Core self evaluations ppt @ bec doms mba hr

1. Core Self-Evaluations and Job
Satisfaction: The Role of Self-
Concordance
1

2. Core Self-Evaluations (CSE)
 Represents the fundamental
assessments that people make about
their worthiness and competence
 Higher-order concept indicated by:
1. self-esteem
2. locus of control
3. neuroticism (emotional stability)
4. generalized self-efficacy
 The first three of these traits are the most
studied in psychology
2

3. Applications of CSE
 CSE has been related to:
 motivation (Erez & Judge, 2001)
 job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001)
 stress (Best, 2003)
 leadership (Eisenberg, 2000)
 The most commonly investigated criterion
is job satisfaction
3

4. CSE – Job Satisfaction
0.7
End points indicate
0.6 .58
limits of 80% CV
.52
0.5
.45
0.4 .40
.36
0.3 .32 .32
.26 .24
0.2
.12 .12
0.1 .11
0
SE GSF LOC ES
Notes: SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy;
LOC=locus of control; ES=emotional stability
4

5. CSE – Job Satisfaction
Explaining the Relationship
 Research indicates that CSE – job
satisfaction relationship is mediated by
intrinsic job characteristics: High CSE
people both attain more complex jobs,
and perceive more challenge in jobs of
equal complexity
 As Judge, Bono, Erez, Locke, and
Thoresen (2002) commented, “Other
theoretical mechanisms will need to be
studied” 5

6. Self-Concordance
 Research suggests that people who
chose goals that are concordant with their
ideals, interests, and values are happier
than those who pursue goals for other
(e.g., extrinsic or defensive) reasons (see
Sheldon & Elliot, 1997)
 Thus, one mechanism that may link CSE
and job satisfaction is the motivation
underlying goal pursuit
6

7. Self-Concordance Model
 Argues that individuals may pursue a goal
for four (NME) types of reasons (Sheldon
& Elliot, JPSP, 1998):
 External—pursuing a goal due to others’ wishes, or to
attain “indirect” rewards
 Introjected—pursuing a goal to avoid feelings of
shame, guilt, or anxiety
 Identified—pursuing a goal out of a belief that it is an
important goal to have
 Intrinsic—pursuing a goal because of the fun and
enjoyment it provides 7

8. Hypothesized Model
Self-esteem
Job/life
satisfaction
+
Generalized +
self-efficacy +
Core Self-concordant Goal
self-evaluations + goals + attainment
Locus of
control
Neuroticism
8

9. Method
 We conducted two studies
 Study 1: Examine the mediating role of self-
concordance and goal attainment with respect to
the personal goals of a undergraduates
 Study 2: Test a model parallel to that in Study 1,
but focusing on work goals and job satisfaction
(as opposed to personal goals and life
satisfaction)
9

10. Study 1 Method
Participants and Measures
 240 undergraduates
 Personality and self-concordance were
measured at Time 1, and goal attainment
and life satisfaction were measured at
Time 2 (N=183)
 Core self-evaluations was measured with
four individual scales, which then were
treated as indicators of a higher-order
core self-evaluations concept
10

11. Study 1 Method
Measure of Self-Concordance
 Participants recorded six short-term goals
(goals that could reasonably be attained
in the next 60 days)
 After identifying their goals, participants
reported their reasons for goal pursuit, for
each goal separately
 Following Sheldon and Elliot (1998):
SC = (intrinsic + identified) – (external + introjected)
11

12. Study 1 Method
Other Measures
 Goal attainment. We used two items from
prior self-concordance research (Sheldon
& Elliot, 1999); participants responded to
each of these items for each of their six
goals, after two months (responses were
averaged across items and goals)
 Life satisfaction. Life satisfaction was
measured with the five-item Satisfaction
with Life Scale
12

13. Results: Study 1
Self-esteem .95**
Life
satisfaction
.47**
Generalized .25** .20**
self-efficacy .75**
Core Self-concordant Goal
self-evaluations goals attainment
.24** .18†
Locus of
control .66**
Notes: † p < .10. * p < .05; ** p < .01.
χ2=14.69 (df=10). RMSEA = .05.
Neuroticism -.61** RMSR = .04. CFI = .99. IFI = .99.
13

14. Study 2 Method
Participants and Measures
 Participants were employees of a large
defense contractor (N=251)
 Personality and self-concordance were
measured at Time 1, and goal attainment
and life satisfaction were measured at
Time 2
 Core self-evaluations was measured with
the same scale as in Study 1
14

15. Study 2 Method
Measures
 Participants recorded six short-term work
goals; otherwise the same measurement
approach to self-concordance was
followed
 Goal attainment was measured in a
manner comparable to Study 1
 Job satisfaction was measured with the
short form of the Brayfield and Rothe
(1951) job satisfaction scale
15

16. Results: Study 2
Self-esteem .95**
Job
satisfaction
.36**
Generalized .17* .10
self-efficacy .76**
Core Self-concordant Goal
self-evaluations goals attainment
.30** .22*
Locus of
control .49**
Notes: * p < .05; ** p < .01.
χ2=21.82 (df=10). RMSEA = .07.
Neuroticism -.76** RMSR = .04. CFI = .98. IFI = .98.
16

17. Discussion
 According to the hypothesized model,
people with positive self-regard are more
likely to have self-concordant goals. In
turn, those with more self-concordant
goals should be happier and more
satisfied with their goals, themselves, and
ultimately their lives
 Results supported the model
17

18. Discussion
 One of the more important contributions
of this research was to illuminate the
effect of core self- evaluations on self-
concordance and its consequences
 In both studies, there were significant associations
between core self-evaluations and self-concordance
 Those with positive core self-evaluations were especially good in
demonstrating this adaptability to select “self-concordant” goals
that represent their implicit interests
18

19. Discussion
 Surprisingly, results involving goal
attainment were relatively weak
 Goal attainment did not mediate self-concordance
– satisfaction relationship
 This relationship may be complex
 Whereas setting difficult goals is dissatisfying because they
lead to low expectations for goal attainment (Mento, Locke,
& Klein, 1992), the attainment of those goals (which is
facilitated by the setting of difficult goals) should lead to
satisfaction (Locke & Latham, 1990)--i.e., the results may
be offsetting
19

20. Implications
 Results join increasing body of research that shows that
individuals become more satisfied with job and life
through one’s pursuits, if one picks the right goals and
does well at them
 People with positive core self-evaluations strive for the
“right” reasons, and therefore get the “right” results,
both of which in turn increase their levels of satisfaction
 Moreover, such increases in satisfaction appear to last
(both studies were longitudinal) and perhaps lead to
even more positive changes in an “upward spiral” of
positive outcomes
20