & Snow, 1984; Rousseau, 1998; Rousseau &

Wade-Benzoni, 1995), workers are categorized as core workers with knowledge and responsibilities critical to organizational success and therefore play a strategically critical role, and non-core workers, such as clerical or building maintenance staff, performing ancillary and support functions.

These abovementioned definitions helped to illustrate that, for the purpose of this study, core positions possess non-replaceable and critical resources needed to achieve the primary mission of the organization and its accompanying goals. With such resources come power and influence because dependence and power are simply the inverse of each other: the organization is dependent on core positions to the degree that core positions have power over the organization

(Emerson, 1962). Therefore, in order to analyze core versus peripheral positions, I used the paradigm borrowed from the extensive literature on intraorganizational power and dependence

(i.e., strategic contingencies theory) and defined core versus peripheral positions as a function of the following three dimensions: criticality, non-substitutability, and centrality (Hickson, Hinings,

Lee, Schneck, & Pennings, 1971).

1. Criticality

As previously mentioned, one component of dependence, from the perspective of power, is the importance of the resource provided (Emerson, 1962; Perrow, 1970; Thompson, 1967) or criticality. Therefore, control of a strategic contingency or criticality is achieved by fulfilling essential requirements of the organization.

A highly related but different perspective of defining criticality is resource dependence theory. For example, Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) operationalized criticality in a university setting. In their study, department heads were asked to rate the extent to which resources

departments provided to the university (e.g., graduate students, national prestige) were absolutely necessary for the effective operation of their university. Again, Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) suggested that “The amount of power an individual has at any one time depends…on what activities are desired and critical for the organization” (p. 8) and that “Subunits that contribute to the critical resources of the organization will gain influence in the organization” (p.10). In other words, criticality suggests that a position attempts to obtain resources that are critical to the survival and activities of the organization.

Similarly, Hulin and Roznowski (1985) defined criticality of a position as the perceived importance of employees’ tasks in achieving organizational goals. Such goals and objectives of an organization are often found in organizational mission statements. For example, Pfeffer and

Davis-Blake (1987), combining the strategic contingencies approach and the resource dependence perspective, examined the salaries paid to various administrative positions in private and public institutions. They found that, controlling for individual and organizational characteristics, positions that were more critical in private organizations (e.g., the position of chief development officer) were paid more in those settings and positions that were more important in public institutions (e.g., the position of director of community services) brought relatively higher pay in those settings. As such, they concluded that the criticality of a position, while varying across work contexts, accounts for variation in wage structures across organizations.

Consistently, in their Job Characteristics Model, Hackman, Oldham, Janson, and Purdy

(1975) operationalized task significance as “the degree to which the job has a substantial and perceivable impact on the lives of other people, whether in the immediate organization or the world at large” (p. 59). From this perspective, when the target of task significance is the

immediate organization rather than the world at large, the significance of the task performed by core positions squares with the dimension of criticality of core positions. Because criticality (i.e., significance) fulfills essential requirements of the organization (i.e., control of a strategic contingency), the extant literature on task significance was used to support my relevant hypotheses.

Taken together, criticality of a position is defined as a position fulfilling tasks that are critical to the survival and goal attainment of the organization.

2. Non-Substitutability

As aforementioned, the second part of Emerson’s (1962) power-dependency scheme proposed that “The dependence of actor A upon actor B is … inversely proportional to the availability of those goals to A outside of the A-B relation” (p. 32). Similarly, Mechanic (1962) hypothesized that: “Other factors remaining constant, a person difficult to replace will have greater power than a person easily replaceable” (p. 358). Dubin (1963) stressed the very similar notion of exclusiveness, meaning that: “For any given level of functional importance in an organization, the power residing in a functionary is inversely proportional to the number of other functionaries in the organization capable of performing the function” (p. 21). In a similar vein, the term substitutability was defined as “the ability of the organization to obtain alternative performance for the activities” by Hickson et al. (1971, p. 221).

More recently, Lepak and Snell (1999, 2002) proposed a similar concept, uniqueness.

Specifically, following Snell, Youndt, and Wright (1996), they proposed that human capital which is not readily available in the labor market and which is not easily duplicated by other firms provides a potential source of competitive advantage of the organization. Also this uniqueness, coupled with strategic value, consists of knowledge-based employment, which is

viewed as core to the firm. An organization builds its strategies around human capital which is both valuable and unique (Snow & Snell, 1993; Stewart, 1997). Indeed, they found that among other kinds of employees (e.g., job-based employment), knowledge-based employees have the highest level of uniqueness.

Following other researchers, core employees were defined by Lopez-Cabrales, Valle, and

Herrero (2006) as “those employees who differentiate them from the competition, and those who cannot be duplicated” (p.84). In an attempt to explore the relationship between core employees and organizational strategic dependence, among 101 Spanish firms with more than 500 employees, Lopez-Cabrales et al. found that firms employing the most valuable and unique core employees attained the highest level of organizational capabilities; these organizational capabilities include organizational culture, employee potential, strategic vision, innovation, quality orientation, and company-customer relationship. Moreover, independent of the value of employees, the uniqueness of core employees is the key issue that is emphasized to maximize competitive potential of the organization and therefore contribute to the capabilities and efficiency of an organization. As such, they concurred with Barney and Wright (1998) and concluded that “The high uniqueness of core employees is critical to creating competitive advantage [of the organization]” (p.100).

Taken together, non-substitutability of a position is defined as a position fulfilling tasks that an organization is unable to duplicate elsewhere.

3. Centrality

Based on the fact that organizations are systems of interdependent roles and activities, centrality was defined as “the degree to which its activities are interlinked into the system”

(Hickson et al., 1971, p. 221) and power was predicted to derive from one’s position in a social

network of relationships (Pfeffer & Konrad, 1991). Put differently, centrality was characterized by “the varying degree above such a minimum with which the activities of a subunit are linked with those of other subunits” (Hickson et al., 1971, p. 218). Similarly, Thompson (1967) operationalized technology by a three-way classification of organization, one of which was the extent to which the activities of employees are interdependent. Although organizational performance depends on the coordinated operation of all subsystems simultaneously (Hulin &

Roznowski, 1985), there seemed to be one function that was central and critical in that it had the greatest effect on success and survival of the organization (Woodward, 1965). Recently, in an extension of the Job Characteristics Model, Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) defined interdependence as the extent to which a job is contingent on others’ work and vice versa. They found that interdependence was positively related to subjective job performance, turnover intentions, and job satisfaction.

While Hickson et al.’s (1971) proposition of centrality mainly focused on work flow, depending on the critical strategies of an organization, the critical resources of an organization can be in other forms. For example, in today’s information age, information can be the critical resource. Indeed, Hulin and Roznowski (1985) emphasized that:

Complex technologies can also produce information dependencies in organizations that

disrupt long established communication networks that evolve around status and power.

Employees who possess highly technical and specialized information necessary for the

operation of organizational subsystems may, purely by virtue of having this information,

become crucial members of communication networks. They may even serve as bridges

and liaisons among and between organizational networks and as organizational boundary-

spanners. (p. 90)

Work and information flow are essentially similar organizational resources and differ in the content of the flow; based on the critical strategies of an organization, both forms of resources can be central. Within a printing company, for example, Brass (1984) found that centrality in work-related interactions was a significant predictor of power. On the other hand, in a university no such traceable workflow exists. Instead, the workflow is primarily informational in nature. The possibility of obtaining critical information can be enhanced through an increased number of contacts with other departments. Indeed, Pettigrew’s (1973) early study of the decision making process to purchase a computer revealed that control over the flow of information provided some individuals with more power. To maximize the parsimony of my theoretical model, work and information flow were combined and referred as resource flow.

Hickson et al. (1971) took two subcomponents of centrality into consideration: pervasiveness and immediacy. Pervasiveness concerns the number of affected positions while immediacy concerns the severity and speed with which other positions are affected due to the cessation of the work flow of a position. Similarly, Brass (1984) identified three distinctive measures of centrality that were utilized in past research: (1) degree, or number of contacts; (2) betweenness, or the extent to which a position has potential control over others, and (3) closeness, or proximity. The number of contacts is related to the concept of pervasiveness while betweenness corresponds to the concept of immediacy.

I focused on pervasiveness (i.e., number of contacts) and immediacy (i.e., betweenness) due to their particular relevance to resource flow within an organization (Brass & Burkhardt,

1993; Fang & Shaw, 2009). Specifically, activities of positions are pervasive and therefore central if they are connected with many other activities in the organization. As such, pervasiveness is defined as the degree to which the position’s resource flow connects with the

resource flow of others’ positions. It describes the extent of task interactions between positions in the organization. On the other hand, the activities of positions are central if their cessation would quickly and substantially impede the primary resource flow of the organization. This flow immediacy is thus defined as the speed and severity with which the resource flow of a position affects the final outputs of an organization.

In short, core positions possess non-replaceable and critical resources with which organization achieves its goals and missions, but without which many other organizational activities will stop immediately. The organization depends on such core positions and therefore core positions have power over the organization.

4. Differentiating Core vs. Peripheral Positions, Power, and Core vs. Peripheral Employees

To further clarify the construct of core versus peripheral positions, it was important to clearly distinguish this construct from the related constructs of employee position power and core versus peripheral employees. First, one’s core/peripheral position, which has power over the organization due to the critical and non-substitutable resources the position possesses, is relevant to but different from position power. According to Yukl (1994), power refers to the ability to influence the behavior of others. By simplifying French and Raven’s (1959) five sources of social power, Yukl’s (1994) concept of position power included legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power. The three types of position power derive primarily from a person’s position within the organization, which is defined by an organizational chart. Legitimate power derives from a position of authority within the organization, while reward/coercive power exist when someone has control over the rewards/punishments in the organization. Admittedly, those with position power tend to be in a core position.

Core positions, however, are not limited to those positions delineated by an organizational chart. Those who are relatively low in the organizational chart might also occupy core positions as long as their positions are important to the organization in terms of the criticality, non-substitutability, and centrality. In other words, high organizational hierarchy is a sufficient but not necessary condition for core positions defined by this research. For example, relative to a middle level manager, the position of an engineer in an IT company might not be high according to the organizational chart. However, the tasks and activities of and resources provided by an engineering position are critical and central to the organization’s objectives and goals and those positions are non-substitutable for an IT company.

Moreover, position power is designed to have an impact on attitudes, cognitions, and behaviors of others by use of some influence tactics (Yukl, 1994), while core positions are directed to meet the critical needs of the organization. Thus, the target of position power is other employees within and/or outside the organization; however, on the contrary, the target of core/peripheral positions is the organization itself. From this perspective, the legitimate, reward, and coercive power employees might have are relative to others while the power from core position is over the organization itself rather than other employees within or outside the organizations.

It was also important to distinguish core/peripheral positions from core/peripheral employees (i.e., those who possess valuable and unique knowledge, skills, and abilities; KSAs) as defined in the human resource literature (Lopez-Cabrales, et al., 2006). Admittedly, core employees who contribute to organizational efficiency (Lopez-Cabrales, et al., 2006) are valuable human resources to an organization. When employees leave the organization, however, the resources of those employees’ KSAs are gone with them. On the other hand, core positions

are located in the organization itself. Independent of which specific employees hold those core positions, core positions are critical, non-replaceable, and central to the organization. No matter who occupies the core position, the positions themselves contribute to the survival and competitive advantages of the organization. In other words, the value of a core position to an organization is not a function of a particular employee’s KSAs, but rather the extent to which the

KSAs required of the person holding the position contribute to meeting an organization’s goals and mission (Pfeffer & Alison, 1987).

5. Calculating Core vs. Peripheral Position Scores

Because this was one of the first studies to apply macro intraorganizational-power theory to micro-phenomena, the optimal method to calculating the final score of the core versus peripheral nature of a position was open to debate. Therefore, in order to maximize the predictive validity of the core versus peripheral position measure, I proposed two different methods (a multiplicative approach and an additive approach) to calculating the score associated with employee positions.

Rationale for a multiplicative approach. Hickson et al. (1971) suggested that a high score on one aspect of power is not sufficient to lead to high levels of power; rather, it is the combination of these variables that is important. In other words, each variable by itself represents a necessary but insufficient condition for the control of strategic contingencies. Further, high scores on one dimension (e.g., criticality) cannot compensate for low scores on another dimension (e.g., centrality). Rather, together they determine the variation in interdependence within the organization. This observation was supported by several empirical findings. For example, one of aforementioned studies conducted by Lopez-Cabrales et al. (2006) found that firms having the highest efficiency used the most valuable and unique core employees. In order

to be efficient, authors acknowledged that an organizational capability must be congruent with its strategy. As such, authors admitted that their study was limited by the fact that they failed to analyze the direct link between capabilities and efficiency. In other words, certain capabilities do not always lead to high efficiency. Along this line of reasoning, non-substitutability of core positions might be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the development of an organization. Instead, a non-substitutable position must relate to the critical strategy of the organization (i.e., criticality). Only when there is a good fit between resources provided by a position and that organization’s critical strategy can the position be labeled as core. Lucas (1984) failed to find support for his hypothesis that the information-services department would be rated as having higher power compared with other departments. The underlying reason for such an unexpected finding was that information-services department was only ranked highly on one of four power antecedents: coping with uncertainty. As such, Lucas suggested that a department whose activities were closely related to the mission of the organization should be powerful and that a high score on one factor was not sufficient to lead to high power.

In an empirical test (Saunders, 1990) of the original Hickson et al. (1971) theory including coping with uncertainty, substitutability, and centrality as standards to assess subunit power within an organization, control of strategic contingencies was operationalized as “control of strategic contingencies = coping with uncertainty * centrality * non-substitutability where, centrality = pervasiveness* immediacy.” Nevertheless, the author noticed the ambiguities exist in conceptualization and operationalization of the construct, especially centrality. It is not entirely clear whether centrality is an additive or multiplicative term. Although Saunders utilized a multiplicative term for centrality, Hickson et al. emphasized that “The pervasiveness and immediacy of the workflows of a subunit are not necessarily closely related, and may empirically

show a low correlation” (p. 222). Therefore, to follow Hickson et al.’s original theory, when calculating centrality of a position, an additive rather than a multiplicative term was employed in my study. Taken together, according to the definition of core vs. peripheral positions, a score was computed as follows:

Core versus peripheral position = Criticality * Non-Substitutability * Centrality where, centrality = Pervasiveness + Immediacy.

Rationale for an additive approach. Given that multiplicative operations can compound the effects of measure unreliability and are rarely warranted in any case by the scale properties of the data (Pagano, 2010), I also proposed an alternative formula adding the three components of core/peripheral positions. In addition to the methodological considerations, more cautions were required when borrowing a macro-level theory to access micro-level phenomena. Originally,

Hickson et al.’s (1971) strategic contingencies theory was designed to predict intraorganizational power. Therefore, multiplying all components might reflect the actual power differential among subunits within an organization. However, when applying to individual employees, such a multiplicative approach might exaggerate the actual differential among individuals. For the purpose of best predicting the construct of core vs. peripheral positions, therefore, an additive approach might be more appropriate. Specifically, as long as a position scores high on at least one of the three components, this position is viewed as core because of its importance to the organization. The position with either critical or non-substitutable resources or with immediate connections with many other positions or organizational activities could be perceived to have power over the organization because the organization depends on this position.

That is, while high scores on each component add to one’s position power over the organization, it is not necessary to score high on all aspects in order to be in a core position. As such, the

differences between core and peripheral positions might be exaggerated by multiplicative terms; rather, as long as a position high in some of the three components of core/peripheral positions the employee might be considered to be in a core position. Therefore, the second method to calculating the final score of a position was:

Core versus peripheral position = Criticality + Non-Substitutability + Centrality where, centrality = Pervasiveness + Immediacy.

The Outcomes of Core vs. Peripheral Positions

Advantages of Being in Core Positions

Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and Warr’s Vitamins Model

(Warr, 1987) provide excellent explanations to why being in a core position often leads to positive outcomes. Specifically, COR theory argues that people strive to retain, protect, and build resources. Although it is mainly applied to the situation when individuals are confronted with stress, one advantage of COR theory, relative to other stress theories, lies in that it also predicts psychological or behavioral actions when people are not confronted with stressors. According to

Hobfoll, when not currently faced with stressors, people are motivated to develop resource surpluses in order to offset the possibility of future loss. With surpluses of resources, people are likely to experience positive well-being, which was supported by reviews of studies of personal and social resources (S. Cohen & Edwards, 1989).

COR theory identifies four kinds of resources: objects, personal characteristics, conditions, and energies. These resources are valued by individuals or serve as a means to attain those valued resources. Object resources are valued because of some aspect of their physical nature such as a home serving as a shelter or because of their attaining secondary status value based on their rarity and expense such as a mansion indicating socioeconomic status. Condition,

such as marriage, tenure, and seniority, are resources to the extent that they are valued and sought after. Personal characteristics include such resources as self-esteem, learned resourcefulness, and positive affectivity, which generally aid stress resistance. Last, energies are resources to the extent that they aid the acquisition of other kinds of resources. Time, money, knowledge, and a large social network are examples of energy resources. Not surprisingly, being in a core position is predicted to be a condition resource which is valued by employees not only for its own purpose but also for the attainment of other valuable resources.

As predicted by COR theory, armed with the condition resource, people might have the ability to offset the possibility of resource loss and experience positive well-being. In support of this, for example, it was found that employees in high-status positions experience more job satisfaction and more subjective well-being than those in low-status positions (Quinn et al.,

1970). In order to formulate a model of relevant aspects of job satisfaction, Porter (1962) employed Maslow’s needs hierarchy (Maslow, 1938) and found that employees at higher occupational levels reported better satisfaction of their needs, particularly higher order needs, than those in lower level jobs. Recently, with a representative German sample, Batinic, Selenko,

Stiglbauer, and Paul (2010) found that employees working in a high position within an organization, or in a high-level occupation (a condition) had significantly better access to latent benefits (e.g., time structure, social contact) and reported significantly better psychological well- being than those in low status jobs. In a similar vein, employees who were reemployed in jobs at lower levels of organizational hierarchies reported lower job attitudes, as predicted by both

Feldman’s (1996) underemployment model and Crosby’s (1976) relative deprivation theory.

Therefore, occupying a core position, as a condition resource, might also play a role in stress- resistance and result in positive well-being.

Warr’s (1987, 2009) Vitamins Model explicitly claimed that having a valued social position is one of twelve job features which are positively associated with employee happiness.

Unlike vitamins which are labeled as “additional decrement (AD)” and become punishing after a very high levels, valued social position is one of the vitamins which are predicted to have constant effects (CE) on positive well-being. Analogous to the effects of Vitamin C and E, additional doses of which beyond a moderate amount have a constant effect on physical health, valued social positions produce constant effects on psychological health. In other words, those job characteristics, including availability of money, physical security, valued social position, supportive supervision, career outlook, and equity, are suggested to have a constant effect beyond moderate levels on context-free happiness. Warr (2009) also posited that “although extremely high levels of these can create unhappiness in particular cases, they do not appear likely to have that effect for people in general” (p. 66). When it comes to empirical studies, however, Warr (2009) admitted that his predictions of the non-linear relationships between job characteristics and happiness suffer from restriction of range, in that these job characteristics do not extend across very high, medium, and very low levels. As such, my current dissertation would only examine the linear relationships between job position and employee well-being due to restriction of range as a result of low-income samples in Study 1 and Study 2. According to

Warr’s Vitamins Model, valued social position is referred as significance of a task or role, which has received the large amount of research in work design literature (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).

Hackman and Oldham’s (1975, 1976, 1980) Job Characteristics Model has been influential over the past 30 years (Morgeson & Campion, 2003) and cited more than 2,500 times by researchers (Humphrey et al., 2007). Specifically, Hackman and Oldham proposed that five work characteristics of autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback

make jobs more satisfying for employees. They argued that when employees perceive their jobs as high in these work characteristics, they display higher quality work performance, higher satisfaction with the work, and low absenteeism and turnover. Indeed, Fried and Ferris’s (1987) meta-analysis suggested that these five characteristics were strongly associated with job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and internal work motivation but weakly related to job performance and absenteeism. Recently, Humphrey et al. (2007) summarized that the outcomes of these work characteristics include more positive attitudinal (e.g., job involvement, organizational commitment) and behavioral (e.g., job performance) outcomes and lower negative behavioral outcomes (e.g., absenteeism, turnover intentions) and well-being outcomes (e.g., anxiety, stress). More specifically, their meta-analysis (Humphrey et al., 2007) found that task significance is positively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, internal work motivation, subjective job performance, and negatively related to burnout.

Grant (2008) designed three longitudinal field experiments and manipulated the task significance intervention in order to overcome the limitations of cross-sectional designs, lack of affirmative conclusions of causal relationships, and the limitations of non-experiments failing to isolate task significance as an active ingredient responsible for outcomes. Specifically, in the first experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: a task significance condition in which participants acting as fundraisers read information about the benefits of the job for others, a personal benefit condition in which participants read information focused on the positive impact of the job on the self, and a control condition. It was found that one month later those in the task significance condition more than doubled the number of weekly pledges that they earned and the amount of weekly donation money that they raised. Moreover,

there were no significant changes in these performance measures for fundraisers in either the control condition or the personal benefit condition. Thus, fundraising callers who received a task significance intervention increased their performance compared to callers in the two other conditions and relative to their own prior performance.

Together, based on the aforementioned theories, compared to peripheral positions, core positions might serve as a condition resource (Hobfoll, 1989) and play the role of a vitamin with the constant effect on employee well-being (Warr, 1987). Moreover, based on the definition of criticality of core positions (i.e., control of a strategic contingency), task significance is inherent in core positions. As such, when an employee perceives that the results of his or her tasks and work activities may have a significant impact on the survival, effectiveness, and competitive advantages of the organization (i.e., in a core position), as predicted by COR theory and

Vitamins Model and supported by empirical studies of the Job Characteristics Model, the employee might experience the following positive outcomes.

Work, pay, and job security satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). In other words, it represents how employees feel about their job. It has been established that job satisfaction is a multidimenionsal construct (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell, 1975; Smith, Kendall, &

Hulin, 1969). Indeed, it was broken down into its component parts of satisfaction with one’s coworkers, supervisor, pay, promotions, work itself, and job security (cf. Probst, 2003).

Occupying core positions might tend to increase employees’ satisfaction with their work itself because tasks and activities of a core position are considered as highly critical to organizational strategies, capability, and competitive advantages. Pay satisfaction might also be reported because employees in core positions who have power over the organization might have

more resources to negotiate high salaries (Cook, Emerson, Gillmore, & Yamagishi, 1983;

Yamagishi, Gillmore, & Cook, 1988) and actually have higher salaries (Pfeffer & Konrad, 1991).

Moreover, because the organization highly depends on those core positions and because employees in their positions are difficult to replace, employees might be more satisfied with their job security (Probst, 1998). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Being in a core position is positively related to higher work, pay, and

security satisfaction.

Affective commitment. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), affective commitment is defined as the unwillingness to leave the organization because employees emotionally identify with the organization, feel more comfortable in the relationship, or believe in the organization and its mission. Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni (1995) predicted that “Core employees are expected to be loyal, to be involved with their work, and to hold work as a central life interest”

(p.308). It becomes clear from a consideration of core relationships that attachment operates in both directions: employees in core positions are highly attached to the organization and it is highly attached to them. The mutual attachment of employees in core positions and organization is consistent with research conducted by Shore and Wayne (1993) demonstrating that employees with high affective commitment experience high degrees of organizational support. Concurred with Handy’s (1989) proposition, Rousseau (1998) suggested that “core employees are more likely to be characterized by deep structure identification with the organization than are other employees” (p. 225). There is a high level of mutual involvement of both core employees and organizations whereby organizations invest heavily in the training and development of employees who in turn become socialized to the organization’s culture. Being in a core position which makes a substantial contribution to the achievement of the organizational mission and the

development of the organization, might be also related to affective commitment. For example, task significance has been found to be associated with organizational commitment (Pearson &

Chong, 1997) and mediate the relationship between core self-evaluations and affective commitment (Stumpp, Muck, Maier, & Hulsheger, 2009). Although core positions incorporate other components other than criticality, which is highly relevant to task significance, these findings at least provide partial empirical support for the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Being in a core position is positively related to higher affective

commitment.

Job involvement. Lodahl and Kejner (1965) stated that “Job involvement is the degree to which a person is identified psychologically with his work, or the importance of work in his total self-image” (p. 24). It is the internalization of values about the goodness of work and it thus measures the ease with which the person can be further socialized by an organization. Kanungo

(1982) postulated that job involvement is “a cognitive or belief state of psychological identification” (p.342). Therefore, job involvement is higher when work plays an increasingly central role in an employee’s life. Job involvement was predicted to depend on both need saliency and the potential of a job to satisfy these needs, leading to a cognitive judgment about the need satisfying abilities of the job. It was suggested that employees’ job involvement may increase when employees perceive that they make significant contributions to the success or failure of their organization (Bass, 1965).

Although the direct findings supporting the relationship between core positions and job involvement are lacking, a number of empirical studies supported the association between task significance and job involvement. Researchers have shown that when employees regard their jobs as high in task significance, among other job motivating characteristics, those employees

report greater job involvement (Elloy, Everett, & Flynn, 1991; Lambert, 1991; T. H. Shore,

Thornton, & McFarlane Shore, 1990; Steel & Rentsch, 1997). In a meta-analysis study, Brown

(1996) found that task significance, as well as skill variety, task identity, and feedback, had positive relationships with job involvement and concluded that “enriched jobs stimulate job involvement” (p. 242). As such, employees in core positions were suggested to be involved with their work and to hold work as a central life interest (Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995). As such, the next hypothesis was derived:

Hypothesis 3: Being in a core position is positively related to higher job involvement.

Participation and perceived power. Based on studies on the strategic contingencies theory (Lachman & Cohen, 1988; Lucas, 1984), my dissertation explored participation power and perceived power of core positions. Although researchers agreed it is difficult to define power

(Pfeffer, 1981; Wrong, 1968), Ahituv and Carmi (2007) summarized past research and suggested that participation power is relevant to “involvement in the decision making process in the organization” (p. 233) and perceived power is a subjective measure expressing how respondents appraise the level of influence in relation to others in the organization. According to the definition of core vs. peripheral positions, core positions possess non-replaceable and critical resources with which organization achieves its goals and missions, but without which many other organizational activities will stop immediately. The organization depends on such core positions and therefore core positions have power over the organization. Thus, power is a consequence of an employee’s relative resource dependence position in the organization. As such, employees who occupy core positions might perceive higher levels of power and influence (i.e., perceived power) compared to those who are in peripheral positions. Moreover, Salancik (1977) argued that those in core positions generally have the power to influence organizational decision making

(i.e., participation power), and, in turn, the organization recognizes their competence, values, and contributions. In support of this, a study (Hambrick, 1981) found that 195 chief executives in 20 organizations gained high power if they coped with the dominant requirement imposed by their industry’s environment (i.e., high in criticality). Also, studies on intra-organizational power and dependence provide evidence for the relationship between core entity and power. For example,

Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) found that subunit power in a university is a function of the subunit’s provision of outside money and prestige to the total organization (i.e., high in criticality).

Similarly, Ahituv and Carmi (2007) found that conveyed and produced information (i.e., high in centrality) affects both the perceived power and participation power of units within the organization. Based on the above theoretical reasoning and empirical findings, I proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Being in a core position is positively related to higher participation and

perceived power.

Job security perception. At the heart of the definition of job insecurity is the perception that the future of one’s job is unstable or at risk (Probst, Jiang, & Benson, In press). According to

Hulin and Roznowski (1985), all components other than the core technology systems exist solely to support the core organizational activities. As such, positions located in the peripheral systems of an organization are more likely to be seen as unnecessary or easily replaced (e.g., an HR position) than those found in the core organizational systems (e.g., manufacturing line). Because peripheral systems serve to protect the core systems from equivocality and uncertainty in the environment, and thus are most easily contracted out and least secure, I predicted that employees in core positions perceive more job security than those in peripheral positions. Indeed, recent data from 1071 classified staff and administrative professionals at a large land grant university

supported such a prediction. Specifically, it was found that employees in core positions not only reported more job security but also experienced less adverse outcomes as a result from job insecurity (Probst, Benson, Graso, Jiang, & Olson, 2011). Based on the above theoretical reasoning and preliminary findings, I proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Being in a core position is positively related to higher job security.

In-role job performance. High quality work performance was predicted by the Job

Characteristics Model as one of the benefits the organization can reap if they design the jobs with five job features delineated by Hackman and Oldham (1975, 1976, 1980). For example, past research has found the positive effects of job characteristics on production quantity and sales values (Brass, 1981; Parker & Wall, 1998). Recently, it was found that task significance, accompanied by effort, mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and subordinates’ job performance (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger, 2010). In a rare longitudinal field experiment conducted in a fundraising organization where callers were responsible for soliciting university alumni donations, it was found that callers in an intervention group who briefly interacted with a beneficiary increased significantly in their job performance (171% more money raised) and persistence (142% more phone time) one month later (Grant et al., 2007). As such, employees in core positions, which could maximize competitive potential of an organization, might increase their job performance due to their perceptions of the criticality, non- substitutability, and centrality of their positions. Based on the above empirical findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 6: Being in a core position is positively related to higher in-role job

performance.

Organizational citizenship behaviors. In his seminal work, Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p.4). Taking the initiative in helping coworkers to complete their work, being willing to support the organization, and performing extra job- prescribed duties are all examples of OCBs (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Although most studies on Job Characteristics Model have mainly focused on in-role job performance, other researchers (Grant, 2007; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001) have suggested that future studies should explore the relationship between job characteristics and OCBs. Fortunately, several studies have addressed this research gap. For example, Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) found that the five job characteristics linked transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation and goal commitment, which in turn, were related to both in-role task performance and OCBs. Similarly, with data from 323 employees and their supervisors from seven companies in Taiwan, Chen and

Chiu (2009) found that task significance, among other variables, is positively related to the display of an employee’s OCBs. Such a relationship between task significance and OCBs provides partial support for the linkage between core positions and OCBs. When employees perceive their positions are critical, non-substitutable for the survival, effectiveness, and competitive advantages of the organization, and central for the organizational missions, they might behave on the behalf of the organization without noticing the boundary between in-role and out-role behaviors, thus increasing OCBs. As such, I proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: Being in a core position is positively related to higher OCBs.

Work stress, burnout, and physical health complaints. According to Job Demands-

Resources model (Karasek, 1979), whether an employee experiences job strain is a function of

where the employee perceives his or her job falls along the demand and control dimensions.

According to Karasek, job strain is expected to increase as perceived job demands increase.

Conversely, as perceptions of control increase, job strain is expected to be lower. The highest level of psychological strain occurs when jobs are simultaneously high in demands and low in controllability (i.e., high-strain jobs). These high-strain jobs may exert a negative influence on employee well-being and health. It was proposed that the decision latitude (i.e., control) in interaction with psychological demands determines a person’s well-being in his or her job

(Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Nevertheless, little evidence supported an interactive effect between demands and decision latitudes as predicted by the model; rather, evidence was stronger for the main effect of demands and control (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). In other words, both high demands and low control individually predicted strain (Fletcher & Jones, 1993).

According to my definition of core vs. peripheral positions, core positions tend to be high in decision latitude because it was suggested that in general core positions have the power to influence organizational decision making (Salancik, 1977) and therefore enhance the employee’s sense of control over the environment (Lawler, 1992). Indeed, Mustard, Vermeulen, and Lavis

(2003) demonstrated that decision latitude (i.e., control) and psychological demands are associated with job level because they found that higher decision latitude and fewer demands were much more prevalent in high-status occupations relative to low-status occupations. In a study of a representative sample of the Canadian labor force conducted over a 48 month period,

Mustard et al. (2003) found that among men, the association between position in the occupational hierarchy and decline in perceived health status was statistically significant even after adjustment for baseline health, health behaviors, and psychosocial work exposures. With data from a prospective study of a random sample of 50,001 Danish employees, Borg and

Kristensen (2000) found that repetitive work, low skill discretion, low influence at work, high job insecurity, and ergonomic, physical, chemical, and climatic exposures are more prevalent in the lower classes while high psychological demands and conflicts at work were more prevalent in the higher classes. Indeed, this finding was consistent with other prospective cohort studies which have demonstrated that the risk of health function declines is highest among people in lower status occupations (Hemingway, Stafford, Stansfeld, Shipley, & Marmot, 1997;

Martikainen et al., 1999). Similarly, based on a national survey of 17,016 employees in Taiwan, it was suggested that non-permanent employees such as contract-based, outsourced, or agency workers in the private sector suffered from greater psychosocial stress and risks for burnout

(Tang, Yeh, Liu, Tsai, & Hsu, 2011). Based on the operationalized definition of core positions, high job status is sufficient but not necessary condition for core positions. Therefore, these empirical findings provide partial support for the impacts of core positions on stress, burnout, and health. As such, three hypotheses were developed:

Hypothesis 8: Being in a core position is negatively related to higher work stress.

Hypothesis 9: Being in a core position is negatively related to higher burnout.

Hypothesis 10: Being in a core position is negatively related to higher physical health

complaints.

Disadvantages of Being in a Core Position

While there are numerous advantages associated with being in a core position, Kahn et al.’s (1964) Role Episode Model predicted that such employees might also experience work overload due to the work requirements of core positions. Here, it is necessary to draw clear distinctions between two related terms, namely work stress and work stressors. Work stressors are environmental situations or events (e.g., work overload) capable of generating a state of

psychological stress in an individual while work stress is an individual’s internal response to stressors characterized by arousal and some level of discomfort (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). In short, work stressors are potential sources of stress. According to cognitive appraisal model (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984), a stressor cannot be labeled as such unless it is perceived to be a stressor and the perception of the stressor varies across persons and, within each person, across occasions and time. Therefore, although Hypothesis 8 predicted that employees in core positions are less apt to appraise an ambiguous situation as threatening and thus less stressful, they may actually experience greater work overload (a stressor) as predicted by the following Hypothesis 11 because of the nature of their position.

Relative to those in peripheral positions, employees in core positions tend to experience work overload because the tasks and activities of those core positions are highly relevant to the organizational mission and competitive advantages. In order to maintain and increase organizational effectiveness, employees in core positions might be assigned more tasks and more complex tasks than those in peripheral positions. Because resource flow in core positions is highly related to others’ positions (i.e., high centrality), employees feel more responsibility, and therefore more pressure to fulfill their tasks on time; otherwise, other positions and the organization’s functions would be highly affected. Meanwhile, resources in core positions are non-replaceable, leading to the spiral of more work overload because no other positions within the organization possess similar resources or perform similar tasks. In the aforementioned meta- analysis, in addition to the positive outcomes associated with task significance, task significance was also positively related to overload (Humphrey et al., 2007). Although no research has directly tested the relationship between core positions and work overload, I proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 11: Being in a core position is positively related to work overload.

Proposed Mediators Linking Core vs. Peripheral Positions and Outcomes

As depicted in Figure 1, two mediators were proposed to link the hypothesized relationships between core/peripheral positions and outcomes: experienced meaningfulness and perceived organizational worth. Experienced meaningfulness is defined as “the degree to which an employee feels the job has value and importance” (Humphrey et al., 2007, p. 1334), whereas perceived organizational worth is defined by me as the degree to which employees feel that their contributions are valued and appreciated by the organization.

Experienced Meaningfulness as a Mediator

According to Kahn’s (1990) theoretical work on personal engagement and disengagement at work, which was supported by recent studies (D. R. May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004), three psychological conditions (i.e., psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability) influence people’s psychological presence or absence at work. In this model, psychological meaningfulness is referred to as “a feeling that one is receiving a return on investments of one’s self in currency of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy” (Kahn, 1990, p. 703-704), which is conceptually consistent with the definition of experienced meaningfulness by Job Characteristics

Model (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007). When individuals make a difference and when what they do is not taken for granted, they feel worthwhile, useful, and valued. In such a context, both giving and receiving at work are important for individuals.

Furthermore, Kahn (1990) articulated three factors which generally influence psychological meaningfulness: task characteristics, role characteristics, and work interactions.

Specifically, “When organization members were doing work that was challenging, clearly delineated, varied, creative, and somewhat autonomous, they were more likely to experience

psychological meaningfulness” (Kahn, 1990, p. 704). Moreover, roles which individuals like and fit with a preferred self-image, and work which carries status, or influence, and has interpersonal interactions with the promotion of dignity, self-appreciation, and a sense of worthwhileness, also influence the experience of psychological meaningfulness. Core positions, as noted above, are relevant to these components. For example, the tasks of core positions which are crucial to the survival and competitive advantages of the organization might be challenging; the roles of core positions might be influential because core positions possess non-replaceable resources; and the centrality of core positions is consistent with work interactions, indicating rewarding interpersonal interactions with co-workers through resource flow. Therefore, based on the theory developed by Kahn, core positions might influence experienced meaningfulness, which in turn wields a positive influence on job-related outcomes.

In their job characteristics model, Hackman et al. (1975) suggested that experienced meaningfulness is one of the three critical psychological states which, combined with experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the actual results of the work activities, linked five job dimensions (i.e., skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) and job-related outcomes (i.e., high internal work motivation, high quality work performance, high satisfaction with the work, and low absenteeism and turnover).

As noted earlier, five job characteristics are posited to stimulate particular psychological states: skill variety, task identity, and task significance lead to experienced meaningfulness; autonomy leads to experienced responsibility; and feedback leads to knowledge of results. Moreover, it was predicted that as long as one of the three dimensions of skill variety, task identity, and task significance is high, employees would perceive their jobs meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile.

As such, task significance has been found to be related to experienced meaningfulness (Renn &

Vandenberg, 1995). Based on this model, the relationship between being in a core position, which is inherently high in task significance, and positive outcomes might also be mediated by experienced meaningfulness.

In one of the studies to investigate Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job Characteristics

Model, Johns et al. (1992) found that experienced meaningfulness is highly related to task significance. In a similar vein, in Renn and Vandenberg’s (1995) best fitting model, experienced meaningfulness partially mediated the relationships between task significance and job satisfaction and internal work motivation. As such, they concluded that the critical psychological states contributed significantly to the job characteristics model’s explanatory power. In a field study at a large insurance firm, May et al. (2004) found that psychological meaningfulness fully mediated the effects of both job enrichment and work role fit on engagement. Recently, with 292 lecturers, Juhdi, Hamid, and Siddiq (2010) found that experienced meaningfulness mediated the relationships between the teaching role attributes in their pedagogical, managerial, technical, and subject-design aspects and the work outcomes (i.e., internal motivation, job satisfaction, and perceived work effectiveness).

Following the procedures outlined by Viswesvaran and Ones (1995) for utilizing meta- analysis to create a covariance matrix to serve as input to a structural equations analysis, Behson,

Eddy, and Lorenzet (2000) examined the importance of the critical psychological states to the

Job Characteristics Model. They found that both skill variety and task significance demonstrate significantly positive indirect relationships with the outcomes, as mediated by experienced meaningfulness. Based on this finding, they concluded that it is the sense of meaningfulness of the work elicited by task significance and skill variety that is critical for the beneficial outcomes of job redesign because task significance and skill variety may not be directly associated with job

affect and motivation. Recently, results (Humphrey et al., 2007) from a meta-analytic summary of 259 studies showed that experienced meaningfulness is the best mediator of the relationships between motivational characteristics (e.g., task significance) and work outcomes. Indeed, much of the recent literature on employee involvement and empowerment focuses on providing meaningful work to employees to facilitate both their motivation and personal growth (Spreitzer,

Kizilos, & Nason, 1997).

Core positions are critical and non-replaceable to the organization, and they interact with many other organizational activities and positions. As argued by Kahn’s (1990) theoretical work on personal engagement at work and empirically supported by the Job Characteristics Model, employees in core positions might perceive that the resources their position provide are valuable to the organization, and therefore experience meaningfulness, which, in turn, links to job-related outcomes. Thus, I proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 12: Experienced meaningfulness mediates the effect of employee position on

job-related outcomes.

Perceived Organizational Worth as a Mediator

When employees perceive their jobs as high in task significance, they experience their work as more meaningful - that is, more purposeful and valuable (Hackman & Oldham, 1976;

Zalesny & Ford, 1990). However, recent research (e.g., Grant, 2008) suggested perceived organizational worth may also operate as a mediator between task significance and positive employee outcomes. In light of evidence that experienced meaningfulness may only partially mediate the association between task significance and job-related outcomes (Humphrey et al.,

2007), Grant (2008) did a field experiment where half paid lifeguards read stories about other lifeguards rescuing drowning swimmers (i.e., the task significance condition) while the other half

read stories that contained positive cues about the job but highlighted its benefits to the self rather than to others (i.e., the personal benefit condition). He found that increases in perceptions of social impact and social worth mediated the relationships between task significance and job dedication and helping behavior of lifeguards. In his study, perceived social impact was defined as “the extent to which employees believe that their actions benefit others” while perceived social worth was referred to “the degree to which employees believe that their actions are appreciated by others” (p.110). Following his findings, in my study, I examined the mediating role of perceived organizational worth, i.e., the degree to which employees believe their work is valued and appreciated by the organization.

According to social identity theory, people typically seek to see themselves in a positive light (J. D. Brown, 1998), and this positive sense of self is largely grounded in socially important and salient roles, including occupations, and how those roles are perceived by others. Social identity research indicated that people seek to enhance their self-esteem through their social identities (Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-definitions and their inherent values are at least partly grounded in the perceptions of others (A. Brown et al., 2001; Felson,

1992; Weigert, Teitge, & Teitge, 1986). For example, in a qualitative study comprising 54

Canadian employees injured at work, Stone (2003) found that participants cherished their identity as workers and without work their self-esteem suffered. A major component of self- definition is the occupational identity - that is, the set of central, distinctive, and enduring characteristics that typify the line of work (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Van Maanen & Barley,

1984). Because organizations tend to be structured around occupational specialties (Hulin &

Roznowski, 1985), organization members are largely known by their organizational positions

and come to situate themselves in terms of their positions within that organization (Trice, 1993;

Van Maanen & Barley, 1984).

When employees occupy valuable core positions and therefore gain desirable status, they might experience “a sense of being valued, valuable, and needed” (Kahn, 1990, p. 706) by the organization. As Lasch (1984) has suggested, people search for ways to feel important and special, particularly when they are in a world where they generally feel powerless. In the context of an organization, a core position allows the employee to have a sense of shaping the organization and thus to experience organizational worth. Indeed, during Kahn’s (1990) interviews at an architecture firm, he recorded that a support staff member noted that “It’s treated as meaningless” (p. 707) while people in core positions (e.g., draftsperson) generally felt excited about their job and reported that their work was worthwhile. As such, the employee’s position within an organization might serve as an indicator to individuals about how central and needed in the organization they are. Thus, a core position might trigger the feeling of importance while a peripheral position might not offer their incumbents a sense of organizational worth. For employees in core positions, such instrumental rewards are motivating sources, which might link employee perceived core position to job-related outcomes.

Moreover, interpersonal interactions with coworkers and clients, or centrality, increase the possibility of perceived organizational worth. The connections through resource flow are an invaluable source of meaning in individuals’ lives because they meet relatedness needs

(Alderfer, 1972). Such connections allow employees to feel known and appreciated because they are sharing their existential journeys with others (R. A. May, Angel, & Ellenberger, 1958) and the organization as a whole. Therefore, occupying a core position, which features many connections through resource flow, might allow people to feel valuable and valued, and thus

increase perceived organizational worth. It is this sense of organizational worth that links employees’ core position to job-related outcomes. As one counselor Kahn (1990) interviewed noted, “You put the energy where it will be appreciated” (p.708). As such, when devoid of perceived organizational worth, employees prefer to be psychologically absent in their work.

Conversely, when the relationship between the organization and employees involves mutual appreciation, dignity, and respect, employees tend to be personally engaged (cf. Kahn, 1990).

As aforementioned, core positions are critical to the survival and competitive advantages of the organization; they are non-replaceable; if employees in these core positions stop working, many other activities and positions will be affected immediately and severely. Because of the importance of core positions, employees in those core positions might perceive their jobs to be highly significant to the organization. When employees experience their position as high in criticality, non-substitutability, and centrality, they might perceive that their positions have a frequent, lasting impact on the operation and the competitive advantages of the organization. As a result, employees in those core positions are more likely to receive feedback that the organization appreciates their efforts and values their contributions to the organization. Because of this heightened perception of organizational worth, employees are likely to invest additional resources in their work.

Researchers have suggested that the pursuit of self worth is a basic human motivation

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2002). When employees feel that their personal, unique resources are valued by the organization, they are more motivated to contribute to the organization and reap more benefits from their job, as demonstrated by the literature of perceived organizational support, which is relevant to a host of outcomes favorable to employees, ranging

from job satisfaction and affective commitment to job performance and lessened withdrawal behaviors (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Thus, I proposed the following final hypothesis:

Hypothesis 13: Perceived organizational worth mediates the effect of employee position

on job-related outcomes.

Taken together, there are two plausible mechanisms through which being in a core position may exert its effects on job-related outcomes, i.e., through increased perceptions that the organization values their contribution and greater perceptions that the work being done is meaningful. Both experienced meaningfulness and perceived organizational worth may be important in the mediating processes through which core positions lead to greater positive outcomes and fewer negative outcomes. Thus, both experienced meaningfulness and perceived organizational worth were modeled as parallel mediators of the process through which core positions influence job-related outcomes.

STUDY 1: SCALE DEVELOPMENT METHOD

In order to develop items of acceptable reliability and validity that measured the core vs. peripheral position, a survey containing the pool of pilot items (see Table 1) and validation measures was first administered to a convenience sample of working students enrolled in

Washington State University and Dixie State College of Utah and participants in various churches in the U.S. The results from this study were used to develop and validate the final version of the core vs. peripheral position measure. Following this, I collected survey data from multiple Chinese organizations to cross-validate these measures, as well as to systematically investigate my research hypotheses (Study 2).

Participants and Procedure

Students at Washington State University and Dixie State College of Utah were recruited to participate in Study 1 in exchange for course extra credits for their participation. Prospective participants were directed to an online survey portal which displayed an informed consent document explaining the associated risks and benefits of the research project. After reading and voluntarily agreeing to participate in the study, participants were directed to take the online survey. In an effort to further broaden the sample, individuals attending church activities were also recruited to participate in either an online survey or paper-and-pencil survey. Respondents either completed the survey in person directly after the researcher announced the survey opportunity or left the researcher with an email address to receive the online survey link.

Appendix A includes a copy of the survey that was administered to participants.

A total of 671 respondents completed the survey. To be eligible for the study, participants have or had a job where they are or were employed at least five hours per week. Respondents were asked to think of their current or previous job when completing the survey.

Demographic characteristics. The majority of participants were from Washington State

University Pullman (68%), female (66%), Caucasian (82%), single (82%), and had a mean age of

23.98 (SD = 9.81, Range =17-71). The majority of participants (84%) had a personal income under $20,000. The majority of respondents (55%) had completed some college. The majority of students (67%) were working towards a Bachelor’s degree.

Work background characteristics. The majority of participants worked in retail trade

(30.7%) and entertainment and recreation services, professional and related services (25.6%).

The majority of participants were currently employed in service (45.6%), technical, sales, and administrative support (21.8%), and managerial and professional occupations (14.8%). Most participants had a job position as a sales worker (19.2%), other (18.9%), or food service worker

(16.1%). 30.4% of participants had at least one subordinate. 80.1% of participants held a part- time position while 18.7% of them had a full-time position. 52.7% of participants held a permanent position while 46.1% of participants had a temporary position.

Measures

For all measures, higher scores reflect higher levels of each construct. Unless otherwise noted, participants responded to a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to indicate the extent of their agreement with each item.

Core vs. peripheral position (CPP) scale. Forty-two items were written to measure core vs. peripheral positions; they were developed based on the definition of core vs. peripheral positions and included the four components of criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy. Items consisted of both positively worded and negatively worded statements with regards to the four components of core/peripheral positions: criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy. See Table 1 for a complete list of the items to be validated.

Table 1 Initial Items on the Core versus Peripheral Position Scale Instructions: The following section lists a series of statements about your current job position within your organization. Please note: When we use the term “position” please keep in mind your current job description as well as the location of your position within the organizational chart in your company. This includes both where your position is located within the organizational hierarchy as well as other units across the organization. After reading each statement, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with it by using the response options provided below. Bolded words indicate particular areas of emphasis for some of the statements below. Dimension Items 1. My position is important to the effectiveness of my organization. 2. My position is crucial to achieving the most important goals of my organization. 3. My position is crucial to maintaining the smooth operation of my organization. 4. Whether my organization achieves its goals depends highly on what I do in my position. 5. My position is necessary for the effective operation of my organization. 6. (R) My position does not directly contribute to the primary mission of my organization. Criticality 7. My position is critical to the organization’s ability to continue functioning. 8. (R) My position does not directly help my organization to maintain its competitive advantage. 9. My position is needed to maintain the effective operation of my organization. 10. (R) My position makes a minor contribution to the achievement of the primary goals of my organization. 11. (R) My position is not important to achieving the primary goals of my organization. 12. My position assumes responsibility for activities that are critical to my organization. 1. My position provides unique contributions to the operation of my organization. 2. (R) Many others in my organization have been cross-trained to perform my job. 3. My position would be difficult to replace in my organization. 4. My position could not be easily out-sourced. 5. (R) My organization could easily assign my tasks to others in the Non- organization. Substitutability 6. My position makes unique contributions to the performance of my organization. 7. (R) If my organization had to downsize, my position would be at risk. 8. My organization would have difficulty in replacing the value provided by my position. 9. (R) Other people in different positions within my organization could easily perform my work tasks.

1. (R) The activities performed by my position have nothing to do with the work of many others within my organization. 2. Many others in my organization need the activities performed by my position in order to get their work done. 3. (R) The work of many others is independent of the activities performed by my position. 4. My work activities are connected with the work activities of my coworkers. 5. Many others’ work will be affected if I stop performing my activities. 6. The work activities of many others depend on my work. Centrality: 7. The work activities of my position connect to the work activities of many Pervasiveness others. 8. The work of my position is closely connected to various others in my organization. 9. (R) If the activities performed by my position were interrupted, it would cause little disruption within my organization. 10. The activities performed by my position are tied into the work activities of many others. 11. If I were out sick for a week, sooner or later many other employees would not be able to get their work done. 1. My work has an immediate effect on the output of my organization. 2. If employees in my position all stop working, the activities of my organization will be quickly interrupted. 3. (R) The output of my organization would not be immediately affected due to a discontinuance of my work. 4. If I stopped my work activities, this would have an immediate effect on the output of the organization as a whole. 5. My organization suffers very quickly if the activities performed by my position are interrupted. Centrality: 6. If employees in my position all stopped working, the activities of my Immediacy organization would be substantially impeded. 7. My organization would be impacted instantly if all employees in my position stopped working. 8. If people in my position stopped working, the rest of the organization would come to a grinding halt. 9. (R) My organization could continue being productive for a long time even if all employees in my position stopped working. 10. (R) My organization could perform very well for a long time even if people in my position stopped working. Note. (R) indicates the item is reverse scored.

Convergent validation measures. If the new scale demonstrated convergent validity, it was expected to positively correlate with the following two measures of related constructs.

Job status within the organization. This variable was measured by asking participants to indicate their job position within the organization. Because of the diversity of respondents’ position within their organization, I used the question “How many people directly report to you?” as an index of job status. It was expected that employees in core positions would have higher job status.

Task significance. Three items from Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Characteristics

Model were adapted to assess the degree to which the job had a substantial impact on the immediate organization. A sample item was “This job is one where a lot of other people within my organization can be affected by how well the work gets done.” It was expected that employees in core positions would perceive greater task significance.

Discriminant validation measures. Evidence of discriminant validity is found when constructs that should have little or no relationship with the construct of interest (in this case,

CPP) are not, in fact, related. Therefore, the following measures were used to provide evidence of discriminant validity.

Human capital characteristics. Lepak and Snell’s (2002) measurement of human capital value and uniqueness were used to measure employees’ KSAs. The strategic value of human capital was measured with a 12-item index (e.g., Individuals have skills that are instrumental for creating innovations), and the uniqueness of human capital was assessed with a 10-item index

(e.g., Individuals have skills that are not widely available in the labor market). Because I distinguish between core employees and core positions, individuals with greater human capital characteristics would not necessarily be in more core positions within their organization. For

example, a landscape maintenance worker might not score high on a measure of human capital characteristics, yet could still be in a core position within a landscaping organization. Thus, although one might expect to see some positive relationship, individual KSAs should not necessarily be strongly related to the measure of CPP.

Occupational attributional style. An occupational attributional style questionnaire developed by Furnham, Sadka, and Brewin (1992) was used to assess employee attributional style. Respondents were asked to make attributions for hypothetical positive and negative events which were commonly experienced by, or particularly relevant to, employed individuals. Five of the hypothetical events described positive outcomes (i.e., get a promotion, solve a major problem, lead a group project, be voted as the most popular boss, and get a special performance reward) and five described negative outcomes (i.e., be turned down at a job interview, boss acts aggressively toward you, can’t get all the work done, get negative feedback of your talk from colleagues, and receive a poor annual report from a superior). Respondents were asked to imagine the event happening to them, to write an open-ended response describing the one major cause, and then to rate this cause on nine separate seven-point scales concerned with internality, stability, globality, externality, chance, personal control, colleague control, foreseeability and importance, respectively.

If the newly developed measure of CPP accurately taped into the criticality, non- substitutability, and centrality of one’s position, then responses to this measure should not be influenced by one’s tendency to make an ‘optimistic’ internal attribution at work.

Narcissistic personality inventory (NPI). The 37-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory

(Emmons, 1987; Raskin & Hall, 1979, 1981) to be answered in a true-false format was used to assess narcissism as a normally distributed personality dimension within nonclinical populations.

It proves an index of the degree of narcissism reflecting both extreme manifestations that represent pathological narcissism, as well as less extreme forms thought to reflect narcissism as a personality trait (Emmons, 1987). A sample item was “I see myself as a good leader.” Again, employee perceptions of CPP should not be influenced by their personality.

Promotion, coworker, and supervisor satisfaction. Three scales taken from the Job

Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, et al., 1969) were used to measure employee promotion, coworker, and supervisor satisfaction. Participants responded on a 3-point scale (yes, ?, no) to assess their satisfaction with promotion, coworker, and supervisor. Sample items from each of the three attitude scales, respectively, are “dead end job,” “responsible,” and “hard to please.” As predicted by Hypothesis 1, the newly developed scale of CPP was predicted to be related to employee satisfaction with work and pay, but not with promotion, coworker, and supervisor.

Incremental predictive validity measures. Researchers (Haynes & Lench, 2003) have defined incremental predictive validity as the degree to which a measure can account for a higher proportion of variance in a variable measured later. Evidence of incremental validity is demonstrated if a new measure improves upon existing measures in the prediction of relevant outcomes of interest. Therefore, I tested whether the CPP measure predicted unique variance in three outcome measures: pay satisfaction, work satisfaction, and affective commitment, over and above that accounted for by job status and task significance.

Pay and work satisfaction. Two scales taken from the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; Smith, et al., 1969) were used to measure employee pay and work satisfaction. Participants responded on a 3-point scale (yes, ?, no) to assess their satisfaction with pay and work. Sample items from the two attitude scales are “barely live on income” and “rewarding.”

Affective commitment. The 8-item Affective Commitment subscale of Allen and Meyer’s

(1990) Organizational Commitment scale was used to measure employee affective commitment to the organization. One sample item was “I would be happy to spend the rest of my career in my organization.”

Data Analyses

Descriptive statistical analyses, exploratory factor analysis, and multiple regression analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics Version 19.0 while confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with Mplus 6.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010).

Structural properties. Data were screened to determine outliers and the normality of the data (i.e., skewness, kurtosis). According to Brown (2006), skewness (> 2.99) and kurtosis (>

9.99) were guidelines that were used as boundaries for normality. Normality is indicated if the item statistics for skewness and kurtosis are below the recommended guidelines; otherwise, items with high skewness (> 2.99) and/or kurtosis (> 9.99) are dropped.

Exploratory factor analysis. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) have recommended that initial analysis is conducted using principal components extraction which allows for the initial identification of probable factors. Due to the anticipation that the different factors would be correlated, oblique rotation was employed. Multiple criteria for determining the number of factors to retain were used (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986; Kim & Mueller, 1978; Stevens,

1992) including eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and variance explained of greater than 60%.

Furthermore, only items that loaded at .5 or higher on the intended factor and less than .3 on any other factor were retained. In addition, those items that were highly redundant in terms of wording with other items were removed to reduce the likelihood of within-factor correlated measurement error (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Finally, less desirable items were those that would

increase the alpha if deleted, had a low standard deviation (i.e., < 1. 00), and were not strongly correlated with the total scale, with the standard that items with low (less than .30) item-total correlations were dropped (Lynam et al., 2011).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In order to provide construct validity evidence for the hypothesized underlying structure of the CPP scale, CFA was performed using Mplus 6.0

(Muthen & Muthen, 2010) and three steps were used to evaluate the model (Shipp, Burns, &

Desmul, 2010). The first step evaluated global model fit among three competing models.

Specifically, the absolute and relative fit of the following three models were compared: a general factor model (all retained items based on EFA loading onto a single factor), a three-factor model

(retained items loading onto three factors of criticality, non-substitutability, and centrality, respectively), and a four-factor model (retained items loading onto four factors of criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy, respectively). The residuals were examined in the second step to inspect for localized areas of ill fit, and the third step examined the item- factor loadings for convergent validity and factor correlations for discriminant validity. In CFA, loadings of the variables on the relevant factor were to be feely estimated while the loadings on the other factor were set to zero. The factors in three- and four-factor models were allowed to be correlated.

Step 1: Overall model fit. When assessing the adequacy of the measurement, there are several global goodness-of-fit indices that may be informative. Typically, the first is the Chi-

Square statistic. However, is highly sensitive to sample size, thus frequently resulting in a rejection of the model when the model may not in fact be off-target (Mulaik et al., 1989). When comparing nested models, the sequential statistic is useful in determining whether the fit of

the model significantly improves after accounting for the different degrees of freedom in models

(Kelloway, 1998).

The Bentler Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is an incremental fit index that measures the relative improvement in the fit of the model over that of a baseline model, typically the independence model. Hu and Benlter (1999) argued using the CFI together with an index based on the correlations residuals (i.e., differences between observed and predicted covariance), the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). The SRMR is based on transforming both the sample covariance matrix and the predicted covariance matrix into correlation matrices. The combination threshold for concluding “acceptable fit” based on these indexes was CFI >.95 and

SRMR ≤ .08 (Kline, 2010). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is scaled as a badness-of-fit index where a value of zero indicates the best fit. It is also a parsimony- adjusted index. Taken together, the following graded criteria were used to evaluate the quality of each CFA model: RMSEA ≤ .08, SRMR ≤ .10, and CFI >.90 for acceptable fit; RMSEA ≤ .05,

SRMR ≤ .08, and CFI >.95 for good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Step 2: Localized areas of ill fit. If the residual for correlations was above .10, it was considered as localized fill fit. As such, an inspection of the modification indexes associated with the correlated residuals was necessary. However, in an effort to improve the model, both the modification indexes and theoretical meanings should be taken into account.

Step 3: Model parameters. Items are interpreted as part of a factor if items load at .50 or higher on the intended factor and less than .30 on any other factor. Items with the lowest factor loadings on the corresponding factor (being <. 50) were dropped from the scale. When the completely standardized factor loading on the intended factor is above .70 (and the loading on any other factor is below .30), this estimated parameter is considered as significant and

substantial. The squared coefficient represents the amount of variance in the underlying latent item variable explained by its latent factor. If the correlations among each of the factor are smaller than .85, it is indicated that these factors are distinguished, thus providing evidence for discriminant validity (Shipp, et al., 2010).

Reliability of each dimension. In terms of psychometric properties of the best-fit model,

I assessed internal consistency of items within each dimension of the CPP scale based on the guideline that the Cronbach alpha was at least .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Discriminant and convergent validation analyses of the CPP measure. Correlations among variables were performed to assess the discriminant and convergent validity of the CPP measurement. In order to demonstrate the discriminant validity (J. Cohen, 1988) of the CPP scale, small to medium-sized correlations (|r| < .30) between the CPP scale and the less conceptually related constructs of KSAs, occupational attributional style measurement, NPI, and promotion, coworker, and supervisor satisfaction were expected. On the contrary, the CPP measurement and the variables of job status and task significance were expected to be moderately to highly correlated (|r| > .30), showing the convergent validity of the CPP scale

(Nyklicek & Denollet, 2009).

Incremental predictive validity analyses of the CPP measure. Multiple regression analyses were performed to assess the evidence for incremental validity of the CPP scale. As aforementioned, the variables of job status (Vikas & Kishore, 1986) and task significance (e.g.,

Humphrey et al., 2007) were suggested to be associated with higher pay and work satisfaction as well as affective commitment. Therefore, in the regression equations of pay satisfaction, work satisfaction, and affective commitment, the CPP scale was predicted to explain a significant amount of variance of pay satisfaction, work satisfaction, and affective commitment, shown by

significant R square change, above and beyond the variance explained by job status and task significance.

STUDY 1: RESULTS

Structural properties. The items of CPP were normally distributed as indicated by low skewness (< 2.99) and kurtosis (< 9.99). Mean, standard deviation, range, skewness, and kurtosis are reported in Table 2.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In order to achieve a psychometrically sound multidimensional measure that holds under cross-validation, I randomly selected 60% of the cases

(i.e., 395 participants) to conduct the EFA. The primary goal of EFA is to reduce the set of 42 items so that the remaining items best exemplify one of the proposed dimensions without loading too highly on one or more of the other dimensions. EFA can be used to determine whether the hypothesized dimensions actually are reflected in the collected data. It should, however, be noted that even with EFA, theory remains an important guideline to decide which items to keep and which items to remove (Henson & Roberts, 2006).

The initial analysis was conducted using principal components extraction (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2007). The analysis employed an oblique rotation (i.e., promax) because it was anticipated that the different factors were correlated. Results suggested that the factors were indeed correlated, so results from the oblique rotation were retained. The criteria for identifying likely factors were eigenvalues greater than one and logical item loadings (Cattell, 1966; Kaiser,

1960; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Specifically, items had to have a minimum factor loading of

.5 on one-factor only, and the minimum factor loading on other factors of .3.

Results from this initial analysis suggested an eight-factor solution, with four strong factors (i.e., eigenvalues =13.37, 4.01, 3.94, and 1.50, respectively) and four weak ones (i.e., eigenvalues = 1.40, 1.25, 1.02, and 1.00, respectively), which together accounted for 65.48% of the variance. I retained items with loading at .5 or higher on the intended factor and less than .3

Table 2 Item Descriptive Statistics (N=609) Item Mean SD Range Skewness Kurtosis My position is important to the effectiveness of my organization. 5.07 1.63 1-7 -.799 -.116

My position is crucial to achieving the most important goals of my organization. 4.72 1.68 1-7 -.530 -.516

My position is crucial to maintaining the smooth operation of my organization. 4.88 1.56 1-7 -.530 -.345

Whether my organization achieves its goals depends highly on what I do in my position. 4.45 1.57 1-7 -.283 -.518

My position is necessary for the effective operation of my organization. 4.99 1.50 1-7 -.696 .106

My position is critical to the organization’s ability to continue functioning. 4.68 1.57 1-7 -.390 -.520

*My position is needed to maintain the effective operation of my organization. 4.96 1.52 1-7 -.529 -.222

*My position assumes responsibility for activities that are critical to my organization. 4.79 1.49 1-7 -.456 -.208

*(R) My position does not directly contribute to the primary mission of my organization. 4.92 1.53 1-7 -.418 -.444

*(R) My position does not directly help my organization to maintain its competitive 4.62 1.53 1-7 -.234 -.555 advantage.

*(R) My position makes a minor contribution to the achievement of the primary goals of my 4.26 1.58 1-7 .031 -.764 organization.

*(R) My position is not important to achieving the primary goals of my organization. 4.88 1.51 1-7 -.442 -.363

*My position provides unique contributions to the operation of my organization. 4.42 1.59 1-7 -.292 -.536

My position would be difficult to replace in my organization. 3.22 1.71 1-7 .353 -.797

Item Mean SD Range Skewness Kurtosis *My position could not be easily out-sourced. 4.22 1.85 1-7 -.085 -.926

*My position makes unique contributions to the performance of my organization. 4.40 1.60 1-7 -.363 -.608

*My organization would have difficulty in replacing the value provided by my position. 4.06 1.65 1-7 -.081 -.638

(R) Many others in my organization have been cross-trained to perform my job. 3.63 1.73 1-7 .281 -.881

(R) My organization could easily assign my tasks to others in the organization. 3.54 1.72 1-7 .258 -.739

*(R) If my organization had to downsize, my position would be at risk. 4.13 1.76 1-7 .054 -.971

(R) Other people in different positions within my organization could easily perform my work 3.68 1.67 1-7 .250 -.742 tasks.

*Many others in my organization need the activities performed by my position in order to 4.76 1.63 1-7 -.421 -.487 get their work done.

My work activities are connected with the work activities of my coworkers. 5.06 1.43 1-7 -.687 .077

*Many others’ work will be affected if I stop performing my activities. 4.47 1.66 1-7 -.373 -.544

*The work activities of many others depend on my work. 4.35 1.53 1-7 -.325 -.353

The work activities of my position connect to the work activities of many others. 4.76 1.56 1-7 -.608 -.174

The work of my position is closely connected to various others in my organization. 4.83 1.48 1-7 -.577 -.151

The activities performed by my position are tied into the work activities of many others. 4.71 1.49 1-7 -.538 -.111

Item Mean SD Range Skewness Kurtosis *If I were out sick for a week, sooner or later many other employees would not be able to get 3.37 1.64 1-7 .294 -.718 their work done.

*(R) The activities performed by my position have nothing to do with the work of many others 4.75 1.65 1-7 -.505 -.556 within my organization.

*(R) The work of many others is independent of the activities performed by my position. 3.93 1.50 1-7 .027 -.468

*(R) If the activities performed by my position were interrupted, it would cause little disruption 4.70 1.58 1-7 -.234 -.747 within my organization.

*My work has an immediate effect on the output of my organization. 4.95 1.55 1-7 -.630 -.227

*If employees in my position all stop working, the activities of my organization will be quickly 5.30 1.75 1-7 -.845 -.303 interrupted.

*If I stopped my work activities, this would have an immediate effect on the output of the 4.40 1.71 1-7 -.215 -.829 organization as a whole.

*My organization suffers very quickly if the activities performed by my position are 4.49 1.60 1-7 -.260 -.696 interrupted.

If employees in my position all stopped working, the activities of my organization would be 5.13 1.63 1-7 -.597 -.441 substantially impeded.

My organization would be impacted instantly if all employees in my position stopped working. 5.13 1.64 1-7 -.536 -.629

If people in my position stopped working, the rest of the organization would come to a 4.48 1.78 1-7 -.217 -.908 grinding halt.

*(R) The output of my organization would not be immediately affected due to a discontinuance 4.27 1.74 1-7 -.063 -.979 of my work.

Item Mean SD Range Skewness Kurtosis *(R) My organization could continue being productive for a long time even if all employees 5.14 1.73 1-7 -.540 -.794 in my position stopped working.

*(R) My organization could perform very well for a long time even if people in my position 5.09 1.62 1-7 -.583 -.454 stopped working. Note. * indicates that items that were deleted after the series of exploratory factor analyses.

on any other factors. Consequently, 25 items were removed due to failure to load on the intended factor or cross-loadings (see Table 2 for removed items).

A second principal components analysis was then conducted using the same procedure with the remaining 17 items. The analysis suggested a four-factor solution with eigenvalues as

6.93, 2.48, 1.30, and 1.04, respectively, which together accounted for 69.04% of the variance. As suggested by the criteria to retain the items loading at .5 or higher on one factor and less than .3 on any other factors, one item (i.e., “My position would be difficult to replace in my organization.”) was removed. The analysis based on the remaining 16 items was re-conducted.

This third analysis suggested a four-factor solution with eigenvalues as 6.90, 2.16, 1.30, and 1.03, which together accounted for 71.14% of the variance. This model included six items loading on the factor criticality, three items loading on the factor non-substitutability, four items loading on pervasiveness, and three items loading on the factor immediacy (see Table 3).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Using the results of the EFA, I reduced the number of items to keep those with the strongest indications of conforming to the proposed underlying structure. Then, I used CFA so that the hypothesized factor structure could be tested for its fit to the observed covariance structure (Henson & Roberts, 2006). CFA is the preferred analysis method if theory underlies the measured constructs. With CFA different models can be

Table 3 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis (N= 395) Item C N P I My position is important to the effectiveness of my organization. .806 My position is crucial to achieving the most important goals of .911 my organization. My position is crucial to maintaining the smooth operation of my .858 organization. Whether my organization achieves its goals depends highly on .774 what I do in my position. My position is necessary for the effective operation of my .712 organization. My position is critical to the organization’s ability to continue .579 functioning. (R) Many others in my organization have been cross-trained to .785 perform my job. (R) My organization could easily assign my tasks to others in the .764 organization. (R) Other people in different positions within my organization .849 could easily perform my work tasks. My work activities are connected with the work activities of my .792 coworkers. The work activities of my position connect to the work activities .731 of many others. The work of my position is closely connected to various others .871 in my organization. The activities performed by my position are tied into the work .898 activities of many others. If employees in my position all stopped working, the activities of .746 my organization would be substantially impeded. My organization would be impacted instantly if all employees in .843 my position stopped working. If people in my position stopped working, the rest of the .944 organization would come to a grinding halt. Note. C= Criticality. N= Non-substitutability. P= Pervasiveness. I= Immediacy.

tested and compared. In addition, information (e.g., standardized residual covariances) is provided to assist with future refinements of the measure.

Using the 40% holdout sample from the EFA analysis above, responses from the 243 participants were used to conduct the CFA. The CFA was performed using Mplus 6.0 structural

equation modeling software (Muthen & Muthen, 2010). Results of global model fit were presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Model Fit Indices from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N=243) p-value RMSEA df χ2 CFI SRMR of χ2 (90% CI) Model I: One factor 104 605.01 .0000 .749 .143 (.133-.154) .088 Model II: Three factor 101 393.19 .0000 .856 .110 (.099-.122) .060 Model III: Four factor 98 307.72 .0000 .897 .095 (.083-.107) .054 Four factor with 12 items 48 64.36 .0574 .985 .038 (.000-.060) .041 Second-order factor model 50 65.06 .0746 .987 .036 (.000-.058) .042 Note. CFI= comparative fit index, RMSEA= root mean square error of approximation, SRMR= standardized root-mean-square residual.

Model I. I tested a one-factor Model I where all 16 items loaded on one core versus peripheral position factor. The global model fit indices were as followed: χ2 (104) = 605.01,

SRMR = .088, RMSEA = .143, CFI = .749.

Model II. I tested a three-factor Model II where 16 items loaded on three factors: criticality, non- substitutability, and centrality. The global model fit indices were as followed: χ2

(101) = 393.19, SRMR = .060, RMSEA = .110, CFI = .856.

Model III. I tested a four-factor Model III where16 items loaded on four factors: criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy. The global model fit indices were as followed: χ2 (98) = 307.72, SRMR = .054, RMSEA = .095, CFI = .897.

Although the CFA of the three-factor model revealed a poor absolute fit, it did have a

2 significantly better fit than the one-factor model; χseq (3) =211.82, p < .001. However, the four-

2 factor model fit significantly better than the three-factor model χseq (3) = 85.47, p < .001.

Therefore, despite the relatively high RMSEA and SRMR and low CFI, the four-factor model was retained. This provided preliminary support for a four-factor model of the CPP scale, with criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy as four factors.

As discussed by Kline (2005), large standardized residual covariances can result in substantial model misfit. Review of the model’s standardized residual covariances suggested that four items should be excluded given they had large residual covariances with other items in the measure. Thus, these four items (“My position is important to the effectiveness of my organization,” “My position is necessary for the effective operation of my organization,” “My position is critical to the organization’s ability to continue functioning,” and “The activities performed by my position are tied into the work activities of many others”) were excluded and a

CFA was recalculated. The resulting 12-item (see Table 4) CFA demonstrated an excellent fit as indicated by the following global fit indices: χ2 (48) = 64.36, p =.057, SRMR = .041, RMSEA =

.038, CFI = .985.

Table 5 shows the completely standardized item-factor loadings. Each item had a significant and substantial loading on its assigned factor (all loadings greater than .576). Table 6 shows the correlations among the four factors. None of the factor correlations were greater than

.85, thus providing evidence for discriminant validity (Shipp, et al., 2010). Surprisingly, the factor non-substitutability was not significantly related to the factor criticality (r = -.13, ns) and negatively related to pervasiveness (r = -.19, p <.05) and immediacy (r = -.18, p <.05).

To further investigate the relationships among the four dimensions, I tested the four- factor model with one underlying second-order factor. With respect to the relative fit indices, the fit of this model was slightly better than the four-factor model as indicated by the following global fit indices: χ2 (50) = 65.06, p =.075, SRMR = .042, RMSEA = .036, CFI = .987 (see Table

4). The standardized factor loadings of the latent factors on this second-order CPP factor were

.88 for criticality (p <.001), -.19 for non-substitutability (p <.05), .95 for pervasiveness (p <.001),

.82 for immediacy (p <.001).

Table 5 Standardized Parameter Loadings (Standard Errors) from the Correlated Four-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model (N=243)

Item C N P I My position is crucial to maintaining the .787(.03) smooth operation of my organization. My position is crucial to achieving the most .755(.04) important goals of my organization. Whether my organization achieves its goals .731(.04) depends highly on what I do in my position. (R) Other people in different positions within my organization could easily perform my .738(.06) work tasks. (R) My organization could easily assign my .576(.06) tasks to others in the organization. (R) Many others in my organization have .721(.06) been cross-trained to perform my job. The work of my position is closely connected .792(.03) to various others in my organization. The work activities of my position connect to .781(.03) the work activities of many others. My work activities are connected with the .670(.04) work activities of my coworkers. My organization would be impacted instantly if all employees in my position stopped .859(.03) working. If employees in my position all stopped working, the activities of my organization .786(.03) would be substantially impeded. If people in my position stopped working, the rest of the organization would come to a .688(.04) grinding halt. Note. C= Criticality. N= Non-substitutability. P= Pervasiveness. I= Immediacy.

Table 6 Correlations (Standard Errors) among criticality, non- substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy factors (N=243) 1 2 3 4 1. Criticality --- 2. Non-substitutability -.13 (.09)ns --- 3. Pervasiveness .84(.04) -.19(.09) --- 4. Immediacy .73(.05) -.18(.08) .78(.04) --- Note. All correlations are significant at p<.03 unless indicated as non-significant (ns). All correlations were significantly less than .85 (ps <.0001), thus indicating significant discriminant validity (Shipp, et al., 2010).

Reliability. With the complete samples (N = 609), I examined the reliability in terms of internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α). The CPP scale showed adequate internal consistency, α=.78. Each of the four factors showed acceptable internal consistency, with

Cronbach’s alpha values greater than .70 (Table 7). Specifically, the Cronbach’s α for criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy were .80, .71, .82, and .81, respectively. For each of the four factors, the deletion of any scale item involved a decrease in Cronbach’s α.

Discriminant versus convergent validity. At its most basic level (Campbell & Fiske,

1959; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), construct validity is indicated when scores on the target scale correlate more strongly with scores on other measures of the same construct and other theoretically related variables (convergent validity), while showing weaker correlations with less theoretically relevant variables (discriminant validity). Consistent with the results from CFA with 243 respondents, results from the complete sample (N=609; see Table 8) indicated that criticality was significantly related to pervasiveness (r =.58, p <.001) and immediacy (r =.50, p

<.001), and pervasiveness was significantly related to immediacy (r =.58, p <.001); non- substitutability was not significantly related to criticality (r =.02, ns), but negatively related to pervasiveness (r =-.14, p <.001) and immediacy (r =-.16, p <.001).

With the complete sample (N=609), discriminant validity was assessed via correlations between CPP and KSAs, NPI, promotion satisfaction, coworker satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, and occupational attributional style. As demonstrated in Table 8, KSAs were strongly related to criticality (r =.38, p <.001), but weakly related to non-substitutability (r =.17, p <.001), pervasiveness (r =.27, p <.001), and immediacy (r =.18, p <.001). The correlations between criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy and the variables NPI, promotion satisfaction, coworker satisfaction, and supervisor satisfaction were either not

significant (i.e., |r| <.10; 10 out of 16 correlation coefficients) or weak (i.e., |r| <.20; 6 out of 16 correlation coefficients), providing support for the discriminant validity of CPP. Similarly, for all

Table 7 Cronbach’s α and item-total correlation of four dimensions of the Core versus Peripheral Position Scale (N=609) Item-total Cronbach’s α if Dimension & Item Cronbach’s α correlation item is eliminated Criticality .804 My position is crucial to maintaining the .661 .721 smooth operation of my organization. My position is crucial to achieving the .637 .747 most important goals of my organization. Whether my organization achieves its goals depends highly on what I do in my .653 .728 position. Non-substitutability .711 (R) Other people in different positions within my organization could easily .588 .548 perform my work tasks. (R) My organization could easily assign .520 .631 my tasks to others in the organization. (R) Many others in my organization have .481 .679 been cross-trained to perform my job. Pervasiveness .819 The work of my position is closely connected to various others in my .678 .745 organization. The work activities of my position connect .690 .733 to the work activities of many others. My work activities are connected with the .651 .772 work activities of my coworkers. Immediacy .808 My organization would be impacted instantly if all employees in my position .707 .686 stopped working. If employees in my position all stopped working, the activities of my organization .629 .765 would be substantially impeded. If people in my position stopped working, the rest of the organization would come to .639 .760 a grinding halt.

Table 8 Bivariate Correlations Between Scores on the Core versus Peripheral Position Scale and the Validation Variables (N=609) Variable 1 2 3 4 1. Criticality 2. Non-substitutability .02 3. Pervasiveness .58** -.14** 4. Immediacy .50** -.16** .58** 5. KSAs .38** .17** .27** .18** 6. Narcissistic Personality Inventory -.06 .07 -.07 -.11* 7. Promotion Satisfaction .15** -.00 .16** .05 8. Coworker Satisfaction .16** .01 .11** -.01 9. Supervisor Satisfaction .09* -.02 .05 -.02 10. Positive events: Internality .11* -.06 .12** .08 11. Positive events: Stability -.22** .04 -.26** -.20** 12. Positive events: Globality -.21** .02 -.26** -.24** 13. Positive events: Externality -.05 .02 -.07 -.08 14. Positive events: Chance -.22** -.07 -.26** -.19** 15. Positive events: Personal control .10* .04 .16** .06 16. Positive events: Other control -.06 .04 -.07 -.16** 17. Positive events: Foreseeability .06 .03 .20** .09* 18. Positive events: Importance -.22** .04 -.26** -.15** 19. Negative events: Internality .05 -.04 .04 .05 20. Negative events: Stability -.12** .09* -.23** -.13** 21. Negative events: Globality -.02 .03 -.05 .01 22. Negative events: Externality .10* .01 .11* .10* 23. Negative events: Chance -.12** -.02 -.17** -.08 24. Negative events: Personal control .03 -.02 .03 -.00 25. Negative events: Other control -.01 .02 -.01 -.03 26. Negative events: Foreseeability -.05 -.04 .06 .02 27. Negative events: Importance -.20* .05 -.25** -.16** 28. No. of subordinates .11* .21** .10** .03 29. Task Significance .64** .09* .52** .48** 30. Pay Satisfaction .12** .02 .11** -.03 31. Work Satisfaction .28** .13** .23** .13** 32. Affective Commitment .32** .17** .23** .06 Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. KSAs=knowledge, skills, and abilities.

positive and negative events, the seven dimensions of the occupational attributional style measurement (internality, stability, globality, externality, chance, personal control, colleague control, foreseeability, and importance) were either not significantly related to the four factors of the CPP scale (41 out of 72 correlation coefficients) or only weakly related to the four factors

(i.e., |r| <.30; 31 out of 72 correlation coefficients), again showing discriminant validity of CPP in terms of occupational attributional style.

Convergent validity was assessed via correlations between CPP and job status as well as task significance. Although 11 out of 12 correlation coefficients were significant, my hypothesis about the convergent validity of CPP was only partly supported. Specifically, number of subordinates was not significantly related to immediacy (r =.03, ns) and only weakly related to criticality (r =.11, p <.05), non-substitutability (r =.21, p <.001), and pervasiveness (r =.10, p

<.05). Moreover, task significance was strongly related to criticality (r =.64, p <.001), pervasiveness (r =.52, p <.001), and immediacy (r =.48, p <.001), but only weakly related to non-substitutability (r =.09, p <.05).

Incremental predictive validity. To test the extent that the CPP scale predicts additional variance in job-related outcomes above and beyond the number of subordinates and task significance, a hierarchical multiple regression was performed by first entering the control variables in Step 1, followed by the CPP sub-scales in Step 2 (see Table 9). In support of the incremental predictive validity of CPP, it was found that pervasiveness (β =.16, p <.05), and immediacy (β =-.23, p <.001) were significantly related to pay satisfaction even after controlling for number of subordinates and task significance. However, criticality (β =.03, ns) and non- substitutability (β =-.02, ns) were not related to pay satisfaction. Regarding work satisfaction as the outcome, it was found that non-substitutability (β =.10, p <.05), but not criticality (β =.09, ns), pervasiveness (β =.08, ns), or immediacy (β =-.08, ns) was significantly related to work satisfaction after controlling for job status and task significance. Moreover, criticality (r =.16, p

<.05), non-substitutability (r =.12, p <.001), pervasiveness (r =.16, p <.001), and immediacy (r

=-.24, p <.001) were significantly related to affective commitment after controlling for number

of subordinates and task significance. Although immediacy was significantly related to both pay satisfaction and affective commitment, the correlation was negative and not in the predicted direction.

Table 9 Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Predictions of Pay Satisfaction, Work Satisfaction and Affective Commitment (N=609) Pay Work Affective Step and variable Satisfaction Satisfaction Commitment Step 1 (dfs=2,458) (dfs=2,466) (dfs=2,460) No. of subordinates .04 .05 .03 Task significance .12** .34*** .31*** R2 .13 .35 .10 F 4.08 31.90 25.82 p .018 .000 .000 Step 2 (dfs=6,454) (dfs=6,462) (dfs=6,456) Criticality .03 .09 .16* Non-substitutability -.02 .10* .12** Pervasiveness .16* .08 .16** Immediacy -.23*** -.08 -.25*** Δ R2 .05 .02 .07 Δ F 4.42 2.69 9.46 p .002 .030 .000 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

In summary, results indicated that the final CPP scale with 3 items per dimension possesses a high level of internal consistency, had good convergent validity with measures of task significance but not job status, and discriminated well from measures of KSAs, NPI, promotion satisfaction, coworker satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, and occupational attributional style. Moreover, the final CPP scale accounted for significant portions of variance in pay and work satisfaction and affective commitment above and beyond other related predictors (i.e., job status and task significance). Contrary to predictions, however, data suggested that non-substitutability negatively loaded on the second-order factor CPP, and it was not significantly related to criticality, but negatively related to pervasiveness and immediacy. In addition, criticality was not significantly related to pay and work satisfaction after controlling for

job status and task significance while non-substitutability was not significantly related to pay satisfaction. Pervasiveness was not significantly related to work satisfaction after controlling for job status and task significance. Immediacy was negatively associated with pay satisfaction and affective commitment, and not significantly associated with work satisfaction after controlling for number of subordinates and task significance.

STUDY 2: HYPOTHESIS TESTING METHOD

After the analyses of Study 1 were conducted to determine which items of the CPP scale to retain, the following data collection and analyses were conducted to cross-validate the scales and test my hypotheses.

Participants and Procedures

The purpose of Study 2 was to test the proposed model in a different sample. Data were collected both in person and online via WSU’s Skylight matrix Survey System among multiple

Chinese organizations which the researcher has networking with. Employees in those organizations were informed the voluntary nature and purpose of the study. They were provided two options for participating: on line and in person. In-person participants were given a paper- and-pencil survey; employees who preferred the online option left their email address with the researcher, and received an email containing the online survey link. Appendix B includes a copy of the survey that was administered to participants. A total of 478 employees chose to participate in the survey.

Demographic characteristics. The majority of participants (84.93%) chose to participate in the paper-and-pencil survey; 52.9% were female and 47.1% were male; the mean age was

32.93 (SD = 8.46); 27.0% of respondents had a junior college degree, 25.3% a 4-year college degree, and 22.8% senior high school degree. 67.9% of participants were married and 29.3% were single.

Work background characteristics. On average, respondents have worked for their organization for 6.10 years (SD = 6.40) and in their current position for 5.08 years (SD = 5.79).

The organizational size had a median of 200 and mode of 500 with the range from 2 to 300,000.

48.3% of participants earned 1,000-1,999 yuan per month and 21.3% earned 2,000-2,999 yuan

per month. 97.5% of respondents worked full-time and 77.2% were permanent employees.

35.8% of respondents worked for manufacturing and 16.1% worked for finance, insurance, real estate, business, and repair services. 23.6% of respondents were technical, sales, and administrative support, 20.7% were operative, fabricators, and laborers. 17.6% of respondents worked as operatives (except transport), 17.4% as clerical and kindred workers, 16.3% as managers and administrators, and 9.8% as sales workers.

Measures

All measures were coded such that higher scores reflected higher levels of each construct.

Unless otherwise noted, measures used a 7-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). Items of the CPP scale were selected based on the results of Study 1.

Experienced meaningfulness. Using Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) scale, participants responded to three items indicating the degree to which they experienced their job as one which was generally meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile. A sample item was “The work I do on this job is very meaningful to me.”

Perceived organizational worth. Three items representing perceived organizational worth were selected from previous perceived organizational support measurement (Eisenberger,

Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). A sample item was “My organization values my contributions at work.”

Work, pay, and job security satisfaction. Three scales were used to measure employee work, pay, and job security satisfaction. The first two scales were taken from the Job Descriptive

Index (JDI; Smith et. al., 1969) while the third scale was the 9-item Job Security Satisfaction scale (Probst, 2003), which measured satisfaction with one’s level of job security. Participants responded on a 3-point scale (yes, ?, no) to assess their satisfaction with work, pay, and job

security. Sample items from each of the three attitude scales, respectively, were “rewarding,”

“barely live on income,” and “excellent amount of security.”

Affective commitment. Six items selected from the Affective Commitment subscale of

Allen and Meyer’s (1990) Organizational Commitment scale were used to measure employee affective commitment to the organization. One sample item was “I would be happy to spend the rest of my career in my organization.”

Job involvement. To assess job involvement, eight items from Kanungo’s (1982) job involvement measurement were employed. A sample item was “The most important things that happen to me involve my present job.”

Participation and perceived power. Following Ahituv and Carmi (2007), in order to measure perceived power, respondents were asked to rank the level of influence on decision making each of 12 decision issues (e.g., decision on new product/service; determining and changing prices for products/ services) on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = no influence at all to 5

= very much influence; if not relevant, mark 9). In terms of participation power, respondents ranked their level of participation in the decision making of the same 12 decision issues on a 5- point Likert-type scale (1 = never participate to 5 = always participate; if not relevant, mark 9).

Job security perceptions. The Job Security Index (Probst, 2003) was used to measure employees’ cognitive appraisal of job security. Participants responded on 3-point scales (yes, ?, no) measuring the extent to which 9 adjectives or phrases described their future of their job (e.g.,

“my job is almost guaranteed,” “stable,” and “up in the air”).

In-role job performance and OCBs. To assess employee performance of in-role (IRB) and out-role behaviors that have a specific individual as the target (OCBI), along with those that focus on primarily benefiting the organization (OCBO), I employed 20 items from Williams and

Anderson’s (1991) 21-item measurement. The item 20 was excluded because the loading on its appropriate factor (OCBO) was below the .35 criteria with its original sample (Williams &

Anderson, 1991). Sample items for IRB, OCBI, and OCBO were “Adequately completes assigned duties,” “Helps others who have been absent,” and “Attendance at work is above the norm,” respectively.

Work stress. The Stress in General Scale (Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, & Ironson,

2001) was used to measure employees’ stress level. Participants responded on a 3-point scales

(yes, ?, no) measuring the extent to which 15 words or phrases described their job stress (e.g., demanding, pressured, and calm).

Burnout. Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, and Jackson’s (1996) Relationship With Work

Survey was used to measure job burnout. This measurement included two dimensions of burnout: exhaustion and cynicism. Participants responded to 7 point Likert-type scale (0 = never to 6 = daily) to indicate how often, if ever, they have experienced the feelings. Sample items for exhaustion and cynicism were “I feel emotionally drained from my work” and “I have become less enthusiastic about my work.”

Health complaints. Psychosomatic health of respondents was measured using Hanisch’s

(1992) Health Conditions Index which tallied the total number of 13 health conditions (e.g., severe headaches, high blood pressure) experienced by respondents. Employees responded yes or no to these 13 health conditions. Higher numbers reflected more health-related problems ranging from 0 to 13. Because this was a summed index of distinct physical health conditions, it was not appropriate to compute a Cronbach’s alpha.

Work overload. Seven items developed by Dekker and Barling (1995) was used to measure work overload. One sample item was “I often have to arrive early or stay later to get my work done.”

Data Analysis

Calculating the final score of CPP. In order to compare the explanatory power of the two different approaches to calculating the final score of a position, various Pearson product- moment correlations were performed. As aforementioned, the score of employee position was calculated using both multiplicative and additive approaches. For each outcome, the correlation coefficients of the multiplicative and additive CPP were compared. The one with higher correlation coefficients on the majority of outcomes was retained.

Structural equation modeling (SEM). To test the model shown in Figure 1, the two- step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was employed. The use of latent variables first requires assessment of the measurement model prior to testing structural linkages.

The purpose of the first step is to empirically discriminate the theoretical constructs of the proposed general model and to validate the operational measures of those constructs. Following the test of the measurement model, the structural equation model specifies the causal relationships among the latent variables.

The measurement and causal models were tested using Mplus 6.0 (Muthen & Muthen,

2010). Because SEM can only provide information regarding the goodness-of-fit or lack-of-fit of a hypothesized model and cannot determine if that model is the “correct” one, it is necessary to propose plausible alternative models against the proposed model. Therefore, in order to evaluate the proposed model (Figure 1), three alternative models were developed and compared to the hypothesized model in terms of aforementioned , CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA values.

Alternative Model I. Alternative Model I allowed for both direct effects and the hypothesized mediating effects (see Figure 2). In other words, this alternative model freed the direct paths between independent and dependent variables, as well as the mediating paths. As such, the structural and alternative nested models were compared to assess whether this alterative model explained significantly more variance relative to the lost degrees of freedom.

Experienced Work Satisfaction Meaningfulness Pay Satisfaction Job Security Satisfaction Affective Commitment Job Involvement Core vs. Power Peripheral Job Security Perception Position In-role Performance OCBs Perceived Stress Burnout Organization Health Complaints Worth Work Overload

Figure 2. Alternative Model I allowing direct and mediating effects.

Alternative Model II. The second alternative model was designed to answer the question of whether experienced meaningfulness might mediate the relationship between the core/peripheral positions and perceived organizational worth, which, in turn, was associated with outcomes (see Figure 3). As previously discussed, the definition of experienced meaningfulness is “the degree to which an employee feels the job has value and importance” (Humphrey et al.,

2007, p. 1334) and the definition of perceived organizational worth is the degree to which employees feel that their contributions are valued by the organization. The rationale underlying this plausible alternative hypothesis is that the tasks and activities of core positions themselves provide employees with the immediate feedback that what they are doing are meaningful and worthwhile. When comparing routine and non-routine technologies, Perrow (1967, 1970) argued that, contrary to non-routine technologies, routine technologies are associated with defined and limited tasks, decreased variety in the job, and less employee participation in decision making.

As such, tasks performed by employees in core positions might be characterized by higher autonomy and creativity, greater job control latitude, and more empowerment (Zell, 2003).

Deriving such feedback from the position itself, employees might perceive that their contributions are valuable to the organization, which, in turn, links to job-related outcomes.

Experienced Work Satisfaction Meaningfulness Pay Satisfaction Job Security Satisfaction Affective Commitment Core vs. Job Involvement Peripheral Power Position Job Security Perception In-role Performance OCBs Stress Perceived Burnout Organization Health Complaints Work Overload Worth

Figure 3. Alternative Model II with experienced meaningfulness linking employee position and perceived organizational worth.

Alternative Model III. The final alternative model examined whether perceived organizational worth might mediate the relationship between core/peripheral positions and experienced meaningfulness, which, in turn, was associated with job-related outcomes (see

Figure 4). People look for knowledge about themselves from outside. Individuals’ personal goals tend to focus their attention to “selectively seek, notice, and interpret information about themselves” (Brown, 1998). In the context of an organization, employees seek to see themselves in a positive light from the socially important and salient organizational position. As such, the information that their contributions to the organization are valued by the organization, to which they belong, and, in which they have invested huge amounts of time and energies, provides employees with signals that they are important, valuable, and meaningful. It is this outside information that makes employees feel good about themselves, which, in turn, leads to positive outcomes. Along this line of reasoning, I tested the model where perceived organizational worth links the core/peripheral positions on the one hand and experienced meaningfulness on the other.

Because there is no single definitive test of significance when evaluating the overall fit of a model (Hu & Bentler, 1999), I used recommended goodness-of-fit indices: CFI, RMSEA, and

SRMR to assess the adequacy of the structural models. To further investigate the relationships between the latent variables, I also examined factor loadings and squared multiple correlations.

Figure 4. Alternative model III with perceived organizational worth linking employee position and experienced meaningfulness.

STUDY 2 RESULTS

Table 10 presents the scale means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and reliability

for each of the variables examined in this study. Table 11 contains the zero-order product-

moment correlations among the variables.

Table 10 Descriptive Statistics of Variables Standard Variable #items Mean Skewness Kurtosis α Deviation Criticality 3 4.35 1.18 -.229 .031 .70 Non-substitutability 3 4.16 1.12 .251 -.172 .58 Pervasiveness 3 4.90 1.09 -.535 .346 .69 Immediacy 3 4.41 1.29 -.217 -.241 .70 CPP (+) 12 53.28 9.39 .261 .693 .76 CPP (*) 12 4729.58 2758.50 1.915 5.718 .76 Experienced Meaningfulness 3 4.69 1.10 -.276 .382 .64 Perceived Organizational Worth 3 4.36 1.31 -.437 -.020 Work Satisfaction 6 1.55 .98 .069 -1.228 .83 Pay Satisfaction 6 .89 .80 .785 -.192 .75 Job Security Satisfaction 9 1.31 .81 .248 -.836 .77 Affective Commitment 6 4.10 1.10 .117 .118 .75 Job Involvement 8 4.27 1.19 -.079 -.104 .88 Participation and Perceived Power 24 1.98 .87 .721 .164 .96 Job Security Perception 9 1.72 .90 .034 -1.291 .88 In-role job performance 7 5.09 .81 -.099 -.121 .74 OCBs 14 5.13 .73 -.340 -.205 .84 Work Stress 15 1.25 .78 .297 -.714 .87 Burnout 10 1.79 1.20 .552 -.190 .90 Health Complaints 13 2.19 1.29 1.126 .883 .74 Work Overload 7 3.71 1.04 .018 -.175 .77 Note. CPP (+) = Core vs. Peripheral Position (additive approach); CPP (*) = Core vs. Peripheral Position (multiplicative approach); OCBs = Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; α=Cronbach’s alpha as a coefficient of internal consistency.

The final scale of CPP

Both multiplicative and additive approaches were used to calculate the final scale of CPP.

The zero-order correlations revealed that the multiplicative CPP and additive CPP were highly

correlated (r =.92, p <.001). A comparison of correlation coefficients for relationships between

the multiplicative CPP and additive CPP with 15 variables examined in this study found that eight out of 11 significant coefficients for the relationships between the additive CPP and outcomes were higher than those for the relationships between the multiplicative CPP and outcomes (see Table 11). As such, the additive approach was retained.

Measurement invariance

I tested measurement invariance of CPP scale with respect to culture within a multiple- group CFA framework by fitting the same model for the American sample and the Chinese sample simultaneously and imposing increasingly restrictive cross-group equality constraints on its parameters. I began with a baseline model with no equality constraints (configural invariance) and then conducted a test of invariant factor loadings (metric invariance). Invariance was assumed to hold if the constrained models fit the data well and if there was minimal difference in their fit from that of the baseline model (Widaman & Reise, 1997). Because of the excessive

Type I error rates associated with the chi-square difference test in large samples, I evaluated the relative fit of constrained models instead using change in CFI (ΔCFI), with differences of .01 or less indicating equivalent fit and differences between .01 and .02 warning the researcher to suspect that differences might exist (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).

Two CFAs were first conducted for the American sample [χ2 (48) = 144.64, SRMR =

.042, RMSEA = .058, CFI = .965], and the Chinese sample [χ2 (48) = 152.30, SRMR = .052,

RMSEA = .070, CFI = .914], separately (Table 12). The first model provided an excellent fit to the American data while the second model provided an acceptable fit to the Chinese data. Next, I tested for measurement invariance (see Table 12). The configural invariance model, χ2 (96) =

212.48, demonstrated excellent fit to the data (SRMR = .047, RMSEA = .048, CFI = .955), indicating that the item composition of the CPP scale was equivalent for the American and

Table 11 Zero-order Product-moment Correlations among Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1.CPP (+) 2.CPP (*) .92** 3. C .76** .74** 4. N .43** .59** .10 5. P .74** .58** .49** .06 6. I .76** .58** .49** .06 .49** 7.EM .29** .28** .29** .18** .27** .09 8.POW .18** .17** .25** -.03 .22** .05 .43** 9.WORK .17** .17** .20** .13* .13* .02 .39** .41** 10.PAY .05 .08 .10 .07 .07 -.05 .28** .38** .42** 11.JSS .13* .12 .16** .05 .13* -.01 .42** .48** .40** .40** 12.COMT .14* .13* .17** .02 .18** .02 .48** .47** .43** .35** .52** 13.INVO .21** .18** .31** -.02 .21** .10 .41** .39** .34** .23** .39** .56** 14.POWER .23** .23** .23** .03 .12 .12 .09 .23** .09 .27** .17* .10 .13* 15.JSI .11 .11* .17* .04 .11 .04 .29** .41** .36** .34** .46** .44** .27** .20** 16.IRB .25** .23** .10* .19** .33** .07 .32** .11* .12* .06 .19** .25** .14* -.11 .08 17.OCBs .23** .21** .15** .08 .33** .10 .42** .22** .20* .10 .28** .38** .24** -.04 .16** .62** 18.STRESS .03 -.01 -.01 -.09 .04 .14* -.30** -.32** -.14* -.23** -.44** -.24** -.20** .17* -.20** -.12* -.16** 19.BURN -.01 -.06 -.02 -.10 -.05 .12* -.45** -.37** -.26** -.28** -.46** -.49** -.23** -.00 -.34** -.22** -.27** .58** 20.HCOMP .07 .05 .03 .01 .07 .06 -.19** -.26** -.18** -.21** -.33** -.26** -.13* -.01 -.17** -.07 -.17** .35** .35** 21.OVER .17** .11* .19** -.04 .16** .19** .03 .02 .02 .01 -.23** .00 .18** .26** .03 -.02 .00 .31** .22** .23** Note. CPP (+) = Core vs. Peripheral Position (additive approach); CPP (*) = Core vs. Peripheral Position (multiplicative approach); C= Criticality; N= Non- substitutability; P= Pervasiveness; I=Immediacy; EM=Experienced Meaningfulness; POW= Perceived Organizational Worth; WORK=Work Satisfaction;

78 PAY= Pay Satisfaction; JSS=Job Security Satisfaction; COMT=Affective Commitment; INVO= Job Involvement; POWER=Participation and Perceived

Power; JSI= Job Security Perception; IRB=In-role Job Behaviors; OCBs=Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; STRESS=Work Stress; BURN=Burnout; HCOMP=Health Complaints; OVER= Work Overload.

* >. are significant at p <.05. ** >. are significant at p <.01.

Chinese samples. The metric invariance model, χ2 (104) = 336.57, demonstrated good fit to the data (SRMR = .057, RMSEA = .065, CFI = .941), indicating that the items of CPP scale seemed not to function differently for the American and Chinese samples (ΔCFI = .014). The results suggested that the CPP scale might have configural and metric invariance across the American and Chinese samples.

Table 12 Invariance Tests for the Core versus Peripheral Four-Factor Model

Model Model and invariance level df χ2 CFI SRMR RMSEA ΔCFI Comparison 1. 4-factor model with 48 144.64 .965 .042 .058 American sample (N =609) 2. 4-factor model with 48 152.30 .914 .052 .070 Chinese sample (N =478) 3. Configural 96 212.48 .955 .047 .048 4. Metric 104 336.57 .941 .057 .065 4 vs. 3 .014 Note. CFI= robust comparative fit index; SRMR= robust standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA= robust root-mean-square error of approximation; Δ =difference between the comparison and nested model.

Structural equation modeling (SEM)

In this current study, there were nineteen unique constructs being postulated: criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, immediacy, experienced meaningfulness, perceived organizational worth, work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, power, job security perception, in-role job performance, OCBs, work stress, burnout, health complaints, and work overload. Before proceeded with the tests of the structural models, the goodness-of-fit indices were examined to determine if the measurement model adequately empirically discriminated the theoretical constructs of interest.

Table 13 contains the goodness-of-fit statistics obtained from analyses of the parallel indicators. As was evident from the indices, the measurement model provided a rather

satisfactory fit to the data [χ2 (1368) = 2131.34, SRMR = .051, RMSEA = .034, CFI = .932]. The

SRMR and RMSEA were excellent and CFI indicated an acceptable fit.

Table 13 Measurement and Structural Equation Model Tests p-value Model df χ2 CFI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR of χ2 Measurement Model 1368 2131.34 .0000 .932 .034 (.032-.037) .051 Second-order Measurement 1415 2258.96 .0000 .925 .036 (.033-.038) .058 Model Proposed model 1429 2368.64 .0000 .916 .037 (.035-.040) .072 Alternative Model I 1416 2315.11 .0000 .920 .037 (.034-.039) .064 Alternative Model II 1442 2446.09 .0000 .910 .038 (.036-.041) .071 Alternative Model III 1442 2380.61 .0000 .916 .037 (.035-.040) .067 Note. CFI= robust comparative fit index; SRMR= robust standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA= robust root-mean-square error of approximation.

Because criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy were proposed to assess core vs. peripheral positions, I conducted a second-order factor analysis revealing a good fit model [χ2 (1415) = 2258.96, SRMR = .058, RMSEA = .036, CFI = .925]. The SRMR and

RMSEA were excellent and CFI indicated an acceptable fit. A comparison of the measurement model with this second-order factor analysis revealed that a change of SRMR was .007, a change of RMSEA was .002, and a change of CFI was .007, which were very small. The factor loadings obtained from the second-order factor model are provided in Table 14. Except for the .25 loading of non-substitutability on the higher-order CPP (p < .001), all other factor loadings were large (≥

.38) and statistically significant beyond the .001 level.

In the following SEM analyses I kept the second-order factor model where criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy were regressed on a higher-order factor, core versus peripheral position. The second-order factor model is preferred for several reasons. One reason pertains to the bandwidth-fidelity tradeoff, or the idea that broader constructs are better predictors of outcomes that span multiple domains (Jenkins & Griffith, 2004). In this case,

Table 14 Standardized Factor Loadings for the Second-Order Measurement Model Construct Indicators 1 2 3 4 Core vs. Peripheral Position .80 .25 .95 .72 Criticality .62 .77 .60 --- Non-substitutability .38 .60 .71 --- Pervasiveness .69 .62 .69 --- Immediacy .80 .77 .47 --- Experienced Meaningfulness .71 .44 .68 --- Perceived Organizational Worth .76 .84 .75 --- Work Satisfaction .78 .84 .77 --- Pay Satisfaction .74 .68 .76 --- Job Security Satisfaction .85 .81 .79 --- Affective Commitment .76 .68 .81 --- Job Involvement .88 .87 .75 --- Power .97 .97 .96 --- Job Security Perception .87 .87 .85 --- In-role Job Performance .79 .65 .77 --- Organizational Citizenship Behaviors .86 .79 .85 --- Work Stress .81 .79 .85 --- Burnout .90 .88 .90 --- Health Complaints .80 .67 .71 --- Work Overload .81 .65 .79 --- Note. Experienced meaningfulness, perceived organizational worth, work, pay, job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, power, job insecurity perception, in- role job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, work stress, burnout, health complaints, and work overload used parceled indicators.

because the goal is to predict broadly defined core versus peripheral position higher-order multidimensional construct is more valuable. The other reason is to overcome the jangle fallacy, which occurs when a single phenomenon is examined separately under the guise of two or more variables with different labels (Kelley, 1927). If multiple variables are indicators of an underlying unitary construct, it is more parsimonious to examine the source construct rather than the individual indicators. A final reason for the usage of the second-order factor model is that the underlying theory in this dissertation indicated a multidimensional construct (Johnson, Rosen,

Chang, Djurdjevic, & Taing, 2012).

Proposed Model. The goodness-of-fit indices for the proposed structural equation model are presented in Table 13. In general, the fit of this model to the data was good [χ2 (1429) =

2368.64, SRMR = .072, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .916]. The SRMR and RMSEA were excellent and CFI indicated an acceptable fit.

Hypotheses 1-13 proposed that being in a core position is positively related to work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, participation and perceived power, job security perception, in-role job performance, OCBs, stress, burnout, health complaints, and work overload, and these relationships were fully mediated by both experienced meaningfulness and perceived organizational worth. As predicted, experienced meaningfulness (path coefficient = .46, p < .001) and perceived organizational worth (path coefficient = .31, p < .001) were positively related to being in a core position.

Three out of 13 path coefficients from experienced meaningfulness to outcomes were not significant (see Figure 5). That is, power, health complaints, and work overload were not significantly related to experienced meaningfulness. As predicted, work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, job security perception, in-role job performance, OCBs were positively related to experienced meaningfulness while stress and burnout were negatively related to experienced meaningfulness.

Similarly, three out of 13 path coefficients from perceived organizational worth to outcomes were not significant (see Figure 5). That is, in-role job performance, OCBs, and work overload were not significantly related to perceived organizational worth. As predicted, work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, participation and perceived power, and job security perception were positively related to

experienced meaningfulness while stress, burnout, and health complaints were negatively related to perceived organizational worth.

CPP Work .46(.06) ** .31(.06) ** .42(.07) ** Pay .29(.06)**

.19(.08)* JSS .38(.07)**

.40(.07)** .36(.06) ** Comt .42(.06) ** .47(.06)** Invo .34(.06) ** .43(.06)** Power -.05(.08) .24(.07) ** POW .21(.07) ** .36(.06) ** EM JSI .51(.06) ** -.07(.06) .56(.06) ** IRB .01(.06) -.21 (.08)** OCBs -.24(.07)** -.39(.06)** Stress -.26(.06) ** -.07(.08) Burn -.24(.07)** .08(.07) Hcomp .05(.07) Over

Figure 5. Structural model of Proposed Model.

Note. Non-significant lines are dashed. *p <.05, **p <.01. CPP = Core vs. Peripheral Position; EM=Experienced Meaningfulness; POW= Perceived Organizational Worth; Work=Work Satisfaction; Pay= Pay Satisfaction; JSS=Job Security Satisfaction; Comt=Affective Commitment; Invo= Job Involvement; Power=Participation and Perceived Power; JSI= Job Security Perception; IRB=In-role Job Behaviors; OCBs=Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; Stress=Work Stress; Burn=Burnout; Hcomp=Health Complaints; Over= Work Overload.

Alternative Model I. Alternative Model I tested a model allowing for both direct effects and indirect effects. A graphical representation of Alternative Model I along with its path

coefficients is presented in Figure 6. Goodness-of-fit results for this model [χ2 (1416) = 2315.11,

SRMR = .064, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .920] are presented in Table 13. The SRMR and RMSEA were excellent and CFI indicated an acceptable fit. Compared to the proposed model, changes of

SRMR and CFI were .008 and .004, respectively, indicating a slightly better fit than the proposed model. As a nested model, it was possible to conduct a sequential χ2 differential test in order to statistically evaluate the difference (if any) in the fit of the two models. The sequential χ2

2 differential test was significant, χ seq (13) = 53.53, p < .001.

Path coefficients for Alternative Model I were presented in Figure 6. Four out of the 13 direct relationships between being in a core position and outcomes were not significant.

Specifically, work satisfaction, job involvement, participation and perceived power, and job security perception were not significantly related to being in a core position. Moreover, the relationships between being in a core position and pay satisfaction, job security satisfaction, affective commitment, stress, burnout, and health complaints were in the opposite directions.

That is, pay satisfaction, job security satisfaction, and affective commitment were negatively related to being in a core job position while stress, burnout, and health complaints were positively related to being in a core position. In addition, as predicted, in-role job performance,

OCBs, and work overload were positively related to being in a core job position. The direct relationships between being in a core position and experienced meaningfulness (path coefficient

=.48, p <.001) and perceived organizational worth (path coefficient =.34, p <.001) were also significant.

In terms of the 13 path coefficients from perceived organizational worth to outcomes, three of them were not significant. That is, in-role job performance, OCBs, and work overload were not significantly related to perceived organizational worth. Moreover, work satisfaction,

pay satisfaction, job security satisfaction, job involvement, participation and perceived power, and job security perception were positively associated with perceived organizational worth. In addition, stress, burnout, and health complaints were negatively related to perceived organizational worth.

CPP .48(.06)** .34(.09)**

-.09(.08) .30(.08)** -.11(.08) -.22(.07)** -.28(.08)** .34(.08)** .07(.09) .18(.08)* .33(.07)** -.19(.08)* -.04(.07) .14(.07)* .27(.08)**

IR Work Pay JSS Comt Invo Power JSI OCB Stress Burn HC Over B .23(.07)** .30(.07)**.41(.07)**.41(.07)** .34(.06)** .38(.06)** -.01(.06) -.30(.07)** -.29 (.07)** .46(.06)** -.10(.07) -.01(.07) -.31(.06)** .29(.09)** .41(.08)** .48(.08)** .56(.09)** .56(.07)** .26(.08)** .48(.07)** .46(.07)** -.10(.09) -.39(.09)**

-.57(.07)**

-.22(.08)*

EM -.09(.08)

POW

Figure 6. Structural model of Alternative Model I. Note. Non-significant lines are dashed. *p <.05, **p <.01. CPP = Core vs. Peripheral Position; EM=Experienced Meaningfulness; POW= Perceived Organizational Worth; Work=Work Satisfaction; Pay= Pay Satisfaction; JSS=Job Security Satisfaction; Comt=Affective Commitment; Invo= Job Involvement; Power=Participation and Perceived Power; JSI= Job Security Perception; IRB=In-role Job Behaviors; OCB=Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; Stress=Work Stress; Burn=Burnout; HC=Health Complaints; Over= Work Overload.

Two out of 13 path coefficients from experienced meaningfulness were not significant.

That is, participation and perceived power as well as work overload were not significantly related to experienced meaningfulness. Moreover, work satisfaction, pay satisfaction, job

security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, job security perception, in-job performance, and OCBs were positively associated with experienced meaningfulness. In addition, stress, burnout, and health complaints were negatively related to experienced meaningfulness.

Alternative Model II. Path coefficients for the Alternative Model II were presented in

Figure 7. Alternative Model II constrained the paths from experienced meaningfulness to outcomes, as well as the paths from CPP to perceived organizational worth and outcomes. Thus,

Alternative Model II allowed for a test of a model where the relationships between CPP and outcomes were mediated by experienced meaningfulness and the relationships between experienced meaningfulness and outcomes were mediated by perceived organizational worth.

Goodness-of-fit indices for this model [χ2 (1442) = 2446.09, SRMR = .071, RMSEA = .038, CFI

= .910] are presented in Table 13. Examination of the path coefficients in Figure 7 revealed that one of the 15 paths was not significant. Specifically, work overload was not significantly related to perceived organizational worth. Three path coefficients were small (|path coefficient| < .30, p

< .001), including the paths from power, in-role job performance, and health complaints. The remaining 10 paths were substantial, significant, and in the anticipated direction.

Alternative Model III. Path coefficients for Alternative Model III were presented in

Figure 8. Alternative Model III constrained the direct paths from perceived organizational worth and outcomes, as well as the paths from CPP to experienced meaningfulness and outcomes.

Thus, Alternative Model III allowed for a test of a model where the relationships between CPP and outcomes were mediated by perceived organizational worth and the relationships between perceived organizational worth and outcomes were mediated by experienced meaningfulness.

Work .49(.05) Pay .47(.05) JSS .56(.05) Comt CPP .64(.04)

.43(06) .54(.04) Invo .20(.07) Power .66(.05) EM POW .46(.05) JSI .20(.06) IRB .30(.06)

-.36(.06) OCBs

-.46(.05) Stress

-.29(.06) Burnout .07(.06) Hcomp

Over

Figure 7. Structural model of Alternative Model II. Note. Non-significant lines are dashed. Other lines are all significant at p <.01. CPP = Core vs. Peripheral Position; EM=Experienced Meaningfulness; POW= Perceived Organizational Worth; Work=Work Satisfaction; Pay= Pay Satisfaction; JSS=Job Security Satisfaction; Comt=Affective Commitment; Invo= Job Involvement; Power=Participation and Perceived Power; JSI= Job Security Perception; IRB=In-role Job Behaviors; OCBs=Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; Stress=Work Stress; Hcomp=Health Complaints; Over = Work Overload.

Goodness-of-fit indices for this model [χ2 (1442) = 2380.61, SRMR = .067, RMSEA = .037, CFI

= .916] were presented in Table 13. Examination of the path coefficients in Figure 8 revealed that two of the 15 paths were not significant. Specifically, work overload as well as participation

Work .61(.05) Pay .49(.06)

.67(.05) JSS CPP .76(.04) Comt

.65(.04) Invo .32(.06) .13(.07) Power

.68(.04) .49(.06) POW EM JSI .42(.06) IRB .52(.05) OCBs -.40(.06)

-.58(.05) Stress

-.27(.07) Burnout

-.08(.06) Hcomp

Over

Figure 8. Structural model of Alternative Model III. Note. Non-significant lines are dashed. Other lines are all significant at p <.01. CPP = Core vs. Peripheral Position; EM=Experienced Meaningfulness; POW= Perceived Organizational Worth; Work=Work Satisfaction; Pay= Pay Satisfaction; JSS=Job Security Satisfaction; Comt=Affective Commitment; Invo= Job Involvement; Power=Participation and Perceived Power; JSI= Job Security Perception; IRB=In-role Job Behaviors; OCBs=Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; Stress=Work Stress; Hcomp=Health Complaints; Over= Work Overload.

and perceived power were not significantly related to experienced meaningfulness. The relationship between health complaints and experienced meaningfulness was small (path coefficient =.27, p<.001) and the remaining 12 path coefficients were substantial (|path coefficient | ≥ .32) and significant beyond the .001 level as well as in the predicted direction.

In sum, the global goodness-of-fit indices indicated that all four models were good fit to the data. Although the goodness-of-fit indices of Alternative Model I seemed a little better than the proposed model (ΔCFI=.004, ΔRMSEA=0, ΔSRMR=-.008), Alternative Model I was not as parsimonious as the proposed model. As such, Alternative Model I was rejected. A comparison between Alternative Model II and Alternative Model III revealed that the goodness-of-fit indices of Alternative Model III were slightly better than Alternative Model II (Δ χ2 =-65.48,

ΔCFI=.006, ΔRMSEA=-.001, ΔSRMR=-.004). Moreover, eleven out of 15 path coefficients of

Alternative Model III were larger than those of Alternative Model II. Therefore, Alternative

Model II was rejected. Finally, there was virtually no difference in goodness-of-fit indices between Alternative Model III [χ2 (1442) = 2380.61, SRMR = .067, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .916] and the proposed model [χ2 (1429) = 2368.64, SRMR = .072, RMSEA = .037, CFI = .916].

Compared to the proposed model, Alternative Model III was a more parsimonious model because it constrained the direct paths from perceived organizational worth to outcomes and the direct path from CPP and experienced meaningfulness. As such, Alternative Model III was retained as the final model.

DISCUSSION

The aims of this dissertation were to: 1) develop a comprehensive definition of and an initial measurement tool for assessing core versus peripheral position within an organization; 2) test a model delineating the benefits associated with being in a core position; and 3) explore two mechanisms explaining why being in a core position is associated with those outcomes. Based on resources dependence theory, strategic contingencies theory, and organizational power theory, core positions are defined as those possessing non-replaceable and critical resources with which organization achieves its goals and missions, but without which many other organizational activities will stop immediately. In other words, being in a core position indicates a high level of criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy.

Under the framework of Conservation of Resource theory, Environmental Vitamins model, Job Demands-resources Model, and Role Episode model, being in a core position was proposed to be positively related to work, pay, and security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, participation and perceived power, job security perception, in-role job performance, OCBs, and work overload, but negatively related to work stress, burnout, and physical health complaints. In addition, experienced meaningfulness and perceived organizational worth were expected to mediate the impact of being in a core position on those outcomes.

Study 1 was designed to validate the measurement of core versus peripheral position while Study 2 was designed to test an integrated model where job position was related to experienced meaningfulness and perceived organizational worth, which, in turn, were associated with multiple outcomes. Overall, the findings from the two studies largely supported the proposed model and are outlined below. Below, I separately discuss the results from Study 1 and

Study 2. Following this, a brief synopsis of the theoretical and practical implications of these studies is provided. Finally, limitations of the current studies and directions for future research are outlined.

Study 1 Findings

The data collected in Study 1 largely supported a four-factor core position model comprised of criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy. The final scale consisted of 12 items. As predicted, these four factors were distinctive from each other.

Moreover, criticality was positively related to pervasiveness as well as immediacy, and pervasiveness was positively related to immediacy. However, non-substitutability was not significantly associated with criticality but negatively associated with pervasiveness and immediacy. It was possible that such unexpected findings might be derived from the unique samples I tested. It was also possible that because the items assessing non-substitutability were negatively worded, this might have resulted in the negative or null correlations between non- substitutability with pervasiveness, immediacy, and criticality. Therefore, replication of this study from other samples is highly desirable. Moreover, it might be worthwhile to write non- substitutability items that are worded in the same direction as the other sub-scale items (i.e., positively framed).

Results from the whole sample of Study 1 found high reliability coefficients for the CPP scale composed of four factors with three items each. Overall, the four components of the CPP scale showed discriminant validity from KSAs, occupational attributional style, narcissistic personality tendency, promotion satisfaction, coworker satisfaction, and supervisor satisfaction.

Although employee KSAs were significantly related to the CPP scale, its relationships with non-

substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy were somewhat weak, providing support for my argument that core positions are not equivalent to core employees.

Convergent validity evidence for the CPP scale was partially found. That is, job status, which was measured by the number of subordinates the individual has, was not significantly associated with immediacy, and weakly related to criticality, non-substitutability, and pervasiveness. The reason for choosing the number of subordinates to assess job status was that the participants in this study were from diverse organizations, industries, and occupations. In the future, a better method (such as the hierarchical position of a job within an organizational chart) for assessing job status should be employed. Although task significance was significantly related to four components of the CPP scale, it was only weakly related to non-substitutability. This might be due to the faulty measurement of non-substitutability.

In terms of incremental predictive validity of the CPP scale, it was found that pervasiveness and immediacy (but not criticality or non-substitutability) explained additional variance in pay satisfaction above and beyond job status and task significance. Moreover, non- substitutability (but not criticality, pervasiveness, or immediacy) explained additional variance in work satisfaction after controlling for job status and task significance. In addition, four components of the CPP scale explained variance in affective commitment above and beyond job status and task significance. Surprisingly, criticality was not significantly related to pay and work satisfaction. Given the definition of criticality (i.e., a position fulfilling tasks that are critical to the survival and goal attainment of the organization) and the significant correlations between criticality and pay and work satisfaction, the reason for the non-significant findings might be due to the overlapping between criticality with task significance. The significant correlations between immediacy with pay satisfaction and affective commitment were negative. Immediacy was

defined as the speed and severity with which the resource flow of a position affects the final outputs of an organization. It was possible that taking a break from work becomes difficult for those who are high in immediacy and this inability to separate one from work tasks resulted in low pay satisfaction and affective commitment. The other possibility might be that employees whose position is high in immediacy experience higher work overload, which, in turn, result in lower pay satisfaction and affective commitment. However, Study 1 did not measure those variables and therefore was unable to answer those questions.

Study 2 Findings

Data from multiple organizations located in China supported the additive approach to calculating the CPP scale. It indicates that as long as a position scores high on at least one of the four components, this position is perceived to be core. The position with either critical or non- substitutable resources or with immediate connections with many other positions or organizational activities might have power over the organization because of the organizational dependence. Therefore, it is not necessary to score high on all aspects in order to be in a core position. Moreover, the measurement invariance tests indicated that it was plausible that the CPP scale held configural and metric invariance across the American and Chinese samples. Last, the examination of the measurement model supported a higher order model.

Nested tests of the proposed model and three alternative models provided the most solid and meaningful support for Alternative Model III, in which being in a core position was positively associated with perceived organizational worth, which, in turn, was positively related to experienced meaningfulness, which, in turn, was associated with various outcomes, including work, pay, and job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, job security

perception, in-role job performance, OCBs, work stress, burnout, health complaints, but not power and work overload.

Being in a Core PositionPerceived Organizational Worth. Perceived organizational worth was defined as employee perceptions of being valued and appreciated by the organization, and measured by three items selected from the perceived organizational support scale

(Eisenberger, et al., 1986). Being in a core position was found to be positively related to perceived organizational worth.

As noted earlier, core positions are critical to the survival and competitive advantage of an organization. As a result, they are more likely to receive the feedback that the organization appreciates their activities, which conveys that the contributions made by their position are valued by the organization. In other words, employees might develop beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions. As a result of this heightened perceived organizational worth, employees are likely to experience positive job-related outcomes. One of the basic human motivations is searching for social worth (Baumeister &

Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When employees feel that their unique job position is valued, they are more likely to be motivated to contribute and reap job-related benefits (e.g., Rhoades &

Eisenberger, 2002).

Perceived Organizational WorthExperienced Meaningfulness. Experienced meaningfulness is defined as an employee perceiving his/her job to be valuable and important.

The best fitting model, which did not estimate a direct link between core position and experienced meaningfulness, indicated that perceived organizational worth linked core position to experienced meaningfulness. In the current study, perceived organizational worth was positively and directly associated with experienced meaningfulness. Although it was not

originally hypothesized in the proposed model, it was found that being valued and appreciated by the organization exerted a direct, significant impact on employee experienced meaningfulness.

Numerous researchers have described deriving meaning from events as a “fundamental human motive” (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001, p. 54). Cooley’s notion of a “looking-glass self”

(1922) suggested that our perceptions of how others see us influences how we see ourselves.

Individuals have a need to be valued by others- particularly in social domains, such as work, where they spend a significant amount of time and energies, and where interacting with the organization and people is a major part of the experience. Meaningfulness tends to be socially constructed among individuals within work groups, departments, and so on, and organizations can influence whether and how employees interpret their work as meaningful (Weick, 1995).

The cues that individuals in the work environment give one another about work and the work they do are powerful (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; White & Mitchell, 1979). When an organization appreciates the contributions made by a job position and does not take employee’s contribution in those positions for granted, it is likely to provide the cues to employees about the importance and purpose of their work. As such, employees might be able to derive meaningfulness from organizational recognition. Pratt and Ashforth (2003) envision meaningfulness at work as that which is “at minimum, purposeful and significant,” and see the construction of meaning at work as a sense-making process in which people answer a broader existential question, “Why am I here?” Therefore, appreciation from the organization (i.e., perceived organizational worth) might help employees answer the question about the purpose of one’s existence, and activate experienced meaningfulness among employees.

Experienced MeaningfulnessOutcomes. Experienced meaningfulness in a job has been found to influence various job and organizational attitudes, as well as motivation and

performance (Roberson, 1990). Indeed, past empirical research has found that experienced meaningfulness was associated with psychological and physical health (e.g., Baumeister, 1991;

Dunn, 1996; Ryff & Singer, 1998a, 1998b; Treadgold, 1999). The findings in my dissertation were consistent with these previous results. Experienced meaningfulness was found to be positively related to work, pay, and job security satisfaction, affective commitment, job involvement, job security perception, in-role job performance, and OCBs, and negatively related to work stress, burnout, and health complaints. Surprisingly, it was not significantly related to power and work overload. The non-significant relationship between power and experienced meaningfulness might indicate that power is not a result of experienced meaningfulness. That is, experienced meaningfulness did not necessarily bring individuals a sense of power. Also, this result might be due to the unique Chinese sample used in this dissertation. The non-significant finding of the relationship between meaningfulness and overload might result from the possibility that the pursuit of the valuable and meaningful work activities is irrelevant to how much time and/or efforts one has devoted to the work. In other words, individuals can perceive what they are doing to be meaningful, regardless of how much time and/or energies they have contributed.

Taken together, my findings suggested the presence of organizational worth and meaningfulness as linking mechanisms explaining how core position translates into job-related outcomes. Although a small number of specific hypotheses and the proposed model were not supported, the model as a whole received substantial support.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

One of the unique contributions of this dissertation was that it took an initial step toward developing and validating a multi-dimensional measure of core versus peripheral position. This

dissertation provided a unified, comprehensive definition of core versus peripheral position and therefore contributed to organizational psychology literature. Previous research on the notion of core versus peripheral entities focused on country, industry, and subunit levels within an organization. However, little attention has been paid to the core versus peripheral nature of one’s job position. In the absence of a consensual definition of core position within the organizational behavior literature, I took a multidisciplinary approach drawing from multiple previous researchers’ conceptualizations of what it means to be core versus peripheral.

Initial psychometrics suggested that the resulting measure exhibited construct validity evidence. Data from the U.S. provided initial evidence of the reliability, and the convergent, discriminant, and incremental predictive validity of the measurement model of the four- dimensional measure, and a complementary sample from several Chinese organizations provided cross-validation evidence. The measurement model suggested that each of the four dimensions contributes to an overall construct of core position and that the dimensions are not construct- equivalent.

Following the development and validation of the core versus peripheral position measurement, I systematically tested an integrated model which included two mediating mechanisms and various outcomes. Systematic consideration of such mediating mechanisms may expand existing knowledge about how and why holding a core position affects one’s job- related outcomes. It was found that perceived organizational worth mediated the relationship between core position and experienced meaningfulness. This finding was crucial because it indicated that perceived organizational worth is necessary for employees to experience meaningfulness from their core position. In other words, organizations need to make a concerted effort to enhance employee beliefs that they are valued and appreciated and what they do is not

taken for granted. Although the literature on positive organizational support acknowledges the role of how organizations treat its employees, it has focused mostly on managerial actions and failed to consider the core vs. peripheral nature of the job position itself (e.g., Eisenberger, et al.,

1986; Zhang, Farh, & Wang, 2012). My findings clearly suggested that being in a core position is an antecedent of positive organizational support where employees might feel valued and appreciated.

The present results about experienced meaningfulness contributed to the growing body of research on positive organizational scholarship (POS). POS is concerned primarily with the study of especially positive outcomes, processes, and attributes of organizations and their members. POS is distinguished from traditional organizational studies in that it seeks to understand positive states, such as resilience or meaningfulness, as well as the dynamics and outcomes associated with those states. Many authors have noted that there is a fundamental human motive to derive meaning in events (Baumeister, 1991; Park & Folkman, 1997), ranging from World War II (Frankl, 1963) to specific stressful events (Britt, et al., 2001). To the best of my knowledge, most research about experienced meaningfulness in one’s job is based on specific occupations. For example, with a sample from U.S. soldiers participating in a peacekeeping mission to Bosnia, Britt et al. (2001) found that personality hardiness was associated with being engaged in meaningful work during the deployment, which was strongly associated with deriving benefits from the deployment months after it was over. A partial mediation model where meaningful work partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being was found based on a sample of health care workers whereas a full mediation model where transformational leadership and psychological well-being was linked by meaningful work was found based on a sample of

funeral directors and dental hygienists (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007). It seems reasonable that positions such as soldier, health care workers, directors, and dental hygienists are meaningful in nature. On the other hand, my research, based on a wide variety of positions and organizations, indicated being in a more core position is perceived to be meaningful as long as those organizations employees work for appreciate their positions. I believed these findings contributed to the literature on meaningfulness and therefore positive organizational scholarship by exploring the sources of experienced meaningfulness and providing organizations with applicable practices to infusing meaningfulness to their employees.

Cumulatively, my findings were important because they showed that core position influences a wide range of job-related outcomes, and it does so through two mediators (perceived organizational worth and experienced meaningfulness). By proposing and supporting these mediating pathways, and incorporating multiple outcomes in the model, this dissertation integrated and extended previous research that has explored only part of the pathways or linked similar concepts to scattered outcomes. The potential disadvantage of being in a core position was not found. In other word, being in a core position was not significantly related to work overload. Employees in a core position might not perceive they have worked over time or devoted more efforts when their efforts were appreciated by the organization and therefore experienced meaningfulness from their position.

In addition to informing theory, the findings presented in this dissertation can have implications for organizations and employees. An organization’s workforce is its most important and valuable resource and as such should be valued. Organizations have employed techniques such as competitive compensation and promises of promotion as external stimuli to motivate employees. The current results suggested that organizational expressions of appreciation might

also increase the meaningfulness of employee job position; moreover, individuals holding core positions within the organization are more likely to perceive that their job is valuable to an organization, and therefore experience more perceived organizational worth. The benefits of this include increased employee work satisfaction and performance as well as decreased work stress and burnout.

From the perspective of employees, this dissertation indicated that before individuals enter the job market, they might pay attention to the nature of the potential job position, either core or peripheral. Occupying a core position has a great chance to be associated with higher work satisfaction, affective commitment, and job involvement, as well as lower work stress and burnout, and fewer health complaints. Therefore, regardless of one’s chosen profession, employees might be advised to work for an organization where their position would be a core one. Using the landscape maintenance worker as an example, the same job might be core in one organization (a landscaping business) and peripheral in another (e.g., working as a gardener at a university). Holding all else constant, my findings suggest that the gardener in a landscaping company might have more positive job-related outcomes than a gardener in a university. After choosing an ideal career path, employees might pay attention to choose an organization which appreciates and values employee efforts, which might serve as a source of experienced meaningfulness.

Limitations and Future Directions

While the results of the dissertation were promising, there were a number of limitations to this study that should be noted and addressed in future research. First, the two studies were both cross-sectional in nature. Although the structural equation modeling approach has the ability to frame and answer increasingly complex research questions (Kelloway, 1998), it only

100

allows testing of the model-data fit, and thus the causal relationships between the variables are only theoretically driven. Greater efforts should be made to conduct longitudinal research and design experiments to address this shortcoming. Such an approach would greatly aid our understanding of being in a core position, particularly in light of the fact that experienced meaningfulness is likely to unfold over time. It would be valuable for understanding how experienced meaningfulness emerges, how it is influenced by perceived organizational worth, and how organizations can accelerate this process. Moreover, it would be interesting to see how individuals select positions which may be more or less core depending on which organization they choose to enter. For example, an accountant working for one of the large accounting firms would potentially hold a more “core” position than an accountant in a manufacturing firm.

Future research might be better able to tease out the effects of holding a core position by comparing individuals with the same job titles, but whose positions may differ in the extent to which they are core in their organization.

The second significant criticism of these studies was that all variables being assessed were self-reported. Therefore, there was the potential for method variance associated with the use of a single-source self-report methodology of data collection (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003). Given the fact that the survey assessed mainly internal perceptions, I felt that a self-report methodology was acceptable. That being said, self-reported in-role performance and

OCBs could still be biased, inflating relationships. Future research should strive to move beyond the realm of single-source self-report data by gathering independent- or multiple-source data on several of the variables of interest. For example, it might be important to examine whether independent supervisor (or upper management) assessments of core vs. peripheral nature of positions comports with employee perceptions of their own position.

101

There were several concerns regarding the generalizability of my findings. The majority of participants in Study 1 were students from two universities. Although respondents were required to be working at least five hours per week, the results based on the student sample may or may not generalize to full-time employees. The sample in Study 2 was from various Chinese organizations. Due to the cultural differences, results from the Chinese sample may or may not generalize to western working samples. That being said, I believed my findings exhibited some degree of generalizability in this area, as working students from two universities and respondents from various churches as well as participants from various Chinese organizations represent a large variety of positions, industries, and occupations.

Although it seemed clear that there was a link between core position and outcomes through perceived organizational worth and experienced meaningfulness, the exact nature of effects of core position on outcomes warranted further study. In particular, it was unclear whether a core position has direct effects on experienced meaningfulness and outcomes or if these effects are mediated through perceived organizational worth.

Moreover, the surprising findings about the negative loading of non-substitutability on the CPP scale, the non-significant relationship between non-substitutability and criticality, and the negative relationships between non-substitutability and pervasiveness and immediacy may indicate that the measure of non-substitutability was faulty. Future research should develop a better validated measure of this aspect of the CPP construct.

My results supported a mediated model in which core position, as a distal predictor, influence job-related outcomes, through the proximal predictors of perceived organizational worth and experienced meaningfulness. I encourage researchers to continue this line of research

102

by exploring other potential mediators of the effects of core position and conducting longitudinal studies to explore the causal relationships implied in this study.

Future research should also consider the role that culture may play. For example, a relevant concept to core versus peripheral position might be power distance. Power distance is defined as the degree to which inequalities among people are viewed as appropriate and acceptable (high-power-distance or “vertical” societies) versus an emphasis on equality and a sense of discomfort with hierarchical distinctions (low-power-distance or “horizontal societies”).

A promising future direction might be to explore the moderating role of power distance in core position and outcomes. Specifically, it might be interesting to examine the hypothesis that compared to those in large power distance cultures, employees in small power distance cultures might tend to have higher levels of and less variability in perceived organizational worth as a result of occupying a core position.

Research has also found that the personality characteristic of hardiness is related to the tendency to find meaning in work (Britt, et al., 2001). Therefore, researchers might explore the moderating role of hardiness in this integrated model. In addition, Park and Folkman (1997) advocated the personal significance of an event as the best indicator of how meaningful an event is to an individual. Thus, personal significance of one’s job might also serve as a moderator in this integrated model.

Conclusion

The purpose of this dissertation was to develop and validate a scale assessing the core versus peripheral position held by employees within an organization. The scale was found to have four distinct dimensions: criticality, non-substitutability, pervasiveness, and immediacy.

Examinations based on samples from both American and Chinese employees provided initial

103

evidence for the reliability and validity of the scale. Although the findings about non- substitutability were inconsistent with my theoretical predictions, the other three dimensions seemed to be empirically reliable and valid. I further explored an integrated model finding that perceived organizational worth and experienced meaningfulness played mediating roles in linking core position and outcomes. The research was a first attempt to provide a comprehensive definition of core versus peripheral position, validate a measure of core position, and examine an integrated model delineating the relationships between core position, perceived organizational worth, experienced meaningfulness, and various outcomes.

104

REFERENCES

Ahituv, N., & Carmi, N. (2007). Measuring the power of information in organizations. Human

Systems Management, 26(4), 231-246.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press of

Glencoe.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance

and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,

63(1), 1-18.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review

and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007).

Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of

meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193-203.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

Baran, P. A. (1957). The political economy of growth. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human

resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37, 31-46.

Bass, B. M. (1965). Organizational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

105

Batinic, B., Selenko, E., Stiglbauer, B., & Paul, K. I. (2010). Are workers in high-status jobs

healthier than others? Assessing Jahoda's latent benefits of employment in two working

populations. Work & Stress, 24(1), 73-87.

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the Self: Alcoholism, Spirituality, Masochism, and Other

Flights from the Burden of Selfhood. New York: Basic Books.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497-

529. doi: citeulike-article-id:2234246

Behson, S. J., Eddy, E. R., & Lorenzet, S. J. (2000). The importance of the critical psychological

states in the job characterstics model: A meta-analytic and structural equations modeling

examination. Current research in social psychology, 5(12), 170-189.

Borg, V., & Kristensen, T. S. (2000). Social class and self-rated health: Can the gradient be

explained by differences in life style or work environment? Social Science & Medicine,

51(7), 1019-1030.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements

of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in

organizations (pp. 71–98). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and

performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(3), 331-348.

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an

organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518-539.

Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of

structure and behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470.

106

Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: the

role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 6(1), 53-63.

Brown, A., Kitchell, M., O'Neill, T., Lockliear, J., Vosler, J., Kubek, D., & Dale, L. (2001).

Identifying meaning and perceived level of satisfaction within the context of work. Work:

A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 16(3), 219-226.

Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement.

Psychological Bulletin., 120(2), 235-255.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford

Press.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J.

Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree tests for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 1, 245-276.

Chen, C., & Chiu, S. (2009). The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between

job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 149(4), 474-494.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

107

Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. R. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the relationship

between stress and disorder: Advances in the investigation of psychological stress. In R.

W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the investigation of psychological stress, Wiley series

on health psychology/behavioral medicine (Vol. x, pp. 235-283). Oxford, England: John

Wiley & Sons.

Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The distribution of

power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. American Journal of

Sociology, 89(2), 275-305.

Cooley, C. H. (1922). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construc validity in psychological tests. Psychological

bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2), 85-

113. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.83.2.85

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:

University of Rochester Press.

Dekker, I., & Barling, J. (1995). Workforce size and work-related role stress. Work& Stress,

9(1), 45-54.

Dubin, R. (1963). Power, function, and organization. The Pacific Sociological Review, 6(1), 16-

24.

Dunn, J. D. G. (1996). The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: a commentary on the

Greek text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.

108

Elloy, D. F., Everett, J. E., & Flynn, W. R. (1991). An examination of the correlates of job

involvement. Group & Organization Management, 16(2), 160-177. doi:

10.1177/105960119101600204

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31-

41.

Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52(1), 11-17.

Fang, R., & Shaw, J. D. (2009). Self-monitoring, status, and justice-related information flow.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 405-430. doi:

10.1348/096317908x311705

Feldman, D. C. (1996). The nature, antecedents and consequences of underemployment. Journal

of Management, 22(3), 385-407. doi: 10.1177/014920639602200302

Felson, R. B. (1992). Coming to see ourselves: Social sources of self-appraisals. In E. J. Lawler,

B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol.

9, pp. 185-205). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Fletcher, B. C., & Jones, F. (1993). A refutation of Karasek's demand-discretion model of

occupational stress with a range of dependent measures. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 14(4), 319-330.

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor ananlysis

in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291-

314.

Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy. New York:

Washington Square Press.

109

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),

Studies of Social Power (pp. 150–157). Ann Arbour, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.

Furnham, A., Sadka, V., & Brewin, C. R. (1992). The development of an occupational

attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(1), 27-39.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of

Management, 17(2), 235-271. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700202

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(2), 293-417.

Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational

mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108-124.

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact

and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneWciaries on

persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53-

67.

Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment.

California Management Review, Summer, 57-71.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.

110

Hambrick, D. C. (1981). Environment, strategy, and power within top management teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 253-275.

Handy, C. (Ed.). (1989). The age of unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hanisch, K. A. (1992). The development of a health condition scale and its relations to health

satisfaction and retirement valence Paper presented at the 2nd APA.NIOSH Conference

on Stress and the Workplace, Washington, D. C.

Haynes, S. N., & Lench, H. C. (2003). Incremental validity of new clinical assessment measures.

Psychological Assessment, 15(4), 456-466.

Hemingway, H., Stafford, M., Stansfeld, S., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M. (1997). Is the SF-36 a

valid measure of change in population health? Results from the Whitehall II study.

British Medical Journal, 315, 1273–1279.

Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research:

Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1975). Job attitudes: Review of

research and opionion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.

Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic

contingencies' theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly,

16(2), 216-229.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

111

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-estee, and social identity. In D.

Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances

(pp. 28-47). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1985). Organizational technologies: Effects on organizations'

characteristics and individuals' responses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 361-

372.

Humphrey, S., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and

contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of

the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356. doi:

citeulike-article-id:9192568

Jenkins, M., & Griffith, R. (2004). Using personality constructs to predict performance: Narrow

or broad bandwidth. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 255-269.

Johns, G., Xie, J. L., & Fang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal

of Management, 18(4), 657-676.

Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, C.-H., Djurdjevic, E., & Taing, M. U. (2012).

Recommendations for improving the construct clarity of higher-order multidimensional

constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 62-72.

Juhdi, N., Hamid, A., & Siddiq, M. (2010). The effects of sense of meaningfulness and teaching

role attributes on work outcomes- using the insight of job characteristics model

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(5), 404-428.

112

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. W., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic compuers to factor analysis. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20(141-151).

Kalleberg, A. L., Wallace, M., & Althauser, R. P. (1981). Economic segmentation, worker power

and income inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 651- 683.

Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67(3), 341-349.

Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job

redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work. London: Basic Works.

Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements

Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks,CA:

Sage.

Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues.

New Park, CA: Sage.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Lachman, R., & Cohen, I. (1988). The generality of the strategic contingencies approach to sub-

unit power. Organization Studies, 9(3), 371-391.

113

Lambert, S. J. (1991). The combined effects of job and family characteristics on the job

satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation of men and women workers.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(4), 341-363.

Lasch, C. (Ed.). (1984). The minimal self. New York: Norton.

Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American

Sociological Review, 57, 327-339.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human

capital allocation and development. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31-48.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The

relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations.

Journal of Management, 28(4), 517-543.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL:

Rand McNally.

Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 24-33. doi: 10.1037/h0021692

Lopez-Cabrales, A., Valle, R., & Herrero, I. (2006). The contribution of core employees to

organizational capabilities and efficiency. Human Resource Management, 45(1), 81-109.

Lucas, H. C. (1984). Organizational power and information services department. Communication

of the ACM, 27(1), 58–65.

Lynam, D. R., Miller, D. J., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T. A.

(2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and

114

validation of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23(1),

108-124.

Martikainen, P., Aromaa, A., Heliövaara, M., Klaukka, T., Knekt, P., Maatela, J., & Lahelma, E.

(1999). Reliability of perceived health by sex and age. Social Science & Medicine, 48(8),

1117-1122.

Maslow, A. (1938). Cases in personality and abnormal psychology. New York: Brooklyn

College Press.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.

May, R. A., Angel, E., & Ellenberger, H. F. (Eds.). (1958). Existence: A new dimension in

psychiatry and psychology. New York: Touchstone.

Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(3), 349-364.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems.

Organizational Dynamics, 13(1), 36-52.

Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2003). Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J.

Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology

(Vol. 12, pp. 423-452). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

115

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989).

Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological

bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.

Mustard, C. A., Vermeulen, M., & Lavis, J. N. (2003). Is position in the occupational hierarchy a

determinant of decline in perceived health status? Social Science & Medicine, 57(12),

2291-2303.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mupls user's guide (5th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen

&Muthen

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nyklicek, I., & Denollet, J. (2009). Development and evaluation of the balanced index of

psychological mindedness (BIPM). Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 32-44.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Pagano, R. R. (2010). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of

General Psychology, 1, 115-144.

Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well being

and effectiveness. London: Sage.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice:

Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 413-440.

116

Pearson, C. A., & Chong, J. (1997). Contributions of job content and social information on

organizational commitment and job satisfaction: An exploration in a Malaysian nursing

context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology(70), 357-374.

Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American

Sociological Review, 32, 194-208.

Perrow, C. (1970). Departmental power and perspectives in industrial firms. In M. N. Zald (Ed.),

Power in organizations (pp. 59-89). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Pitman, Marshfield, MA: HarperCollins.

Pfeffer, J., & Alison, D. (1987). Understanding organizational wage structures: A resource

dependence approach. The Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 437-455.

Pfeffer, J., & Konrad, A. M. (1991). The effects of individual power on earnings. Work and

Occupations, 18(4), 385-414.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The

mediating role of core job characterstics The Academy of Management Journal 49(2),

327-340.

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical

leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3),

259-278.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

117

Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment

as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(6), 375-384. doi:

10.1037/h0047808

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and meaningfulness

at work: An identity perspective. In K. S. Camerson, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),

Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Probst, T. M. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of job insecurity: Development and test of

an integrated model. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign.

Probst, T. M. (2003). Development and validation of the job security index and the job security

aatisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 76(4), 451-467.

Probst, T. M., Benson, W., Graso, M., Jiang, L., & Olson, K. (2011). Effects of the budget cuts

on faculty, staff, and administrative professions: A feedback report to WSU: Washington

State University.

Probst, T. M., Jiang, L., & Benson, W. L. (In press). Job insecurity and predictors of job loss: A

primer and exploration of possible interventions. In U. Klehe & E. v. Hooft (Eds.), The

Oxford Handbook of Job Loss and Job Search. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Quinn, R. P., Seashore, S., Kahn, R. L., Mangione, T., Campbell, D., Staines, G. L., . . .

Shulman, M. (1970). Survey of working conditions, final report on univariate and

bivariate tables. (U.S.G.P.O. Document No. 2916-0001). Washington, DC.

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports,

45(2), 590-590.

118

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1981). The narcissistic personality inventory: Alternative form

reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment,

45(2), 159-162.

Renn, R. W., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1995). The critical psychological states: An underrepresented

component in job characteristics model research. Journal of Management, 21(2), 279-

303.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.

Roberson, S. L. (1990). Functions of work meanings in organizations: Work meanings and work

motivation. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Meanings of occupational work: A collection of essays

(pp. 107-134). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the

exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259. doi:

10.1002/job.4030150306

Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 217-233.

Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1995). Changing individual-organization

attachments: A two-way street. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1998a). The contours of positive human health. Psychological

Inquiry, 9(1), 1-28.

119

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1998b). The role of purpose in life and personal growth in positive

human health. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A

handbook of psychological research and clinical applications (pp. 213-235). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In B.

M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1-54).

Chicago: St. Chair Press.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and uses of power in organizational decision

making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453-473.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power-and how they hold on to it: A strategic

contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5, 3-21.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes

and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.

Saunders, C. S. (1990). The strategic contingencies theory of power: Multiple perspectives.

Journal of Management Studies, 27(1), 1-18.

Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). The Maslach burnout

inventory-general survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Maslach

Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Shipp, F., Burns, G., & Desmul, C. (2010). Construct validity of ADHD-IN, ADHD-HI, ODD

toward adults, academic and social competence dimensions with teacher ratings of Thai

adolescents: Additional validity for the child and adolescent disruptive behavior

inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32(4), 557-564.

120

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of

affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774-780.

Shore, T. H., Thornton, G. C., & McFarlane Shore, L. (1990). Distinctivenss of three work

attitudes: Job involvement, organizational commitment, and career salience.

Psychological Reports, 67(3), 851-858. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1990.67.3.851

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and

retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Snell, S. A., Youndt, M. A., & Wright, P. M. (1996). Establishing a framework for research in

strategic human resource management: Merging resource theory and organizational

learning. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resouces management

(pp. 61-90). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Snow, C. C., & Snell, S. A. (1993). Staffing as strategy. In M. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),

Personanel selection in organizations (pp. 448-478). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the

relationship between psychological empowerment. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-

704.

Stanton, J. M., Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Parra, L. F., & Ironson, G. (2001). A general measure

of work stress: The stress in general scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

61(5), 866-888.

Steel, R. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1997). The dispositional model of job attitudes revisited: Findings

of a 10-year study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 873-879.

Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

121

Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual capital. New York: Doubleday-Currency.

Stone, S. D. (2003). Workers without work: Injured workers and well-being. Journal of

Occupational Science., 10(1), 7–13.

Stumpp, T., Muck, P. M., Maier, G. W., & Hulsheger, U. R. (2009). Expanding the link between

core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 148-166.

Sulsky, L., & Smith, C. (2005). Work stress. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social idenitity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed) (pp. 7-24).

Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Tang, C.-S., Yeh, W.-Y., Liu, M.-C., Tsai, C.-H., & Hsu, J.-H. (2011). Association of

employees’ types of employment and their burnout status in the public and private sectors

in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of Public Health, 30(3), 230-244.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Treadgold, R. (1999). Transcendent vocations: Their relationship to stress, depression, and

clarity of self-concept. the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39(1), 81.

Trice, H. M. (1993). Occuptational subcultures in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in

organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

122

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance

literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational Research.

Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-69.

Vikas, R., & Kishore, M. (1986). Job satisfaction and occupational status of police personnel.

Asian Journal of Psychological and Education, 17(2), 18-21.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis

and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-885.

Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Warr, P. B. (2009). Environmental “vitamins”, personal judgments, work values, and happiness.

In S. Cartwright & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational well-

being (pp. 57-85). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weigert, A., Teitge, J. S., & Teitge, D. W. (1986). Society and identity: Toward a sociological

psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. .

White, S. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Job enrichment versus social cues: A comparison and

competitive test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(1), 1-9.

Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological

instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Chapter, M. W. Bryant &

S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and

substance abuse research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,

17(3), 601-617.

123

Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University

Press.

Wrong, D. H. (1968). Some problems in defining social power. The American Journal of

Sociology, 73, 673-681.

Yamagishi, T., Gillmore, M. R., & Cook, K. S. (1988). Network connections and the distribution

of power in exchange networks. American Journal of Sociology, 93(4), 833-851.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zalesny, M. D., & Ford, J. K. (1990). Extending the social information processing perspective:

New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 47(2), 205-205.

Zell, D. (2003). Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (1), 73-96.

Zhang, Y., Farh, J. L., & Wang, H. (2012). Organizational antecedents of employee perceived

organizational support in China: a grounded investigation. International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 23(2), 422-446.

Zucker, L. G., & Rosenstein, C. (1981). Taxonomies of institutional structure: Dual economy

reconsidered. American Sociological Review, 46, 869-884.

124

APPENDIX A

Validation of the Core vs. Peripheral Positions Questionnaire

PART I. BACKGROUND

We would like to begin by asking a few questions about your personal background and demographic characteristics. Read each item and mark the option that describes you best.

Please note: We are only interested in this information to compare groups of individuals (for example, part-time compared to full-time employees; males and females; etc.). Please also remember that all of your responses are completely confidential and you are free to skip any question you do not wish to answer for whatever reason.

1. Sex: Male Female

2. Ethnicity: □ African American □ American Indian or Alaskan Native □ Asian or Pacific Islander □ Caucasian / White □ Hispanic/ Latino □ Other (Please specify)______

3. Age: ______

4. Education Level Completed: (Not applicable for respondents from and churches) □ High school diploma/ GED □ Some college □ 2-year degree □ 4-year degree □ Post 4-Year Certificate (i.e. teaching) □ Master’s Degree □ Doctoral Degree

5. Degree Working Toward: (Not applicable for respondents from and churches) □ Certificate program □ 2-year degree (AA, AS) □ Bachelor’s degree □ Post 4-year credential (i.e., teaching) □ Master’s degree □ PhD, MD, JD, DDS

126

6. Please indicate your marital status: □ Single □ Separated/Divorced □ Married/Partnered □ Widowed

7. What is your current salary? □ <$20,000 □ $70,000-79,999 □ $20,000-29,999 □ $80,000-89,999 □ $30,000-39,999 □ $90,000-99,999 □ $40,000-49,999 □ $100,000-109,999 □ $50,000-59,999 □ $110,000-119,999 □ $60,000-69,999 □ $120,000+

8. Which campus are you on? (Not applicable for respondents from Dixie State College of Utah and churches) □ Pullman □ Vancouver □ Spokane □ Extension □ Tri-Cities

9. How long have you worked for your organization? _____ years _____ months

10. How many people work in your organization? ______

11. What is your industry of employment? □ Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries □ Manufacturing □ Transportation, Communications and other Public Unities □ Wholesale □ Retail Trade □ Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, Business and Repair Services □ Entertainment and Recreation Services, Professional and Related Services □ Public Administration □ Other (Please specify): ______

12. What is your occupation? □ Managerial and professional □ Technical, sales, and administrative support □ Service □ Precision, production, craft, and repair □ Operatives, fabricators, and laborers □ Other (Please specify): ______

127

13. What is your most recent position within your organization? □ Accountant □ Nurse, dietician, and therapist □ Architect □ Operatives, except transport □ Cleaning service worker □ Personal service worker □ Clerical □ Physician, dentist, and related □ Computer specialist practitioner □ Craftsman □ Precision machine operator □ Engineer □ Private household worker □ Engineering and science technician □ Protective service worker □ Famers laborer and farm foremen □ Religious worker □ Farmers and farm manager □ Sales worker □ Food service worker □ Social and recreation worker □ Health service worker □ Social scientist □ Health technologist and technician □ Teacher, college and university □ Laborers, except farm □ Teacher, except college and □ Lawyer/judge university □ Librarian, archivist, curator □ Technician, except health, □ Life and physical scientist engineering, and science □ Manager and administrator □ Textile operative □ Mathematical specialist □ Transport equipment operator □ Mechanic and repairmen □ Writer, artist, and entertainer □ Other (Please specify): ______

14. How long have you worked in your most recent position? _____ years _____ months

15. In your current position, how many individuals directly report to you? ______

16. Are you a: □ Full-time employee □ Part-time employee □ If part-time, how many hours per week?_____

17. Are you a: □ Permanent employee □ Temporary employee

128

PART II. YOUR JOB IN YOUR ORGANIZATION

This next section asks about your perceptions of your job in your organization. Read each item and select the option that best describes your opinions and perceptions about your job.

YOUR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT What is your FUTURE EMPLOYMENT like with this organization? Check YES if the item describes your FUTURE EMPLOYMENT. Check NO if the item does not describe your FUTURE EMPLOYMENT, and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below.

My future employment is: Yes No Don’t Know 1. SURE 2. UNPREDICTABLE 3. UP IN THE AIR 4. STABLE 5. QUESTIONABLE 6. UNKNOWN 7. MY JOB IS ALMOST GUARANTEED 8. CAN DEPEND ON BEING HERE 9. CERTAIN

PEOPLE YOU WORK WITH What are the PEOPLE YOU WORK WITH like MOST of the time? Check YES if the item describes PEOPLE YOU WORK WITH. Check NO if the item does not describe PEOPLE YOU WORK WITH, and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below.

The people I work with are: Yes No Don’t Know 1. BORING 2. SLOW 3. RESPONSIBLE 4. LAZY 5. INTELLIGENT 6. FRUSTRATING

129

YOUR SUPERVISOR What is your SUPERVISOR like MOST OF THE TIME? Check YES if the item describes your SUPERVISOR; NO if the item does not describe your SUPERVISOR, and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below.

My SUPERVISOR is: Yes No Don’t Know 1. HARD TO PLEASE 2. IMPOLITE 3. PRAISES GOOD WORK 4. INFLUENTIAL 5. ANNOYING 6. INTERFERES WITH MY WORK

YOUR PAY What is YOUR PAY like? Check YES if the item describes YOUR PAY; NO if the item does not describe YOUR PAY, and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below.

My pay: Yes No Don’t Know 1. PAID WELL BY INDUSTRY STANDARDS 2. FAIRLY PAID 3. UNDERPAID 4. INCOME ADEQUATE FOR NORMAL EXPENSES 5. BARELY LIVE ON INCOME 6. HIGHLY PAID

YOUR PROMOTIONS What are your PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES like? Check YES if the item describes your PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES; NO if the item does not describe your PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES; and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below.

My promotions: Yes No Don’t Know 1. GOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT 2. PROMOTION OF ABILITY 3. DEAD END JOB 4. GOOD CHANCE FOR PROMOTION 5. UNFAIR PROMOTION POLICY 6. INFREQUENT PROMOTIONS

130

YOUR WORK What is your WORK like MOST of the time? Check YES if the item describes YOUR WORK; NO if the item does not describe YOUR WORK; and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below.

The work I do: Yes No Don’t Know 1. FASCINATING 2. SATISFYING 3. CREATIVE 4. CHALLENGING 5. GIVES A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT 6. REWARDING YOUR JOB SECURITY What is YOUR JOB SECURITY like? Check YES if the item describes YOUR JOB SECURITY. Check NO if the item does not describe YOUR JOB SECURITY. Check “Don’t Know” if you cannot decide. Please choose a response for each item.

My job security: Yes No Don’t Know

1. NEVER BEEN MORE SECURE 2. NERVE-WRACKING 3. SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF SECURITY 4. LOOKS OPTIMISTIC 5. UPSETTING HOW LITTLE JOB SECURITY I HAVE 6. EXCELLENT AMOUNT OF SECURITY 7. STRESSFUL 8. POSITIVE 9. UNACCEPTABLY LOW

131

Using a scale from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “7 (strongly agree),” please indicate your perceptions regarding your relationship with your organization.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one. I do not feel like "part of the family" at my organization. I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.

132

The following section lists a series of statements about your current job position within your organization. Please note: When we use the term “position” please keep in mind your current job description as well as the location of your position within the organizational chart in your company. This includes both where your position is located within the organizational hierarchy as well as other units across the organization.

After reading each statement, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with it by using the response options provided below (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). Bolded words indicate particular areas of emphasis for some of the statements below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My position is important to the effectiveness of my organization. My position is crucial to achieving the most important goals of my organization. The activities performed by my position have nothing to do with the work of many others within my organization. My work has an immediate effect on the output of my organization. If employees in my position all stop working, the activities of my organization will be quickly interrupted. Many others in my organization need the activities performed by my position in order to get their work done. The output of my organization would not be immediately affected due to a discontinuance of my work. My position provides unique contributions to the operation of my organization. My position is crucial to maintaining the smooth operation of my organization. Many others in my organization have been cross- trained to perform my job. Whether my organization achieves its goals depends highly on what I do in my position. The work of many others is independent of the activities performed by my position. My position would be difficult to replace in my organization. My position is necessary for the effective operation of my organization. My work activities are connected with the work activities of my coworkers.

133

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If I stopped my work activities, this would have an immediate effect on the output of the organization as a whole. My position could not be easily out-sourced. Many others’ work will be affected if I stop performing my activities. My position does not directly contribute to the primary mission of my organization. My organization could easily assign my tasks to others in the organization. The work activities of many others depend on my work. The work activities of my position connect to the work activities of many others. My organization suffers very quickly if the activities performed by my position are interrupted. My position makes unique contributions to the performance of my organization. My position is critical to the organization’s ability to continue functioning. My position does not directly help my organization to maintain its competitive advantage. If employees in my position all stopped working, the activities of my organization would be substantially impeded. The work of my position is closely connected to various others in my organization. My organization would be impacted instantly if all employees in my position stopped working. If the activities performed by my position were interrupted, it would cause little disruption within my organization. The activities performed by my position are tied into the work activities of many others. If people in my position stopped working, the rest of the organization would come to a grinding halt. My position is needed to maintain the effective operation of my organization. My organization could continue being productive for a long time even if all employees in my position stopped working.

134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If my organization had to downsize, my position would be at risk. My organization would have difficulty in replacing the value provided by my position. My position makes a minor contribution to the achievement of the primary goals of my organization. My position is not important to achieving the primary goals of my organization. My position assumes responsibility for activities that are critical to my organization. Other people in different positions within my organization could easily perform my work tasks. If I were out sick for a week, sooner or later many other employees would not be able to get their work done. My organization could perform very well for a long time even if people in my position stopped working.

Please read each statement carefully and then circle the option that describes your opinion about your job in your organization.

1. In general, how significant or important is your job? That is, are the results of your work likely to significantly affect the organization?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not very significant: moderately Highly significant; the the outcomes of my significant outcomes of my work can work are not likely to affect my organization in have important effects very important ways on my organization

Very Mostly Slightly Slightly Mostly Very Inaccurate Inaccurate Inaccurate Uncertain Accurate Accurate Accurate 2. This job is one where my organization can be affected by how well the work gets done. 3. The job itself is not very significant or important in the

broader scheme of things in my organization.

135

Using a scale from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “7 (strongly agree),” please indicate your perceptions regarding your relationship with your organization.

I have skills that . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . . . are instrumental for creating innovations. . . . create customer value. . . . help minimize costs of production, service, or delivery. . . . enable our firm to provide exceptional customer service. . . . contribute to the development of new market/product/service opportunities. . . . develop products/services that are considered the best in our industry. . . . directly affect organizational efficiency and productivity. . . . enable our firm to respond to new or changing customer demands. . . . allow our firm to offer low prices. . . . directly affect customer satisfaction. . . . are needed to maintain high quality products/services. . . . are instrumental for making process improvements. . . . are not widely available in the labor market. . . . would be very difficult to replace. . . . are not available to our competitors. . . . are widely considered the best in our industry. . . . are developed through on the job experiences. . . . are difficult for our competitors to buy away from us. . . . are unique to our organization. . . . are difficult for our competitors to imitate or duplicate. . . . are customized to our particular needs. . . . distinguish us from our competition.

136

Please try to vividly imagine yourself in the situations that follow. If such a situation happened to you, what would you feel would have caused it? While events may have many causes, we want you to pick only one-the major cause if this event happened to you. Please write this cause in the blank provided after each event. Next we want you to answer some questions about the cause and a final question about the situation. To summarize, we want you to: 1. Read each situation and vividly imagine it happening to you. 2. Decide what you feel would be the major cause of the situation if it happened to you. 3. Write one cause in the blank provided. 4. Answer eight questions about the cause. (circle one number) 5. Answer one question about the situation. (circle one number) 6. Go on to the next situation.

1. Imagine that you apply for promotion and get it Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

137

2. Imagine that you solve a major problem that has occurred at work Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

138

3. Imagine that you very successfully lead a group project with a positive outcome Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

139

4. Imagine that you are voted as the most popular boss in your section Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

140

5. Imagine that you are given a special performance reward at work Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

141

6. Imagine that you are turned down at a job interview Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

142

7. Imagine that your boss always acts aggressively toward you Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

143

8. Imagine that you can't get all the work done that others expect of you Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

144

9. Imagine that you gave an important talk in front of your colleagues and they react negatively Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

145

10. Imagine that you are given a poor annual report by a superior Write down the one major cause:______1. To what extent was the cause Totally due to me 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not all due to me due to something about you? 2. In the future, at work, will this Will never again Will always cause again influence what influence what influence what 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 happens? happens happens 3. Is the cause something that just Influence just this Influences all affects problem-solving or does it 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation areas of my life influence other areas of your life? 4. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to something to do with other people other people or 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 other people or or circumstances? circumstances circumstances 5. To what extent was the cause Totally due to Not at all due to 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 due to chance? chance chance 6. To what extent was the cause Not at all Totally controllable by you 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by controllable by me me 7. To what extent was the cause Totally Not at all controllable by your colleagues? controllable by my 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 controllable by colleagues my colleagues 8. To what extent do you think Not at all Totally foreseeable you could have foreseen the 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 foreseeable by by me cause? me 9. How important would the Not at all Extremely 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 situation be if it happened to you? important important

146

Here you'll find a list of 37 statements, please indicate whether each statement is applicable to you.

True False I see myself as a good leader. □ □ I would prefer to be a leader. □ □ I really like to be the center of attention. □ □ 1 like having authority over other people. □ □ I would be willing to describe myself as a strong personality. □ □ I have a natural talent for influencing people. □ □ I like to be the center of attention. □ □ I am assertive. □ □ People always seem to recognize my authority. □ □ I like to look at my body. □ □ I like to look at myself in the mirror. □ □ I am an extraordinary person. □ □ I like to display my body. □ □ I have good taste when it comes to beauty. □ □ I think I am a special person. □ □ I like to be complimented. □ □ I am going to be a great person. □ □ I know that I am good because everyone keeps telling me so. □ □ Everybody likes to hear my stories. □ □ I usually dominate any conversation. □ □ 1 can make anybody believe anything. □ □ I am a born leader. □ □ I can read people like a book. □ □ I am apt to show off if I get the chance. □ □ People can learn a great deal from me. □ □ I always know what I am doing. □ □ I can usually talk my way out of anything. □ □ Superiority is something you are born with. □ □ I would do almost anything on a dare. □ □ I expect a great deal from other people. □ □ I am envious of other people's good fortune. □ □ I insist upon getting the respect that is due me. □ □ I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve. □ □ I have a strong will to power. □ □ I get upset when people don't notice how I look when I go out □ □ in public. I find it easy to manipulate people. □ □ I am more capable than other people. □ □

147

APPENDIX B

Testing an integrated model of core versus peripheral positions in Chinese samples

PART I. BACKGROUND

We would like to begin by asking a few questions about your personal background and demographic characteristics. Read each item and mark the option that describes you best.

1. Sex: Male Female

2. Age: ______

3. Education Level Completed: □ Elementary school □ Junior college □ Junior high school □ 4-year degree □ Senior high school □ Master’s Degree □ Technical secondary school □ Doctoral Degree

5. Please indicate your marital status: Single Separated/Divorced Married/Partnered Widowed

6. What is your current salary per month? □ <1,000 □ 6,000-6,999 □ 1,000-1,999 □ 7,000-7,999 □ 2,000-2,999 □ 8,000-8,999 □ 3,000-3,999 □ 9,000-9,999 □ 4,000-4,999 □ 10,000-10,999 □ 5,000-5,999 □ 11,000+

7. How long have you worked for your organization? _____ years _____ months

8. How many people work in your organization? ______

149

9. What is your industry of employment? □ Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries □ Manufacturing □ Transportation, Communications and other Public Unities □ Wholesale □ Retail Trade □ Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, Business and Repair Services □ Entertainment and Recreation Services, Professional and Related Services □ Public Administration □ Other (Please specify): ______

10. What is your occupation? □ Managerial and professional repair □ Technical, sales, and □ Operatives, fabricators, and administrative support laborers □ Service □ Other (Please specify): □ Precision, production, craft, and ______

11. How long have you worked in your most recent position? _____ years _____ months

12. In your current position, how many individuals directly report to you? ______

13. Are you a: Full-time employee Part-time employee If part-time, how many hours per week? _____

14. Are you a: Permanent employee Temporary employee

150

15. What is your most recent position within your organization? □ Accountant □ Nurse, dietician, and therapist □ Architect □ Operatives, except transport □ Cleaning service worker □ Personal service worker □ Clerical □ Physician, dentist, and related □ Computer specialist practitioner □ Craftsman □ Precision machine operator □ Engineer □ Private household worker □ Engineering and science technician □ Protective service worker □ Famers laborer and farm foremen □ Religious worker □ Farmers and farm manager □ Sales worker □ Food service worker □ Social and recreation worker □ Health service worker □ Social scientist □ Health technologist and technician □ Teacher, college and university □ Laborers, except farm □ Teacher, except college and university □ Lawyer/judge □ Technician, except health, engineering, □ Librarian, archivist, curator and science □ Life and physical scientist □ Textile operative □ Manager and administrator □ Transport equipment operator □ Mathematical specialist □ Writer, artist, and entertainer □ Other (Please specify): ______□ Mechanic and repairmen

151

PART II. YOUR JOB IN YOUR ORGANIZATION This next section asks about your perceptions of your job in your organization. Read each item and select the option that best describes your opinions and perceptions about your job.

My future employment is: Yes No Don’t Know 1. SURE 2. UNPREDICTABLE 3. UP IN THE AIR 4. STABLE 5. QUESTIONABLE 6. UNKNOWN 7. MY JOB IS ALMOST GUARANTEED 8. CAN DEPEND ON BEING HERE 9. CERTAIN

YOUR PAY What is YOUR PAY like? Check YES if the item describes YOUR PAY; NO if the item does not describe YOUR PAY, and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below.

My pay is: Yes No Don’t Know 1. PAID WELL BY INDUSTRY STANDARDS 2. FAIRLY PAID 3. UNDERPAID 4. INCOME ADEQUATE FOR NORMAL EXPENSES 5. BARELY LIVE ON INCOME 6. HIGHLY PAID

YOUR JOB SECURITY What is YOUR JOB SECURITY like? Check YES if the item describes YOUR JOB SECURITY. Check NO if the item does not describe YOUR JOB SECURITY. Check “Don’t Know” if you cannot decide. Please choose a response for each item. My job security is: Yes No Don’t Know 1. NEVER BEEN MORE SECURE 2. NERVE-WRACKING 3. SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF SECURITY 4. LOOKS OPTIMISTIC 5. UPSETTING HOW LITTLE JOB SECURITY I HAVE 6. EXCELLENT AMOUNT OF SECURITY 7. STRESSFUL 8. POSITIVE 9. UNACCEPTABLY LOW

152

YOUR WORK

What is your WORK like MOST of the time? Check YES if the item describes YOUR WORK; NO if the item does not describe YOUR WORK; and “Don’t know” if you cannot decide. Please respond to each item below. My work is: Yes No Don’t Know 1. FASCINATING 2. SATISFYING 3. CREATIVE 4. CHALLENGING 5. GIVES A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT 6. REWARDING 7. Demanding 8. Pressured 9. Hectic 10. Calm (R) 11. Relaxed (R) 12. Many things stressful 13. Pushed 14. Irritating 15. Under control (R) 16. Never-wracking 17. Hassled 18. Comfortable (R) 19. More stressful than I’d like 20. Smooth running (R) 21. Overwhelming

YOUR HEALTH Please indicate if you have experienced any of the following Health Conditions within the PAST YEAR. Yes No 1. Heart diseases or condition 2. Frequent stomach pains 3. Back problems 4. Respiratory or lung problems 5. High blood pressure 6. Severe headaches 7. Ulcer 8. Shortness of breath upon exerting myself 9. Frequent headaches 10. Difficult falling asleep or staying asleep 11. Nightmares 12. Frequent colds 13. Feel exhausted for no good reason

153

154

155

Using a scale from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “7 (strongly agree),” please 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 indicate your perceptions regarding your relationship with your organization. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. I do not feel like "part of the family" at my organization. I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.

156

Using a scale from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “7 (strongly agree),” please circle the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 option that describes your opinion about your job in your organization. My organization appreciates my work. My organization values my contributions at work. My organization holds my work in high regard. I often have to arrive early or stay later to get my work done. I often have to work through my breaks to complete my assigned workload. It often seems like I have too much work for one person to do. I sometimes have to take work home with me to complete my assigned workload. I am given enough time to do what is expected of me on my job. I have too much to do to do everything well. The performance standards on my job are too high. The work I do on this job is very meaningful to me. Most people on this job feel that the work is useless or trivial. Most people on this job find the work very meaningful.

Using a scale from “1 (strongly disagree)” to

“7 (strongly agree),” please circle the option that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 describes your opinion about your job in your organization. The most important things that happen to me involve my present job. I am very much involved personally in my job. I live, eat and breathe my job. Most of my interests are centered around my job. I have very strong ties with my present job which would be very difficult to break. Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented. I consider my job to be very central to my existence. I like to be absorbed in my job most of the time.

157

Using a scale from “1 (strongly disagree)” to “7 (strongly agree),” please 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 circle the option that describes your opinion about your job in your organization. Adequately completes assigned duties. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her Meets formal performance requirements of the job Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance valuation Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform Fails to perform essential duties Helps others who have been absent Helps others who have heavy work loads Assists supervisor with his/her work (when not asked) Takes time to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries Goes out of way to help new employees Takes a personal interest in other employees Passes along information to co-workers Attendance at work is above the norm Gives advance notice when unable to work Takes undeserved work breaks Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations Complains about insignificant things at work Conserves and protects organizational property Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order

158

Rank the level of influence of yourself on decision making in each of the decision issues, on the following 1-5 scale (if not relevant, mark 9). 9-not relevant to our organization; 1- no influence at all; 2- little influence; 3- moderate influence; 4- much influence; 5- very much influence.

____ Decision on new product/service. ____ Determining and changing prices for products/services. ____ Determining and changing the sub-unit's budget. ____ Reducing/increasing personnel. ____ Organizational salary policy. ____ Setting the organization's quantitative and financial targets. ____ Purchasing equipment. ____ Size of inventory. ____ Raising capital. ____ Determining and carrying out changes in work methods. ____ Computerization priorities. ____ Expanding/ diminishing activities

Rank the level of your participation in decision making in each of the decision issues, on the following 1-5 scale (if not relevant, mark 9). 9- not relevant to our organization; 1- never participate; 2- participate rarely; 3- participate sometimes; 4- participate often; 5- always participate.

159

Using the scale below, mark a number on the answer sheet to indicate how often, if ever, you have experienced these feelings.

Never Sporadic Now and Then Regular Often Very Often Daily 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

______I feel emotionally drained from my work. ______I feel used up at the end of the workday. ______I feel tired when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job. ______Working all day is really a strain for me. ______I feel burned out from my work. ______I have become less interested in my work since I started this job. ______I have become less enthusiastic about my work. ______I just want to do my job and not be bothered. ______I doubt the significance of my work. ______I have become more cynical about whether my work contributes anything. ______At my work, I feel confident that I am effective at getting things done. ______I can effectively solve the problems that arise in my work. ______I feel I’m making an effective contribution to what this Organization does. ______In my opinion, I am good at my job. ______I feel exhilarated when I accomplish something at work. ______I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job.

160