The Psychology of Personality Research

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The importance of being resilient: Psychological well-being, job autonomy, and self-esteem of organization managers Donald G. Gardner University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Resilience Psychological well-being Self-esteem Autonomy

A B S T R A C T

The demands on people in the 21st century pose enormous threats to their psychological well-being (PWB). Because people high in PWB are happier, healthier, and more productive than those who are low, it is morally and economically important for organizations to do what they can to promote the PWB of its members. Based on job demands/resources theory, this study explores how organizations can use knowledge about work design and individual differences to bolster the PWB of its members. We propose that organizations can increase the PWB of members by enhancing job autonomy, thereby increasing organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), which is po- sitively related to PWB. In addition, we propose that resilience might act as a moderator of this indirect re- lationship, such that high resilience enhances the positive relationship autonomy has with OBSE, and subse- quently with PWB. Measures of autonomy, resilience, OBSE, and PWB were obtained online from a sample of 674 organizational managers. SEM results indicated that high job autonomy most benefited (in terms of OBSE) those participants who were low in trait resilience, while providing fewer benefits to high resilient people. Results are discussed in terms of how organizations might enhance member PWB by increasing member OBSE and/or resilience.

1. Introduction

The 21st century has confronted people with a multitude of threats to their psychological well-being. Many of those threats exist within the work organizations in which they spend a substantial amount of their time. One way in which organizations can improve the well-being of employees is to provide them autonomy, so that they can make deci- sions and initiate actions that would allow them to adapt to or resolve the threats (and opportunities) that confront them (Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018). However, it is known that personality and other in- dividual differences can affect how successfully employees use au- tonomy to manage their work environments, thereby improving their overall well-being. In this study, the job demands/resources (JD-R) model of well-being at work is used as a framework to structure our hypotheses (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001). The JD- R proposes that what keeps people healthy at work in the face of de- mands are health-protecting factors called job resources, which are physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that: (a) may be functional in achieving work goals, (b) reduce job demands, and/or (c) stimulate personal growth and development. In this study, the relationships between one external resource (job autonomy), and two internal resources (self-esteem and resilience), with employees’ psychological well-being are examined. The hypothesis that self-esteem

mediates the relationship between job autonomy and psychological well-being is evaluated, while resilience is proposed and tested as a moderator of that indirect relationship.

1.1. Psychological well-being

Psychological well-being is the extent to which individuals are functioning at an optimal level (Diener et al., 2009). People who are high in psychological well-being (PWB) are happy, healthy, productive, and have satisfying interpersonal relationships (Ryff, 2014). There are many different approaches to the study of PWB, including the ex- ploration of personality and individual differences that promote PWB (Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2018). There is also a growing body of research on psychological well-being in work organizations (e.g., Inceoglu, Thomas, Chu, Plans & Gerbasi, 2018). For example, there is evidence that job autonomy has a positive relationship with affective well-being (Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018), and we expect to find a positive autonomy-PWB relationship in our study as well. Still, there remains much to be learned about it, such as how to enhance the PWB of people through their work (Oliver & MacLeod, 2018).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109731 Received 24 December 2018; Received in revised form 16 November 2019; Accepted 23 November 2019

E-mail address: dgardner@uccs.edu.

Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020) 109731

Available online 02 December 2019 0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T

1.2. Self-Esteem at work

Self-esteem is an evaluation of the self, and arises from many of life's venues (cf., Horberg & Chen, 2010; Rentzsch, Wenzler, & Shütz, 2016). One of the venues in which self-esteem emerges is the work organiza- tion. Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) is rooted in that aspect of life, and has been defined as the degree to which individuals evaluate themselves as “important, meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within their employing organization” (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings & Dunham, 1989, p. 625). Theoretically, some of OBSE's most defining character- istics (Pierce et al., 1989) are: (a) once established it manifests itself in beliefs like “I MAKE A DIFFERENCE around here;” (b) people with high OBSE are motivated to verify or enhance it, while those low in OBSE are motivated to prevent further erosion (Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Schaubroeck, Kim & Peng, 2012); and (c) as a result, OBSE is related to a number of positive personal (e.g., engagement) and organizational (e.g., performance) outcomes.

There are dozens of studies of OBSE, and much is known about it (see reviews by Bowling, Eschlerman, Wang, Kirkendall & Alarcon, 2010; and Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Generally speaking, the experience of success at work, and the role conditions that facilitate success, re- inforce OBSE. Particularly relevant to the current study is that job au- tonomy, an external job resource in the JD-R model, is positively if not causally related to OBSE, because it enables the individual to attribute successes (and failures) to the self. OBSE is considered a personal re- source in the JD-R framework, and as such it mediates relationships between job resources and employee well-being (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2011), including though a work to life spillover effect (Pierce, Gardner & Crowley, 2015). Combined with the robust positive relationship between job autonomy and well-being (Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018), it is possible to propose that OBSE mediates the relationship between autonomy and PWB.

1.3. Resilience

Resilience has been defined as “the ability to adapt to stress and adversity” (Liu, Reed & Girard, 2017), and is a personal resource in the JD-R model (Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang & Mei, 2019). Resilience buffers people from the challenges in their lives, which leads them to believe that they have developed environmental mastery, positive re- lationships and growth, and self-determination, which are principal elements of PWB (Ryff, 2014). As such, there are positive relationships between resilience and PWB (e.g., Mayordomo, Viguer, Sales, Satorres & Meléndez, 2016), including at work (Tripathi, 2011), which we ex- pect to find in our study as well.

1.4. Resilience and OBSE

Despite both being personal resources in the JD-R, the theoretical relationship between self-esteem and resilience is not well-understood. Researchers have considered or found that resilience is: (a) an ante- cedent of self-esteem (e.g., Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006), (b) a consequence of self-esteem (e.g., Kidd & Shahar, 2008), (c) redundant with self-esteem (e.g., Schmeichel et al., 2009), and (d) unrelated to self-esteem (e.g., Lee, Sudom & McCreary, 2011). In this study, we propose that people who are routinely successful at resolving or re- covering from problems in their lives (i.e., resilience) will experience success on a regular basis, and then develop self-perceptions of com- petence, a major component of self-esteem (self-respect; Tafarodi & Swann, 2001). That is, trait resilience increases experiences with suc- cess, which in turn leads to self-esteem. Though it has not been pre- viously studied, we propose a positive relationship between resilience and OBSE, as the ability to adapt to challenges at work leads to a sense of work-based competence, a core element of OBSE. In addition, be- cause OBSE relates positively to PWB, it is possible to propose and test a mediation pathway from resilience to OBSE to PWB.

However, because this study focuses on work conditions that facil- itate the development of high PWB, we propose an additional role for resilience. Possessing autonomy on one's job does not insulate em- ployees from experiencing adverse and challenging situations; indeed, theories of job design suggest that challenging situations are more likely to occur in jobs with high levels of autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). If employees are highly resilient, and given high levels of autonomy and the freedom to manage threats on the job, they should experience more successes than similarly high resilient people who are constrained by the organization in enacting adaptive behaviors. In other words, high resilience should amplify effects of autonomy on OBSE, which in turn is positively related to PWB. Combining these propositions with the expectation that OBSE mediates the relationships between job autonomy and PWB, we hypothesize: H1. Trait resilience moderates the relationship between job autonomy and OBSE, such that the positive relationship is stronger for employees high in resilience than low.

H2. OBSE in turn mediates the positive relationship between job autonomy and psychological well-being.

Fig. 1 illustrates our proposed model. It represents a first stage moderated mediation hypothesis, which is particularly useful in theory- testing because it includes boundary conditions (the moderator) for the theory-based hypotheses (Hayes, 2018).

Fig. 1. Summary illustration of study hypotheses: Indirect relationship between autonomy and PWB through OBSE, as moderated by resilience.

D.G. Gardner Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020) 109731

2

2. Method

2.1. Sample

This study is part of a larger project to assemble a battery of con- struct valid scales to measure managerial psychological health and well-being, as well as to address our research questions.1 Measures were selected based upon the research questions, as well as for potential use in management development programs. Data were collected from par- ticipants in two samples, separated in time by two months. Because we were interested in managerial well-being, we contracted with an online data collection service (Qualtrics) to provide samples of managers whose identities were verified with procedures “including, but not limited to: TrueSample, Verity, SmartSample, USPS verification, and digital fingerprinting” (Qualtrics, 2014). Sample demographics are presented in Table 1. There were small but statistically significant (p < .05) mean differences in education and job tenure (see Table 1). To simplify analyses and optimize statistical power, the two samples were combined (total n = 674). This sample size provides statistical power of approximately 0.95 for small effects.

2.2. Measures

Participants responded on seven-point Likert-type scales where 1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree,” except as noted. The sample coefficient alpha reliability estimates appear in Table 3.

Autonomy was assessed with the autonomy subscale of the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), as revised by Idaszak, Bottom and Drasgow (1988). It correlates with many positive employee outcomes, like job satisfaction and organizational commit- ment (see Hackman & Oldham, 1980, for a comprehensive review). For each item, participants indicated their agreement on a seven-point scale (1 = “very inaccurate” to 7 = “very accurate”). The items are “My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence” and “My job gives me the chance to use my personal initiative and judgement in carrying out the work.”

Organization-based self-esteem was measured with five of the ten items from the OBSE scale developed and validated by Pierce et al. (1989). The scale correlates positively with measures of many of the antecedents (e.g., leadership) and consequences (e.g., job performance) in OBSE's nomological network (Bowling et al., 2010). This measure was truncated to facilitate the creation of a brief ques- tionnaire, which is often done in OBSE research because the scale has high internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha is usually above 0.90). The five items were selected based upon their factor loadings in prior research, and their content validity. A sample item is “I am a VALUABLE PART of this place.”

Resilience was measured with the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) de- veloped by Smith et al. (2008). This scale was developed to measure the ability to adapt to and recover from adverse situations, while mini- mizing the number of items. The BRS correlates positively with quality of social relationships, coping strategies, and health (Smith et al., 2008). This six-item scale has three positively-worded items (e.g., “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”), and three negatively- worded items that were reverse-scored (e.g., “I have a hard time making it through stressful events”).

Psychological Well-Being was measured with the eight-item PWB scale developed by Diener et al. (2009), which indexes self-perceived success in several aspects of life. A sample item is “I lead a purposeful and meaningful life.” The PWB scale correlates with other, longer measures of PWB, as well as with happiness in life, positive and nega- tive experiences, and positive thinking (Diener et al., 2009).

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analyses

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to examine the dimensionality of the measures, utilizing Mplus software (Muthén & Muthén, 2017), and employing the cluster function to control for any differences between the two samples. A one-factor model was compared to the hypothesized four-factor model. The four-factor model was a significant improvement over a one-factor model (see Table 2), but did not yield a strong fit of the model to the data. Inspection of the factor loadings revealed a clear distinction between the positively- and ne- gatively-worded resilience scale items. This bi-factor result for the BRS has been found in prior research (e.g., Rodríguez-Rey, Alonso-Tapia & Hernansaiz-Garrido, 2016). A CFA without the negatively-worded items resulted in a better-fitting model to the data (see Table 2). Because these negatively-worded items reflect rigidity, and our theoretical model is based only upon resilience, we report results only for the three- item resilience measure in analyses below.2

Table 1 Demographics for sample.

Demographic Sample 1 Sample 2 Total

Sex (percent): Male 30.8 25.6 28.4 Female 66.4 73.3 69.6 Non-binary/third gender 0.9 0 0.5 Prefer not to say 0.6 0 0.3 Missing 1.2 1.1 1.2 Age (percent): Under 18 0.3 0 0.2 19–24 11.2 7.4 9.4 25–34 34.9 34.7 34.8 35–44 24.9 33.7 29.0 45–54 16.8 17.2 17.0 55–64 8.4 5.3 6.9 65–74 2.8 1.8 2.3 75–84 0.6 0 0.3 Education (percent):a

High School 19.9 14.0 17.2 Some College 22.4 19.3 21.0 2-year Degree 15.0 13.3 14.2 4-year Degree 23.7 33.7 28.4 Masters 13.1 15.8 14.4 Doctorate 2.8 3.9 3.3 Missing 3.1 0 1.7 Ethnicity (percent): White 73.2 75.1 74.1 Black 10.3 5.6 8.1 Asian 2.2 6.3 4.1 Hispanic 8.4 7.7 8.1 Two or more races 3.7 4.2 4.0 Other 1.6 1.1 1.3 Missing .6 0 .3 Country (percent): USA 91.6 97.2 94.2 Other (15 countries) 4.0 1.2 2.7 Missing 4.4 1.6 3.1 Job Level (percent): First-level supervisor 41.4 34.7 38.3 Mid-level manager 31.2 48.8 39.4 Top-level manager 27.4 16.5 22.3 Direct reports (mean) 39.37 28.65 34.33 Organization tenure (mean years) 8.46 8.66 8.56 Job tenure (mean years)a 6.14 5.15 5.67

Note. Sample 1 N = 359, Sample 2 N = 315; a. Samples 1 and 2 are sig- nificantly different (p < .05).

1 All methods and measures received approval for use in research from the author's Institutional Research Board.

2 We thank a reviewer for suggesting this. Analyses for the rigidity index are available from the authors.

D.G. Gardner Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020) 109731

3

3.2. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and intercorrelations of the study variables are presented in Table 3. As expected (see in- troduction), autonomy, OBSE, and resilience were all significantly correlated with PWB (p < .01). Also as expected, resilience was sig- nificantly correlated with OBSE, as well as with autonomy (p < .05).

3.3. Inferential results

SEM was used to test the moderated mediation hypothesis with la- tent variables. Equations for estimating indirect and moderated effects are from Hayes (2018), while Mplus code was modified from Stride, Gardner, Catley and Thomas (2015). The index of moderated mediation (IMM; Hayes, 2018) was used to assess the significance of the moderated mediation effect, which is a combination of parameter es- timates for both the mediated and the moderated relationships.

Fig. 2 presents the results for the test of H1. The interaction of au- tonomy and resilience was statistically significant. To explore the nature of the interaction, slopes for low and high autonomy and resi- lience were plotted using the standardized parameter estimates (Dawson, 2014) and the OBSE mean as the Y-intercept (see Fig. 3). For high resilience participants, autonomy did not substantially strengthen or weaken the relationship between autonomy and OBSE (the point estimated value is 6.23 when autonomy is low, and 6.47 when au- tonomy is high). On the other hand, if resilience is low, the relationship

between autonomy and OBSE is positive and strong. Low resilience and low autonomy are associated with a low level of OBSE (point estimated value of 4.57); low resilience and high autonomy are associated with substantially higher OBSE (estimated value of 6.09, or 1.52 SD higher).

H2 proposed that OBSE would mediate the relationship between autonomy and PWB. Because the IMM was statistically significant, this meant that the magnitude of the indirect effect varies as a function of the moderator (resilience). The indirect effects were calculated at low (−1 SD), average (0 SD), and high (+1 SD) levels of resilience. These results are presented in Table 4. The moderated mediation effects for resilience are inconsistent with Hypothesis 2. As resilience increased in magnitude, the indirect relationship between autonomy and PWB through OBSE diminished in size, becoming non-significant at high levels of resilience.

4. Discussion

With the JD-R as an overarching framework, this study considered the direct, indirect, and interactive relationships between one external resource (autonomy) and two personal resources (OBSE and resilience) with employees’ PWB. Consistent with much prior research, and our expectations, we found that job autonomy would relate positively to OBSE, which in turn carries that (mediated) relationship through to PWB. Further, we hypothesized that the relationship between au- tonomy and OBSE would be more positive for high resilience employees than low. This hypothesis was not supported, and our results indicate the opposite. The relationship between autonomy and OBSE was strongest (and positive) for low resilience employees, while high levels of resilience seemed to neutralize the relationship between autonomy and OBSE. Low resilient employees seem to benefit more from high autonomy than do employees high in resilience. Although there is a ceiling effect for high resilience employees, the relationship between autonomy and self-esteem is positive and stronger for low resilience employees (see Fig. 3). From a theoretical perspective, it appears that highly resilient people have the personal resources (e.g., expertise, self- efficacy, motivation) to adapt to the threats in their work environments, despite any constraints imposed on them by their organizations. These personal resources are also the seeds that grow into the success ex- periences that bolster OBSE.

What can we conclude from this pattern of results? It appears that being high in resilience results in both high OBSE and high PWB, ir- respective of one's level of job autonomy. Resilience acts as a buffer against what would otherwise be debilitating aspects of work (low job autonomy). Resilient people seem to be able to endure low autonomy, and develop both high OBSE and PWB. Keeping in mind that there are a multitude of other workplace characteristics that affect OBSE (and

Table 2 Confirmatory factor analyses of study measures.

Model χ2 (df) CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR

One-factor modela 2725.52 (189)** .85 .83 .143 (0.138, 0.147) .109 Four factor modelb 1873.41 (183)** .90 .89 .118 (0.114, 0.123) .085 Five factor modelc 764.28 (179)** .97 .96 .070 (0.065, 0.076) .040 Four factor modeld 642.89 (129)** .98 .98 .078 (0.072, 0.084) .040

Note. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem; PWB = psychological well- being; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

a All 21 scale items forced to load on a single latent factor. b Items forced to load on their hypothesized latent factors: Autonomy, OBSE,

Resilience, and PWB. c Items forced to load on Autonomy, OBSE, Resilience-Positive (3 items),

Resilience-Negative (3 items), and PWB. d Items forced to load on Autonomy, OBSE, Resilience-Positive (3 items), and

PWB. ⁎⁎ p < .01.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of study variables.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Job Level 1.85 .76 NA 2. Age 3.88 1.20 .12** NA 3. Organizational Tenure (years) 8.76 8.37 .13** .45** NA 4. Education 3.12 1.44 .05 .06 −0.00 NA 5. Gender 1.73 .47 −0.08 −0.09* −0.14** −0.12** NA 6. PWB 5.51 1.11 .18** .17** .11** .11* −0.03 (0.92) 7. Autonomy 3.73 1.06 .11** .11** .01 −0.03 .07 .40** (0.81) 8. OBSE 5.84 1.13 .14** .14** .06 −0.05 .01 .61** .48** (0.89) 9. Resilience 5.04 1.26 .10* .11** .08* .09* −0.13** .63** .25** .45** (0.78)

Note: Job Level 1 = first level, 2 = mid level, 3 = top level; Age 1 = under 18, 2 = 18–24, 3 = 25–34, 4 = 35–44, 5 = 4 5–54, 6 = 55–64, 6 = 65–74, 7 = 75–84, 8 = 75–84, 9 = over 85; Education 1 = high school, 2 = some college, 3 = 2 year degree, 4 = 4 year degree, 5 = masters, 6 = doctorate; Gender 1 = male, 2 = female, 3 = non-binary/third gender, 4 = prefer not to answer. Correlations for gender are point-biserial. PWB = psychological well-being; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem. Sample reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) appear on diagonal for multi-item scales.

⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01.

D.G. Gardner Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020) 109731

4

subsequently PWB), it would seem that resilient people recover from the setbacks on their jobs rather well. This “bouncing back” does not diminish their sense of achievement at work, enabling them to maintain a high level of OBSE. Resilient people are psychologically healthy, at work and in life.

Fortunately, research indicates that self-esteem and resilience are more amenable to change than broader personality traits like the Big Five (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016). Organizations have two pathways in which to help their low PWB employees. First, adding job complexity (including autonomy) to their work is a primary one (cf. Slemp, Kern, Patrick & Ryan, 2018). Second, there is a growing body of research that indicates that organizations can successfully train employees to be more resilient (e.g., Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall, 2017). It does seem that en- hancing either OBSE or resilience will likely result in higher levels of PWB. Organizations can enhance the quality of work life and the quality of life for its members, if they choose to do so.

Future research on well-being should replicate our results, perhaps with alternative measures of resilience, or with a formative construct like psychological capital that includes resilience (Grover, Teo, Pick, Roche & Newton, 2018). Such research might also expand on our model by including measures of job demands from the JD/R, such as perceived levels of job stressors. In addition, the nature of the relationship be- tween self-esteem and resilience remains understudied. Our study in- dicates that there is a strong relationship between OBSE and resilience

(r = 0.45, p < .01, see Table 3), but do they have a common antecedent (knowledge, skills, abilities) or do they have causal and/or reciprocal relationships with one another?

4.1. Limitations

There are a number of limitations in the study. First, this is a cross- sectional study and inferences about causality are limited. Still, past research does point the causal arrows in the directions that we propose (e.g., autonomy to OBSE). Second, we utilized a targeted sample (managers) obtained from an online research participant provider (Qualtrics). There have been many criticisms of such web-based re- search, but recent studies suggest that they can be an effective way to conduct social science research (e.g., Buhrmester, Talaifar & Gosling, 2018; Walter, Seibert, Goering & O'Boyle, 2019'). Third, we restricted our sample to participants who supervise others at work. This limits our ability to generalize results to other types of employees, or organiza- tional members (e.g., volunteers). Still, given the huge effects that managers can have on their direct reports, it is valuable to focus on this group of employees. Managers and leaders who have high OBSE and/or PWB are more likely to have employees who are also psychologically healthy (cf. Skakon, Nielsen, Borg & Guzman, 2010). Increasing the well-being of managers can indirectly have similar effects on their employees, which is a win-win-win result for the organization, man- ager, and employees (Inceoglu et al., 2018).

Funding for the online samples in this study was provided, in part, by Wisdom Works Group, Inc., Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA (http://wisdom-works.com/). Wisdom Works did not participate in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

References

Anusic, I., & Schimmack, U. (2016). Stability and change of personality traits, self-esteem, and well-being: Introducing the meta-analytic stability and change model of retest correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 766–781.

Benetti, C., & Kambouropoulos, N. (2006). Affect-regulated indirect effects of trait anxiety and trait resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 341–352.

Bowling, N. A., Eschlerman, K. J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., & Alarcon, G. (2010). A meta- analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 3, 601–626.

Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon's Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 149–154.

Cooke, F. L., Cooper, B., Bartram, T., Wang, J., & Mei, H. (2019). Mapping the re- lationships between high-performance work systems, employee resilience and en- gagement: A study of the banking industry in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 1239–1260.

Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/ slopes.htm].

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.

Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2018). The contributions of personality and emotional intelligence to resiliency. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 140–144.

Fig. 2. Results from Tests of Moderation of Resilience on the Mediated Pathway from Autonomy to OBSE to Psychological Well-being. Parameter estimates are standardized. The index of moderated mediation and its CI are −0.22 [−0.31, −0.13]. **<0.01.

Fig. 3. Illustration of Interaction of Autonomy and Resilience on OBSE.

Table 4 Mediating effects at low, average, and high levels of resilience.

Mediation Path Level of Moderator Indirect Effect (95% CI)

Autonomy→OBSE→PWB Low Resilience .53 (0.26, 0.79) Average Resilience .31 (0.13, 0.49) High Resilience .09 (−0.01, 0.19)

Note: Parameter estimates are standardized. Indirect effects in bold are p < .05 (two-tailed). OBSE = organization-based self-esteem; PWB = psychological well-being.

D.G. Gardner Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020) 109731

5

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi, S., et al. (2009). New measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.). Assessing well-being: The collected works of ed diener (pp. 247–266). . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-412 Social Indicators Research Series 39.

Grover, S. L., Teo, S. T. T., Pick, D., Roche, M., & Newton, C. J. (2018). Psychological capital as a personal resource in the JD-R model. Personnel Review, 47, 968–984.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:

A regression-based approach (2 ed.). NY: The Guilford Press. Horberg, E. J., & Chen, S. (2010). Significant others and contingencies of self-worth:

Activation and consequences of relationship-specific contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 77–91.

Idaszak, J. R., Bottom, W. P., & Drasgow, F. (1988). A test of the measurement equiva- lence of the revised job diagnostics survey: Past problems and current solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 647–656.

Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A. (2018). Leadership behavior and employee well-being: An integrated review and a future research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 179–202.

Kuntz, J. C. R., Malinen, S., & Näswall, K. (2017). Employee resilience: Directions for resilience development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69, 223–242.

Kidd, S., & Shahar, G. (2008). Resilience in homeless youth: The key role of self-esteem. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 163–172.

Lee, J. E. C., Sudom, K. A., & McCreary, D. R. (2011). Higher-order model of resilience in the Canadian forces. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43, 222–234.

Liu, J. J. W., Reed, M., & Girard, T. A. (2017). Advancing resilience: An integrative, multi- system model of resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 111–118.

Mayordomo, T., Viguer, P., Sales, A., Satorres, E., & Meléndez, J. C. (2016). Resilience and coping as predictors of well-being in adults. The Journal of Psychology, 150, 809–821.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user's guide (8th). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Oliver, J. J., & MacLeod, A. K. (2018). Working adults’ well-being: An online self-help goal-based intervention. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91, 665–680.

Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591–622.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., & Crowley, C. (2015). Organization-based self-esteem and well-being: Empirical examination of a spillover effect. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 181–199.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-

based self-esteem: Construct definition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622–648.

Qualtrics. (2014). ESOMAR 28: 28 questions to help research buyers of online samples. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.

Rentzsch, K., Wenzler, M. P., & Shütz, A. (2016). The structure of multidimensional self- esteem across age and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 139–147.

Rodríguez-Rey, R., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Hernansaiz-Garrido, H. (2016). Reliability and validity of the brief resilience scale (BRS) Spanish version. Psychological Assessment, 28, e101–e110. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000191.

Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics, 83, 10–28.

Schaubroeck, J., Kim, Y. J., & Peng, A. C. (2012). The self-concept in organizational psychology: Clarifying and differentiating the constructs. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 27, 1–37.

Schmeichel, B. J., Gailliot, M. T., Filardo, E.-A., McGregor, I., Gitter, S., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Terror management theory and self-esteem revisited: The roles of implicit and explicit self-esteem in mortality salience effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1077–1087.

Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders' well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? a systematic review of three decades of research. Work & Stress, 24, 107–139.

Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 706–724.

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194–200.

Stiglbauer, B., & Kovacs, C. (2018). The more, the better? Curvilinear effects of job au- tonomy on well-being from vitamin model and PE-fit theory perspectives. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 520–536.

Stride, C. B., Gardner, S., Catley, N., & Thomas, F. (2015). Mplus code for mediation, moderation, and moderated mediation models. http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/ FIO/mplusmedmod.htm.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2001). Two-dimensional self-esteem: Theory and measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 653–673.

Tripathi, P. (2011). Employee well-being: Role of psychological capital. Amity Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 18–22.

Walter, S. L., Seibert, S. E., Goering, D., & O'Boyle, E. H. (2019). A tale of two sample sources: Do results from online panel data and conventional data converge? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 425–452.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121–141.

D.G. Gardner Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020) 109731

6