Organization-Based Self-Esteem Construct Definition and Validation

Organization-Based Self-Esteem: Construct Definition, Measurement, and Validation
Author(s): Jon L. Pierce, Donald G. Gardner, Larry L. Cummings and Randall B. Dunham
Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 622-648
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256437
Accessed: 20-09-2016 07:21 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Journal
This content downloaded from 134.208.242.76 on Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:21:01 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
?) Academy of Management Journal

1989, Vol. 32, No. 3, 622-648
ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM:
CONSTRUCT DEFINITION, MEASUREMENT,
AND VALIDATION
JON L. PIERCE
University of Minnesota
DONALD G. GARDNER
University of Colorado-Colorado Springs
LARRY L. CUMMINGS
University of Minnesota
RANDALL B. DUNHAM
University of Wisconsin
The article introduces the construct "organization-based self-esteem"
and its measurement. We developed a partial nomological network

resulting in a set of hypotheses that guided efforts to validate the construct and its measurement. Homogeneity of scale items, test-retest and
internal consistency reliability, and convergent, discriminant, incremental, concurrent, and predictive validity estimates were all in-
spected through conducting field studies and a laboratory experiment.
We present results from a validation effort involving seven studies that

drew on data from over 2,000 individuals, representing diverse organizations and occupations. Results support the construct validity of the
measurement and most of the hypotheses.
A number of researchers have shown an interest in investigating the role

of self-esteem in a variety of organizational models. The basic hypothesis
guiding most of this work suggests that the way individuals react to life
experiences varies as a function of their level of self-esteem, or the extent to
which they perceive themselves as competent, need-satisfying individuals
(Korman, 1976). One underlying theoretical tenet regarding self-esteem is
that individuals will develop attitudes and behave in ways that will maintain their level of self-esteem (Korman, 1976).1 According to this theory, in
We would like to express our appreciation to Johan Aamodt, from the Norwegian Center for
Organizational Learning, Oslo, and to Donald G. McTavish and Kjell R. Knudsen, University of
Minnesota, for their assistance with the laboratory portions of this study. Assistance with data
collection given by Richard Pearson, Jeff Maida, John Hawley, and Laurie Weingart is also
greatly appreciated. Finally, we wish to express our appreciation to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive contributions to our article.
' There are at least two competing explanations for the effects ascribed to selfesteem-self-consistency and self-enhancement (cf. Dipboye, 1977; Korman, 1976). Predictions
(continued)
622
1989 Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham 623
work organizations, individuals with high self-esteem will develop and
maintain favorable work attitudes, such as job satisfaction, and will behave
productively-perform at a high level-because such attitudes and behavior are consistent with the attitude that they are competent individuals.
Individuals with low self-esteem, on the other hand, will develop and main-
tain unfavorable work attitudes and unproductive work behaviors that are
consistent with the attitude that they are people of low competence. To give
an example, Hollenbeck and Brief (1987) found that high self-esteem individuals valued attainment of performance goals more than low self-esteem
individuals.
CONCEPTUAL LEVELS AND MEASURES OF SELF-ESTEEM
Many researchers have argued for recognizing self-esteem as a hierarchical and multifaceted phenomenon (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976;
Song & Hattie, 1985; Tharenou, 1979). As researchers have worked with the
self-esteem construct, different levels of generality for self-esteem have

emerged. Simpson and Boyle (1975) noted that researchers have measured
global self-esteem in reference to an overall evaluation of self-worth, role-
specific self-esteem as the self-evaluation that arises from one of life's many
roles (parent, student, spouse, etc.), and task- or situation-specific selfesteem as the self-evaluation that results from behavior in a specific situation and representing a person's competence in a task just performed.
Many measures of global self-esteem have been developed, and some

have demonstrated reasonable levels of construct validity (Crandall, 1973;
Wells & Marwell, 1976; Wylie, 1974). Measures of task-specific self-esteem
have also been developed, though on more of an ad hoc basis (Wells &
Marwell, 1976). Nevertheless, Tharenou, after reviewing measures of selfesteem, noted that "major problems occur [in the measurement] of selfesteem" (1979: 319). Many researchers develop their own scales, fail to
check for evidence of acceptable construct validity, and then begin to address substantive research issues (Schwab, 1980). Thus, Tharenou and others have called for the development and validation of measures of selfesteem specific to the domains under study-the tasks, work units, organizations, and so forth, with which a researcher is concerned.
On numerous occasions, researchers (e.g., Simpson & Boyle, 1975; Song
& Hattie, 1985; Tharenou, 1979) have expressed concern over the appropriateness of a self-esteem measure included in an investigation. Research conducted on the relationship between behaviors and attitudes (Epstein, 1979)
suggests that the more self-esteem is framed in a context consistent with the
behavior or attitude to be predicted, the higher will be the observed correbased on those two explanations are similar in some situations (Dipboye, 1977) and different in
others (ones, 1973). Our purpose here was construct validation, not the theoretical testing of
differential predictions. Indeed, some research has indicated that both theories are correct,
depending on the type of dependent variable examined (Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines,
1987).
624 Academy of Management journal September
lation between the two variables. For instance, task-specific self-esteem
should predict task-related phenomena like task performance more strongly

than will global self-esteem.
Song and Hattie (1985), for example, noted that observations pertaining
to the relationship between self-concept and academic performance have
been confounded by the use of global and academically specific self-concept

scales, which frequently fail to produce the same results. Following their
observation that task-specific measures frequently predict behaviors not predicted by global measures, Simpson and Boyle (1975) challenged the wisdom of universally employing global self-esteem scales in a number of research paradigms. Observations of this nature led Tharenou (1979) to note
that on numerous occasions researchers have employed global measures
when it would have been more appropriate to use a more narrowly focused
self-esteem construct. Global self-esteem scales are likely to be appropriate
for studies of individuals within the context of total life events, but taskspecific measures of self-esteem, measures that reveal a person's worthiness
in a particular activity, are appropriate for very task-specific behaviors.
Thus, we observe that (1) measures of global self-esteem frequently fail
to demonstrate significant relationships with measures of other constructs
when employed in organizational research, (2) although measures of global
self-esteem are reasonably well developed, there are few, if any, constructvalid measures of self-esteem framed in a task or organizational context, and
(3) self-esteem should be measured at a level of analysis that is similar to the
level of analysis of the variables with which it is being studied. Thus, organization-specific self-esteem should predict organization-related phenomena like organizational commitment more strongly than task-specific or global self-esteem, and global self-esteem should predict life satisfaction more
accurately than either task-specific or organization-specific self-esteem.
ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM
A Rationale for a Measure of Organization-based Self-esteem
Many of the constructs that are traditionally employed in organizational

paradigms, such as turnover, climate, commitment, and citizenship, are oriented toward employees and their role within a total organization, and it is
at the total-work-environment level of analysis that there is a need for an
appropriate measure of self-esteem. To our knowledge, however, no construct-validated measure of self-esteem exists that is anchored in an organizational frame of reference, even though many important constructs in the
organizational sciences are organization-based. We directed the present research effort toward the development and initial validation of such a measure of self-esteem, hoping that such a measure will better enable researchers
to examine the effects of self-esteem in relation to other organization-based
constructs.
This article introduces the construct "organization-based self-esteem"
(OBSE) and its measurement. We present results from seven studies examining the psychometric properties of a measure of the construct and an
empirical validation evaluation of a partial nomological network incorporating it. The purpose of this investigation is the development and initial
validation of a measure of organization-based self-esteem.
The Organization-based Self-esteem Construct
According to Coopersmith (1967), the concept "self" is complex and
multidimensional. It reflects diverse attributes and capacities, some of

which are manifested in external objects such as the body, and others of
which are internal, consisting of feelings and beliefs. Self-esteem is only one
of many concepts of self that have found their way into the organizational
sciences.
Building from the work of Coopersmith (1967), Gelfand (1962), Korman
(1976), and Wells and Marwell (1976), we viewed self-esteem as a selfevaluation that individuals make and maintain with regard to themselves.
Self-esteem expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval of self; it is a

personal evaluation reflecting what people think of themselves as individuals; it indicates the extent to which individuals believe themselves to be
capable, reflecting a personal judgment of worthiness.
The concept introduced in this study is similar to other conceptualizations of self-esteem (e.g., Korman, 1976; Wells & Marwell, 1976). We define
organization-based self-esteem as the degree to which organizational members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating in roles within
the context of an organization. People with high OBSE have a sense of
personal adequacy as organizational members and a sense of having satisfied

needs from their organizational roles in the past. Thus, organization-based
self-esteem reflects the self-perceived value that individuals have of themselves as organization members acting within an organizational context. As
a result, employees with high OBSE should perceive themselves as important, meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within their employing organization.
Employees with high self-esteem are likely to have a strong sense of

self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). That is, they are likely to have strong expectations that they can execute the behaviors required for task performance.
Thus, individuals who develop beliefs about their own efficacy within and
across situations will simultaneously develop a strong sense of self-esteem.
Efficacy perceptions at the level of specific tasks contribute to task-specific
self-esteem; efficacy perceptions across a variety of organizational tasks contribute to OBSE; and efficacy perceptions that accumulate across a variety of
tasks and roles contribute to the formation of global self-esteem. But organization-based self-esteem differs from perceptions of self-efficacy because it
reflects an individual's self-perceived competence within an organization
and self-efficacy reflects a belief that self-perceived competence can be
translated into actions that will result in successful performance.
626 Academy of Management journal September

A PARTIAL NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK
FOR ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM
The studies reported here focused on validating a measure of organization-based self-esteem. Thus, we focused on demonstrating reliability of
measurement, convergent validity, and the distinctness of OBSE from other
constructs (Schwab, 1980). In addition, though we have not yet developed a
complete nomological network for OBSE, we present an initial network here
to guide efforts to further validate the construct and its measurement (see
Figure 1). This will be done, in part, by testing hypotheses derived from this
nomological network.
Properties of Organization-based Self-esteem
Korman's (1970, 1971, 1976) self-consistency motivational theory provided much of the theoretical basis for our OBSE construct. He saw self-
esteem as both shaped by experiences and central to the explanation of

employee motivation, attitudes, and behaviors. Extending this reasoning, we
posited that experiences within an organization will shape OBSE, which

will also affect organization-related behaviors and attitudes. In contrast,
global self-esteem derives from an aggregation of experiences across these
and many other contexts that accumulate across time. But because experi-
enced self-worth in one domain is likely to be correlated with experienced

self-worth in other domains, we expected organization-based self-esteem to
be related to global self-esteem, of which it is a partial determinant. Further,
we expected OBSE to be related to task-specific self-esteem. Task-specific
self-esteem may partially determine experiences within an organization that
lead to an individual's level of OBSE. A person with low task-specific selfesteem, for example, may perform poorly, leading to organizational sanctions and low OBSE. Thus, our first two hypotheses focus on organizationbased self-esteem's relationships to levels of other types of self-esteem:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive relationship between organization-based self-esteem and global selfesteem.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive relationship between organization-based self-esteem and job- or taskspecific self-esteem.
Like global self-esteem, OBSE is part of an individual's basic belief
system. As a part of personality, this belief system, once it is established, is
relatively stable, especially when there are no major environmental changes
that may give rise to new kinds of experiences. Viewing OBSE as a part of
people's belief systems led to our next hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: In the absence of major changes in work
environment, organization-based self-esteem will be stable across time.
Working within the context of self-esteem's nomological network, we
(Hypothesi4,+)
FIGURE1
toOherCnsuca
aThesymbol+nd-ictpzrsfelaonh.
EnvirometalSsfc
bUndercoitsfvmaly,OBSEwbetndposivachlfrtme.
Stabily(Hpohes12,+)
(Hypothesi3,+JSlf-mCten
Organiztol
(Hypothesi2,+)\1
(Hypothesi6,+)1Czn JobCmplexityIOrganz
StabilyAcrosTmekndJOgz
(Hypothesi10,+)
GenralJob
MechanistOrgzo_-bdSf
(Hypothesi5,-)jSlfm9+
JobPerfmance
MangerilRspct(Hyoh8,+)
(Hypothesi1,+)|7-
Self-stm(Hpi7,)
GlobaIntriscMv
SumaryofHpthesizdNlgcwkRnO-b
628 Academy of Management Journal September
agree with Tharenou's (1979) suggestions that the construct be treated as
both a dependent and independent variable and that reciprocal effects are
likely because of the nature of self-esteem (Bandura, 1978). Thus, we explore
OBSE as a determinant or antecedent of behavior and attitudes and as a
consequence of work-environment experiences.

Antecedents of Organization-based Self-esteem
Our nomological network specifies several expected antecedents of

OBSE. Korman's (1971) review of the environmental antecedents of self-
esteem suggested that both the expectations of others and situational conditions play a shaping role. Korman's reference to socially induced self-
esteem suggests that the comments others direct toward people and the types
of tasks assigned to them communicate messages about their value. If significant others think a person is a valuable organizational member and their
comments and behaviors reflect that belief, enhanced OBSE is likely to be
the consequence.
Previous research has also identified environmental conditions as major
shaping factors. Korman's (1970) work suggested that in a mechanistically

designed social system-a social system in which procedures, control, formality, and hierarchy are emphasized-people will develop low levels of
self-esteem. Mechanistic organizations achieve a high level of systemimposed control through a rigid hierarchy, centralization, standardization,
and formalization. Rules, procedures, and management actions greatly control employees' behaviors in such organizations. Korman predicted that un-
der such organizational conditions, employees will eventually develop a

belief system consonant with the apparent basic mistrust or lack of respect
for people implicit in highly controlled systems. He reasoned that the development of programmed activities and high rule specification implies a
mistrust in the abilities and willingness of people to complete their tasks on
their own, without direction and control from others (Kipnis & Lane, 1962).
In contrast, an organic social system, which is more personal and democratic
and less concerned with hierarchy, procedures, formality, and control, will
lead to higher levels of self-esteem with work contexts because it places
inherent trust in employees as competent, valuable, contributing individuals.
An elaboration of Korman's argument would suggest that any form of
system-imposed behavior control, or external control system, carries with it
an assumption of the incapability of individuals to exercise self-direction
and self-control. The greater the imposed control, the less self-direction and
control individuals have in a system. One consequence of a highly controlled system is likely to be the suggestion to employees that they are not
competent within the organizational context. Continual exposure to these
signals and the absence of organizational opportunities to demonstrate and
experience competence lead to low levels of organization-based self-esteem.
By way of contrast, sources of environmental structure (Pierce, Dunham, &
Cummings, 1984) that permit the exercise of self-direction and self-control
should be positively associated with a perception of organizational competence. Compared to individuals in work environments that control their
behaviors, people in such a system have a greater opportunity to exercise
competence and experience success, which contributes to self-assessments
of competence.
In sum, managerial attitudes and behaviors directly expressed in manager-employee interactions and indirectly expressed via the creation of systems within which employees must function are likely to play a major role
in the development of OBSE. Thus,
Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive relationship be-
tween the perception of managerial respect for organization members and organization-based self-esteem.
Hypothesis 5: Mechanistic organizational designs will
cause lower levels of organization-based self-esteem than
organic designs.
Tharenou's (1979) and Tharenou and Harker's (1982) reviews of the
self-esteem literature suggest that job characteristics are among the most
consistent correlates of individuals' assessments of their own work and task
competence and worth. The most influential job characteristics for developing high self-esteem are the amount of challenge and autonomy in a job
(Tharenou, 1979). In other studies, job complexity has had a consistently

positive and significant relationship with global self-esteem and work and
task self-esteem (Dipboye, Zultowski, Dewhirst, & Arvey, 1979; Freedman &
Phillips, 1985; Sekaran & Wagner, 1981; Tharenou & Harker, 1982). Given
Hackman and Oldham's (1975) job characteristics model, we might reason
that employees' performance of complex jobs that suggest they are competent, valuable, and capable of self-direction and self-control will reinforce a
similar belief system. That is, the opportunity to perform complex tasks that
require moderate to high levels of ability should allow employees the opportunity to experience personal worth. By experiencing complex tasks,
Hackman and Oldham (1975) proposed that employees will come to experience a sense of responsibility and to experience their organizational role as
meaningful. Both of these psychological states should unfold, unless an
individual is overmatched with his or her job. Through this process, a cognitively consistent view of the self should develop, thereby enhancing an
individual's organization-based self-esteem. In addition, successful performance of complex jobs may lead to other experiences within an organization
that reinforce OBSE, such as promotions. Through these processes, we ex-
pect OBSE to be related to perceived job complexity. Thus,

Hypothesis 6: There will be a positive relationship between perceived job complexity and organization-based
self-esteem.
Consequences of Organization-based Self-esteem
Cognitive consistency theory assumes that people are motivated to
achieve outcomes that are consistent with their self-concept (Korman, 1971:
595). This model would suggest that employees with high OBSEemployees who perceive themselves as organizationally valuable and meaningful-will attempt to engage in behaviors valued in their organization. In
similar fashion, need theory (Alderfer, 1972; Maslow, 1943) and selfenhancement theory (Dipboye, 1977) would also predict that employees are
motivated to engage in behaviors that demonstrate and enhance their organizational worth. To the extent that these behaviors demonstrate personal
competence and make an organizational contribution, employees will derive
intrinsic satisfaction, coupled with a reinforcement of their self-esteem. Subsequent success due to these behaviors should reinforce high organizationbased self-esteem, and failure would reinforce low OBSE. Thus, to maintain
cognitive consistency, employees with high OBSE should be motivated to
perform at a high level, actually perform at a high level, have favorable

attitudes about an organization, and engage in other organization-related
behaviors that would benefit the organization (cf. Taylor & Brown, 1988).
Low OBSE employees are predicted to do the opposite to maintain cognitive
consistency. Thus, we hypothesized that OBSE would relate to the following

behaviors and attitudes but again acknowledged the possibility of reciprocal
causation:
tween organization-based self-esteem and intrinsic work

motivation.
Hypothesis 8: There will be a positive relationship between organization-based self-esteem and job per-
formance. 2
tween organization-based self-esteem and general job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 10: There will be a positive relationship between organization-based self-esteem and engagement in
organizationally beneficial behaviors.
Increased self-acceptance within an organizational context is likely to
be associated with increased satisfaction with one's organizational association and increased attachment to the organization (organizational commit-
2 Actually, performance level is expected to be a strong determinant in the formation

OBSE. As employees begin their organizational tenure, objective and subjective performance
feedback provide cues about their level of competence within an organization, which deter-
mines beliefs about their self-perceived task- and organization-based worth. Because the respondent groups from which we obtained performance measures were characterized by employees with high tenure, who were likely to have already-determined beliefs about organization-based competence, we phrased the hypothesis in terms of OBSE as a cause of performance
instead of vice versa.
We also note that research evidence shows that there are a host of factors that attenuate the
relationship between self-esteem and performance (Brockner, 1988), even though the basic
relationship should be as hypothesized.
ment). A high level of organizational self-esteem implies a correspondingly

high level of experienced personal competence and organizational worth.
Such a psychological state is need-satisfying and reinforcing for an individual and thus positions an organization as a need-satisfying agent in an employee's life. Because the organization satisfies needs, employees are likely
to integrate the organization into their lives, to internalize the organization,
and to make its goals and value systems part of their own. Thus:
Hypothesis 11: There will be a positive relationship between organization-based self-esteem and organizational
commitment.
tween organization-based self-esteem and organizational

satisfaction.
Figure 1 summarizes the first 12 hypotheses in the proposed nomological network for the OBSE construct. It should be noted that the model is
only a partial network for the construct and that many of these relationships
are likely to involve reciprocal effects (Bandura, 1978; Tharenou, 1979).

Predictive Efficacy of Organization-based Self-esteem
Building on the concerns expressed by Song and Hattie (1985), Simpson

and Boyle (1975), and Tharenou (1979) regarding the validity of self-esteem
measures, the predictive accuracy of existing measures, and appropriate

levels of construct measurement, we offer two additional hypotheses. Both
Hypotheses 13 and 14 attempt to establish the predictive efficacy of OBSE
relative to measures of task-specific and global self-esteem.
Of the several constructs examined in the series of studies reported here,
organizational commitment is perhaps the perceptual target most closely
aligned with the target of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational
commitment is the degree to which employees are willing to take internal
and external actions on behalf of their organization, and OBSE is the degree
to which they see themselves as need-satisfying individuals within the context of their organizational experiences. Following the argument concerning
levels of analysis made above, we would expect this relationship between
OBSE and organizational commitment to be stronger than the relationship

between task-specific self-esteem and organizational commitment. That is,
we expect an organization-organization relationship to be stronger than a
task-organization relationship. To help distinguish OBSE from task-specific
self-esteem, we hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 13: There will be a stronger relationship between organization-based self-esteem and organizational
commitment than between task-specific self-esteem and
organizational commitment.
Continuing the level-of-analysis argument, we also expect that the organization-organization relationship will be stronger than the globalorganization relationship. Consequently, we expect that the relationship be-
tween OBSE and organizational satisfaction will be stronger than the rela-
tionship between global self-esteem and organizational satisfaction. Thus,

Hypothesis 14: There will be a stronger relationship be-
tween organization-based self-esteem and organizational

satisfaction than between global self-esteem and organizational satisfaction.
METHODS
Study Designs and Respondents

The studies reported here drew on seven groups of people with a com-
bined total of 2,444 individuals. The seven studies were used to test the 14
hypotheses, but each hypothesis was not tested in each study. We examined
scale dimensionality, homogeneity of scale items, reproducibility of homogeneity across studies, reliability estimates (test-retest and internal consistency), and convergent, discriminant, incremental, concurrent, and predictive validity estimates.
Table 1 identifies the study and respondents with which each of the
hypotheses was tested. Respondents for study 1 were 32 summer school
teachers employed by a midwestern school system. Study 2 was based on
data from 333 employees of a mining firm representing a variety of occupational and skill categories. Study 3 drew on lower-, middle-, and upper-level
managers from a variety of manufacturing and service-oriented organizations (e.g., utility, banking, mining, oil, education, health care); these managers participated in two laboratory-based organizational simulations. We
obtained a total of 38 observations (20 for one simulated organization and 18
for the second) from the simulations. The fourth study employed 1,426 midwestern school teachers, administrators, and support workers. The fifth included 475 employees, representing all levels and job functions, from an
automobile service club in a midwestern state. Study 6 used data from 96
office employees, from entry-level clerical workers through top managers,

from a state educational association. Finally, the respondents for study 7
consisted of 45 evening M.B.A. students at a midwestern university, all of
whom were employed full-time in various types of jobs.
Procedures
Respondents in six of the seven studies, study 3 being the exception,

were administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires with questions directed
toward their current full-time jobs. Procedures for study 7 varied; we gave
those respondents the same questionnaire on two occasions five weeks
apart. For participants in study 3, who also received a paper-and-pencil
questionnaire, questions applied to simulated jobs the participants held during a three-day management development laboratory program.
The organizational simulation in study 3 was designed to create two
types of organizational structures: mechanistic and organic. These differences were produced through a combination of written instructions describ-
5.Mechanistdgx
aThetirdgoup,mnsfv clabtryiuon.
TABLE1
HypothesTdinSu
4.Mangerilspctx
10.Organiztolceshpx
StudiesanRpo
Automive
1.Organiztolcmex
13.Comparisnwthkelf-x
14.Comparisnwthglbef-x
12.Organiztolsfcx
9.Jobsatifcnx 8.Perfomancx 7.Workmtivanx
6.Jobcmplexity
2.Job-andtskpeciflmx
3.Stabilycrosmex 1.Globasef-tmx andKeyCocpts1234567

HypothesNumbrTacElMng poyesAitSud
ScholFirmCubEpyesM.BA SumerMingvctaE
ing the structure and goals of the hypothetical organization and the role
playing of the directors of the laboratory. All participants worked in both a
mechanistic and an organic organization during three days of organizational
simulations with the order of exposure to mechanistic and organic structure
counterbalanced. A complete description of the simulation appears in Knudsen, McTavish, and Aamodt (1985). For a manipulation check, we obtained
several structural measures-perceived authoritarianism, formality, concern for control, concern for procedures, and flexibility-to compare the
two social system structures. The results indicated that participants per-
ceived the manipulation as we intended (F - 40.03, p < .01). There were no

significant effects for the order in which the two structures were experienced.
Measures
Organization-based self-esteem. The items in the OBSE scale were derived from comments we have often heard in discussions with employees,
managers, and organizational scientists. The following demonstrates the
type of comment we mean: Joel S. Birnbaum, in an interview with Business
Week (Wilson & Harris, 1986: 116), noted that he became frustrated at IBM
by the difficulty of getting his ideas to market. Emphasizing a cognition,
reflecting a personalized evaluation of self-worth, that began to develop,
Birnbaum said, "I had the feeling I didn't make a difference." We have come
to the conclusion that it is not uncommon for employees to develop a belief
that they "do not count," "do not make a difference," "are not a valuable part
of this place." It was out of this context that we started the development of
the OBSE measure.
The OBSE scale consists of ten items generated by us. Each of the items
reflects what we would expect employees to consider in evaluating the ex-
tent to which they believe that they are valuable, worthwhile, effectual mem-
bers of their employing organizations. We asked respondents in studies 1, 2,

and 3 to think about the messages they received from the attitudes and
behaviors of their managers and supervisors and to indicate, on a 5-point
scale, the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the following
statements: I count around here; I am taken seriously; I am important; I am
trusted; there is faith in me; I can make a difference; I am valuable; I am
helpful; I am efficient; and I am cooperative. To increase adjusted item-total
correlations, we later appended the wording "around here" to all items and
employed this revised scale in studies 4-7. We used a 5-point Likert response scale with the ten items measuring organization-based self-esteem,
except in study 4, where a 7-point scale was employed.
Other measures. To be consistent with the construct validation process

(Schwab, 1980), we tried to use measures of other constructs with previously
established psychometric properties, though in a few instances this could
not be done.
In study 1, organization-based self-esteem was also measured with a
modification of a 19-item semantic-differential global self-esteem scale de-
veloped in unreported research by Gardner and Stone.3 The modification
consisted of asking for responses to the scale items based on experiences

with a current job as opposed to total life-based experiences. Gardner and
Stone developed this measure from (1) thoroughly reviewing existing global
self-esteem measures (Crandall, 1973; Wells & Marwell, 1976; Wylie, 1974),
(2) isolating 19 common dimensions across those existing measures, and (3)
framing those 19 dimensions in the form of bipolar adjectives (e.g., cooperative-uncooperative, self-assured-hesitant; helpful-frustrating; efficientinefficient; supportive-hostile). In their research, which consisted of two
laboratory experiments, the semantic differential scale correlated .63 (p <

.001) with the established Likert-type global self-esteem scale (Rosenberg,
1965). Inspection of the relationship between the Likert scales used with our
OBSE measure and the semantic differential scale provides insight into issues dealing with convergent validity and method variance (Campbell &
Fiske, 1959; Schwab, 1980).
Managerial respect was measured using a single Likert-type item in
studies 1 and 4: "Management has little regard for the well-being of people
who work for this organization." Organizational commitment was assessed
in studies 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 with either the long (15 items) or the short (9 items)
form of the Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974) instrument. We used
the following to measure general job satisfaction: in study 1, Hackman and
Oldham's Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS, 1975); in study 4, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967);
and in studies 5 and 6, a combination of seven of the eight facets assessed by
the Index of Organizational Reactions (IOR) (Smith, 1976). Organizational
satisfaction (Dunham, Smith, & Blackburn, 1977) was measured in study 7
with a single item that read "Consider the organization that you work for and
the things that you do for this organization. Circle the face on the appropriate
scale which best expresses how you feel about your association with this
organization" and employed the Dunham and Herman (1975) modification
of Kunin's (1955) Faces scale. To measure internal work motivation, we used
the JDS in study 2 and Lawler and Hall's (1970) measure of intrinsic motivation in studies 5 and 6. Organizational citizenship was measured in study
4 by a self-report version of the 16-item scale developed by Smith, Organ,

and Near (1983). We measured job complexity in studies 5 and 6 with items
from the Job Characteristics Inventory (Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976) for the
measurement of variety, autonomy, feedback, and task identity and took
significance items from the JDS. Global self-esteem was measured in study 7
with Rosenberg's (1965) 10-item questionnaire. Task- and job-based selfesteem was measured in studies 5 and 6 with a 6-item modification of the
Rosenberg scale and Beehr's (1976) 3-item scale. We modified the Rosenberg
3 Our source is a personal communication from D. G. Gardner and E. F. Stone regarding

unpublished self-esteem research.
scale by anchoring each item in the context of a respondent's job; for exam-
ple, "I feel I have a number of good qualities" was changed to "I feel I have
a number of good qualities for the performance of my job." We used supervisory ratings to measure job performance in studies 5 and 6 and also used
an objective measure of performance for some of the employees in study 5.

Data for that measure came from archival personnel files and reflected the
most recent performance measurement before survey measures were ob-
tained. The two measures of performance for study 5 reflected the major
categories of employees at the research site: nonexempt employees, who
received an hourly wage, and telemarketing employees, who received an
hourly wage plus a commission for membership sales. The nonexempt per-
formance measure was the sum of supervisory ratings on eight dimensions:

knowledge, quality, quantity, initiative, dependability, adaptability, cooperation, and attitude. The performance measure for telemarketers was average
dollar club-membership sales per hour during the most recent performance
review period. In study 6, supervisory ratings of nonexempt employees were
in one of three classes: below standard, at standard, or above standard. Table
2 summarizes information on which measures were employed in the various

studies.
TABLE 2
Studies and Their Measures

Studies
Measures
Organization-based self-esteem x x x x x x x
Organization-based self-esteem,
semantic differential x
Managerial
Organizational
respect
commitment
General job satisfaction

JDS
IOR
MSQ
Organizational
satisfaction
Internal work motivation

JDS
Lawler
Organizational
Global
and
Hall
citizenship
self-esteem,
Rosenberg
Task- and job-specific self-esteem

Rosenberg,
modified
Beehr
Performance
Supervisory
Archival
ratings
personnel
files
Organic-mechanistic social system structures x

Job
complexity
Analyses
Descriptive statistics, reliability, and validity. Group means and stan-
dard deviations were calculated for each variable. For multiitem scales, we
used coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) to estimate reliability. In study 7, a
test-retest estimate of reliability for organization-based self-esteem was also
calculated. In addition, we calculated this test-retest correlation controlling
for employee perceptions of the degree to which organizational change had
occurred between the two data collections. For study 1, convergent validity
evidence for the OBSE measure was obtained by correlating the scores for the
Likert and semantic versions of the scale. We examined evidence on dis-
criminant validity for that group by comparing the convergent validity coefficients to correlations of OBSE with other study variables. Convergent and
discriminant validity evidence was also tested in studies 5 and 6 by comparing the correlations of OBSE with measures of job and task self-esteem
and with the correlations of OBSE with other study variables. Evidence as to
the incremental validity (Sechrest, 1963; Stone, 1978; Zaccaro & Stone,
1988) of OBSE derives from studies 5, 6, and 7. Incremental validity provides
''some increment in predictive efficiency over the information otherwise

easily and cheaply available" (Sechrest, 1963: 154). Tests of Hypotheses 13
and 14 examined the predictive efficacy of OBSE, task-specific, and global
measures of self-esteem with organization-based constructs. Finally, we
used principal component factor analyses with varimax rotations in studies
5 and 6 as part of the examination of discriminant and convergent validity
evidence.
Tests of hypotheses. Most hypotheses that make up the OBSE network
were tested through correlational analyses of the proposed relationships. We
tested Hypothesis 5, involving the impact of social system design on organization-based self-esteem, using a one-way analysis of variance for differences in OBSE between mechanistic and organic settings, controlling for the
order in which the simulated organizational types were experienced.
RESULTS
Since the purpose of the empirical studies was to demonstrate the construct validity of the OBSE scale, we have chosen to organize our results
around several major indicators of construct validity, for example, reliability
and incremental and predictive validity. Some of the tests reported here
derive from the hypothesized predictions presented in the OBSE nomological network, and others reveal information about other properties (e.g., internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity) of a constructvalid scale.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 presents means, standard deviations, correlations, and the size

of the data set for each variable by study. Where appropriate, coefficient
alphas are also shown. Coefficient alphas for all variables in the nomological
network for organization-based self-esteem reached acceptable levels.
Reliability Estimates
Coefficient alphas and test-retest correlations were calculated in order

to examine the reliability of the OBSE scale. These tests provided us with
insight into the scale's internal consistency, the homogeneity of scale items,
and the stability of the scale's measurement across time (Hypothesis 3).
Internal consistency. Across all seven studies and eight variables, each
alpha value was equal to or greater than .86, ranging to a high of .96 in study
4. The average alpha value was .91. The strength of these internal consistency estimates provides evidence for the homogeneity of the scale items.
Test-retest reliability. The test-retest reliability coefficient was .75 (p <
.01). After we controlled for perceived organizational change, the test-retest
correlation rose to .87 (p < .01). The strength of this association provides
support for the stability of the construct proposed in Hypothesis 3.
Convergent Validity
A construct-valid scale converges more with similar measures of the
same construct than with measures of substantively different constructs. We
examined organization-based self-esteem in association with a semantic differential version of the OBSE scale and inspected evidence in support of the
positive association between OBSE and global self-esteem (Hypothesis 1),
and OBSE and job- and task-specific measures of self-esteem (Hypothesis 2).
The two OBSE measures used in the first study correlated .69 with one
another (see Table 3). With one exception, a correlation of .77 between OBSE
and organizational satisfaction, this association was stronger in magnitude
than correlations of OBSE with any of the other non-self-esteem variables
examined across the seven studies and 26 comparisons. In study 7, global
self-esteem measured at time 2 had a positive (r = .48, p < .01) relationship
with OBSE, also measured at time 2, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1. In
studies 5 and 6, we expected that the OBSE measure would converge more
with the modified Rosenberg (1965) and Beehr (1976) task-specific selfesteem measures than with other study variables. With one exceptionOBSE and commitment in study 6-this was true. OBSE correlated .54 (p <
.01) and .57 (p < .01) with the Rosenberg and Beehr scales in studies 5 and
6 respectively, supporting Hypothesis 2. This pattern of correlations provides convergent validity evidence for the OBSE scale.
Discriminant Validity
In order to provide additional evidence for the construct's convergent

and discriminant validity, results from the three self-esteem scales (OBSE,
Beehr, and Rosenberg) used in studies 5 and 6 were factor-analyzed with
several other study variables: organizational commitment, job complexity,
intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational satisfaction. In both
3.Mangersb
2.Mingfrmeploys
1.Sumerscholta
4.Scholdistrempy
2.Organizto-bsedlfm
5.Autombilesrvc-py
1.Organizto-bsedlfm3860549()
2.Rosenbrg'jlf-tm41057*(6)
2.Mangerilspct671,4093*NA
3.Behr'staklf-m40961857*(2)
3.Organiztolceshp790521,4*()
4.Jobcmplexity370562*()
5.Intriscwokmva4306821*(7)
1.Organizto-bsedlfm375068(9)
1.Organizto-bsedlfm584,03(96)
3.Organiztolcme206159*7(8)
3.Mangerilspct06125*NA
4.Genraljobstifc35092*86NA
4.Genraljobstifc369051,8*NA
5.Organiztolcme4012,39*7(8)
CorelatinMxs
semanticdfrl4.791236*(5)
2.Interalwokmiv370496*(8)
2.Organic-mehstop1973046*()
TABLE3
Corelatins
6.Genraljobstifc347051*29(8)
8.Perfomanc,tlks61453*207NA
9.Perfomanc,xptlys3804715*62-NA()
StudiesMan.N123456789
N.A=notaplicbe
7.EvenigMBAstud
*pc.01,one-tailds
*p.05,one-tailds
6.Staeducionlsmpy
1.Organizto-bsedlfm,4056
2.Organizto-bsedlfm,38906457*
(3.98)052
1.Organizto-bsedlfm3980546(7)
TABLE3(contiued)
(3.8)0527*9
2.Rosenbrg'jlf-tm48059*(7)
3.Chronicself-tm,24071*8
4.Organiztolsfc,me156*2
5.Organiztolsfc,me201349*7
(3.7)0298
3.Behr'staklf-m4205796*()
(5.28)176*03NA
4.Jobcmplexity39501*2(6)
bThetirdgoup,cmsfanvly.
(5.28)097*34NA
5.Intriscwokmva42706193*(8)
Corelatins
6.Genraljobstifc3094*271(8)
7.Organiztolcme36089*25()
8.Perfomanc1490526*NA
aCoreltins,mdvN'phfywcgz.
StudiesMan.N123456789
studies, a two-factor solution emerged, with self-esteem forming one factor

and affect forming the other (see Table 4). Across the two groups, the three
self-esteem scales have average loadings of .79 on the self-esteem factor and
.21 on the affect factor. The other variables averaged .26 on the self-esteem
factor and .62 on the affect factor. Thus, OBSE associated more strongly with
other measures of self-esteem than with measures of conceptually distinct
variables, providing additional convergent validity evidence. The emergence of the two-factor solution, with OBSE as one factor and measures of
expected organizational correlates as the second, provides evidence of discriminant validity for the measurement of organization-based self-esteem.
Incremental Validity
Hypotheses 13 and 14 were created in order to demonstrate the incremental validity of the OBSE scale. The results of tests of these two hypotheses provided evidence for the predictive efficacy of OBSE in relation to
other organization-based constructs, organizational commitment and organizational satisfaction.
To discriminate the OBSE measure from measures of task-specific selfesteem, the correlations between OBSE and organizational commitment
were contrasted with the correlations between task-specific self-esteem and
organizational commitment (Hypothesis 13). In line with the argument for
consonant levels of analysis, on the average OBSE correlated higher (r = .55)
with organizational commitment than did the task-specific measures (average r = .30), providing support for Hypothesis 13. These differences were
significantly different (p < .01) on four out of four possible contrasts. Thus,
findings support the hypothesis that consonant levels of analysis produce
stronger relationships, though we must also remember that the task-specific

self-esteem scales were less reliable than our measure of OBSE.
Hypothesis 14 was also formulated in an effort to discriminate OBSE
from measures of global self-esteem in the prediction of organization-based
constructs. We compared the correlation between OBSE and organizational
TABLE 4
Rotated Factor Matrixes for Discriminability Analyses

Study 5 Factors Study 6 Factors
Variables Affect Self-esteem Affect Self-esteem
1. Organization-based self-esteem .36 .73 .50 .67
2. Rosenberg's job self-esteem .11 .83 .02 .83
2.
Beehr's
task
self-esteem
.05
.85
.22
.80
4. Organizational commitment .87 .25 .76 .25

5.
6.
7.
Job
complexity
Intrinsic
General
.22
motivation
job
.56
.32
satisfaction
.07
.31
.88
.18
.43
.89
.66
.21
.07
8. Organizational satisfaction .92 .13 .86 -.03

Eigenvalues
3.67
1.46
3.36
1.56
Percent variance explained 45.90 18.20 42.00 19.50
satisfaction in study 7 with a similar correlation involving global selfesteem. The correlation between OBSE and organizational satisfaction at
time 2 was .77 (p < .01) and the correlation between global self-esteem and
organizational satisfaction was .39 (p < .01). Not only does OBSE account for
44 percent more of the criterion variance than global self-esteem, but the
difference between these two correlations is statistically significant (p <
.01). The test of Hypothesis 14 provides further evidence for organization-
based self-esteem's distinctness from existing measures of self-esteem as

well as evidence for the use of consonant levels of analysis in self-esteem
research.
Predictive Validity
Tests of Hypotheses 5 and 12 provided evidence for the predictive validity of OBSE. We conducted a laboratory experiment manipulating condi-
tions believed to affect OBSE to test Hypothesis 5, and examined a consequence of OBSE in a longitudinal correlation between the construct and
organizational satisfaction to test Hypothesis 12.
An ANOVA was employed to examine the relationship between social
system design and organization-based self-esteem. Hypothesis 5 predicted
that employees experiencing a mechanistic-bureaucratic social system will
experience a significantly lower level of OBSE than their counterparts in a
more organic social system. Results from the ANOVA reveal a statistically
significant (F = 21.58, p < .01) difference in OBSE across the two types of
organization. Confirming the prediction, those working under the mechanistic design reported lower levels of OBSE (x = 33.11) than their counterparts working under more organic organizational conditions (x = 41.72).
Analyses indicated that there were no significant effects on the criterion
attributable to the order of laboratory experiences.
The product-moment correlations were inspected to gain clearer insight
into the relationship between social system structure and OBSE. Six of the
seven design variables, concern for procedures being the single exception,
had significant correlations with the OBSE scale (r = -.32, p < .05 to r =
- .54, p < .01). The direction of these relationships suggests that employees
exposed to high levels of impersonality, authority, formality, concern for
control, and inflexibility and to low levels of democracy tend to develop a

psychological state in which their OBSE is low. Individuals who experienced a social system with the opposite design features developed high
OBSE. Because of the strong intercorrelations among the social-system structure variables, however, a unit-weight model depicting a mechanisticorganic social system design was constructed and correlated with the criterion (see Table 3). This relationship (r = -.46, p < .01) suggests that as a
social system becomes increasingly mechanistic, OBSE decreases. This pattern provides support for the construct validity of our OBSE measure (Hypothesis 5) and for one of Korman's (1976) major hypotheses.
Organization-based self-esteem was also hypothesized to predict an employee's level of organizational satisfaction (Hypothesis 12). OBSE measured
at time 1 significantly predicted organizational satisfaction (r = .59, p < .01)

at time 2, thereby providing support for the positive relationship between
organization-based self-esteem and employee satisfaction. With the organizational change that occurred between time 1 and time 2 controlled, this
relationship was somewhat stronger (r = .70, p < .01).
Concurrent Validity
Several hypotheses (4, 6, and 7-11) from the OBSE nomological network were examined in an effort to inspect the concurrent validity of the
organization-based self-esteem scale. We positioned variation in job complexity and managerial respect (Hypotheses 4 and 6) in the nomological
network as antecedents of organization-based self-esteem. Each of these variables had a significant (p < .01) cross-sectional correlation with the criterion. In fact, inspection of Table 3 reveals that some of these correlations are
quite substantial in magnitude. The strength of these associations ranged
between .30 (p < .01) and .52 (p < .01) for managerial respect and between
.39 (p < .01) and .44 (p < .01) for job complexity. These observations support
the hypothesized relationships. Employees who experience managerial re-
spect and complex jobs have higher levels of OBSE than employees who do
not. Five variables -organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, general job satisfaction, internal work motivation, and performancewere theoretically positioned in the nomological network as consequences
of OBSE (Hypotheses 7-11). Tests confirmed all hypotheses (see Table 3)
with one exception: one hypothesis was confirmed on only one of the two
performance measures used in study 5. The correlation coefficients ranged

between .15 (p < .05) for job performance (supervisory rating) to .60 (p < .01)
for organizational commitment (self-rating). Thus, compared to employees
who experience a low level of OBSE, employees with a high level tend to be
better organizational citizens and better performers and to have higher job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and internal work motivation.
It might be argued that the correlations between self-report measures
and organization-based self-esteem were higher than between the nonself-report measure and the construct because of methods bias (Schwab,
1980). We do not doubt that this is partially true. However, all the self-report
measures used in testing these hypotheses have reasonably well-known psychometric properties, and thus the impact of method variance is likely to be
low (Spector, 1987). Moreover, this pattern of correlations could also be due
in part to the performance appraisal measures having lower psychometric
quality than the self-report measures. We feel that the magnitude and differential pattern of correlations across measures outweigh criticisms of
methods bias (cf. Gerhart, 1987).
DISCUSSION
Employees with high organization-based self-esteem perceive themselves as important, meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within their em-
ploying organization. The results of our research on the measurement and

validation of OBSE across seven studies suggest the importance of the con-
struct and the viability of our measure of it. Our measure demonstrates
consistently good internal consistency reliability, homogeneity of scale
items, and stability over time. This developmental research scale possesses
appropriate convergent and discriminant validity and reasonable predictive
and concurrent validity when placed within a nomological network. The
scale had stronger predictive efficacy in relations with other organizationbased constructs than measures of global or task- and job-specific self-
esteem. The evidence presented here supports our belief that OBSE is part of
employees' belief systems. Both the proposed determinants and consequences of OBSE were appropriately related to OBSE in the various studies
reported here. Neither the nature of the respondents involved nor the specific instruments used to measure other study variables appeared to substantially affect these relationships.
The results of the seven studies reported here suggest that the determinants of OBSE may include managerial respect, organizational structure, and
job complexity. Factors influenced by organization-based self-esteem may

include not only global self-esteem but also job performance, intrinsic motivation, general satisfaction, citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, and organizational satisfaction. It should be noted, however, that only
two of the seven studies were longitudinal, thereby permitting few conclusions about causality. These results are not much different from those of
earlier examinations of self-esteem in terms of the nature of relationships
revealed: Positive experiences lead to high self-esteem, negative experiences
lead to low self-esteem. But our results are some of the first to indicate that
experiences in an organization affect employees' levels of organizationbased self-esteem, which in turn may affect their organization-related behaviors and attitudes.
We also provide evidence that using measures with consonant targets of

perception-here, organization to organization-enhances the predictive
validity of those measures. In that respect, we encourage researchers interested in self-esteem to use a measure of self-esteem that is consistent in
context (isometric) with the other variables under study. But we also would
encourage researchers to employ multiple measures of self-esteem to continue to ascertain the degree to which different measures possess construct
validity.
Although the focus of the studies reported here was construct validation
and not testing theories of self-esteem, it should be noted that results supported all of the study hypotheses. It is clear that future research on organization-based self-esteem needs to provide additional longitudinal tests of
both its determinants and consequences. In a more theoretical vein, we
believe that our measure of OBSE may yield better predictive efficacy than
task- and job-specific or global measures of self-esteem in the study of such
variables as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, organizational culture, and organizational climate and satisfaction. For example,
OBSE may moderate the relationship between organizational commitment

and job performance in such a way that the relationship between commitment and performance is stronger for high OBSE employees than for low
OBSE employees; these relationships would be analogous to the relationships between task-specific self-esteem, job complexity, and performance
hypothesized by Tharenou and Harker (1984). In using OBSE in future hypothesis testing, researchers need to ask themselves whether the way employees view their competence in an organization directly or indirectly affects, or is affected by, other constructs of interest.
It should also be noted that organization-based self-esteem focuses on
individuals' assessments of their organizational worth, which stems from a
history of organizational, interpersonal, and systemic experiences. OBSE
differs from such value-laden constructs as central life interest (Dubin, 1956)
and job involvement (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), which possess higher emotional-affective components. We also distinguish OBSE from such possible
outcomes as self-perceptions of efficacy in performing a particular task
(Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is frequently seen as an expectation (efficacy
expectation) in "the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes" (Bandura, 1977: 193). Future research
should be directed to testing the consequent and antecedent relationships of
self-efficacy and self-esteem. Future research might also be directed toward
testing the intervening role of self-efficacy in the relationships between
OBSE and performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, emotional
arousal, and verbal persuasion (cf. Bandura, 1977). Still other research might
seek to distinguish self-consistency (Korman, 1976), self-enhancement (Dipboye, 1977), and information-screening (Taylor & Brown, 1988) explanations
for effects of OBSE on organization-based employee responses. Finally, we
need to learn more about the relative importance of situational factors and
the attitudes and behavior of others as antecedents to organization-based
self-esteem and the process through which these determinants operate.
On the basis of the research reported here, we concur with Korman's
view that the structural features of work environments can and do send
strong messages that shape individuals' beliefs about their organizational
value. There is also evidence suggesting that individuals may well develop
organizational attitudes and engage in behaviors that are consistent with
their organization-based self-esteem.
REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. 1972. Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.
Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

Reviews, 84: 191-215.
Bandura, A. 1978. The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33:
344-358.
Beehr, T. A. 1976. Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between subjective role
ambiguity and role strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 35-40.
Brockner, J. 1988. Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, Mass.: D.C.
Heath & Co.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56: 81-105.
Coopersmith, J. 1967. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.
Crandall, R. 1973. The measurement of self-esteem and related constructs. In J. P. Robinson &
P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social psychological attitudes: 45-167. Ann Arbor,
Mich.: Institute for Social Research.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16:
297-334.
Dipboye, R. L. 1977. A critical review of Korman's self-consistency theory of work motivation
and occupational choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18: 108126.
Dipboye, R. L., Zultowski, W. H., Dewhirst, H. D., & Arvey, R. D. 1979. Self-esteem as a moderator of the relationship between scientific interest and the job satisfaction of physicist and
engineer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 289-294.
Dubin, R. 1956. Industrial workers' world: A study of the "central life interests" of industrial
workers. Social Problems, 3: 131-142.
Dunham, R. B., & Herman, J. B. 1975. Development of a female Faces scale for measuring job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60: 629-631.
Dunham, R. B., Smith, F. J., & Blackburn, R. S. 1977. Validation of the Index of Organizational
Reactions with the HDI, the MSQ and Faces scales. Academy of Management Journal, 20:
420-432.
Epstein, S. 1979. The stability of behavior: 1. On predicting most of the people much of the
time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1097-1126.
Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. 1985. The effects of situational performance constraints on
intrinsic motivation and satisfaction: The role of perceived competence and selfdetermination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35: 397-416.
Gelfand, D. M. 1962. The influence of self-esteem on rate of verbal conditioning and social
matching behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65: 259-265.
Gerhart, B. 1987. How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction?
Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
72: 366-373.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60: 159-170.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Brief, A. P. 1987. The effects of individual differences and goal origins on
goal setting and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
40: 392-414.
Jones, S. C. 1973. Self- and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories versus consistency theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79: 185-199.
Kipnis, D., & Lane, W. P. 1962. Self-confidence and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
46: 291-295.
Knudsen, K. R., McTavish, D. G., & Aamodt, J. 1985. The strategic management and organi-
zation laboratory. Bureau of Business and Economics working paper 85-4, School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota, Duluth.
Korman, A. K. 1970. Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,

54: 31-41.
Korman, A. K. 1971. Organizational achievement, aggression and creativity: Some suggestions
toward an integrated theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6: 593613.

Korman, A. K. 1976. Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of
Management Review, 1(1): 50-63.
Kunin, T. 1955. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psychology, 8:
65-78.
Lawler, E. E. II, & Hall, D. T. 1970. Relationships of job characteristics to job involvement,
satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54: 305-312.
Lohdahl, T., & Kejner, M. 1965. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50: 370-396.
Pierce, J. L., Dunham, R. B., & Cummings, L. L. 1984. Sources of environmental structuring and
participant responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33: 214-241.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, R. V. 1974. Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59: 603-609.
Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Schwab, D. P. 1980. Construct validity in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum-
mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 2: 3-43. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI
Press.
Sechrest, L. 1963. Incremental validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23:

153-158.
Sekaran, V., & Wagner, F. R. 1981. Sense of competence: A cross-cultural analysis for manage-
rial application. Group and Organization Studies, 6: 340-351.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. 1976. Self-concept: Validations of constructinterpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46: 407-441.
Simpson, C. K., & Boyle, D. 1975. Esteem construct generality and academic performance.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35: 897-904.
Sims, H. P., Jr., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. 1976. The measurement of job characteristics.
Academy of Management Journal, 19: 195-212.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.

Smith, F. J. 1976. Index of organizational reactions (IOR). In American Psychological Associa-
tion (Eds.), Journal supplemental abstract service and catalog of selected documents in
psychology, vol. 6: ms no. 1265. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Song, I-S., & Hattie, J. 1985. Relationships between self-concept and achievement. Journal of
Research in Personality, 19: 365-372.

Spector, P. E. 1987. Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at
work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 438-443.

Stone, E. F. 1978. Research methods in organizational behavior. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Co.
Swann, W. B., Griffin, J. J., Predmore, S. C., & Gaines, B. 1987. The cognitive-affective crossfire:
When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52: 881-889.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. 1988. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 193-210.
Tharenou, P. 1979. Employee self-esteem: A review of the literature. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 15: 1-29.

Tharenou, P., & Harker, P. 1982. Organizational correlates of employee self-esteem. Journal of
Tharenou, P., & Harker, P. 1984. Moderating influence of self-esteem on relationships between
job complexity, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 623632.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. 1967. Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Industrial Relations
Center.
Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. 1976. Self-esteem. London: Sage Publications.

Wilson, J. W., & Harris, C. L. 1986. Joel Birnbaum, the odd man in at Hewlett-Packard. Business
Week, March 10: 116.
Wylie, R. C. 1974. The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Stone, E. F. 1988. Incremental validity of an empirically based measure of job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 245-252.
Jon L. Pierce is a professor of organization and management in the Department of

Management Studies at the University of Minnesota at Duluth. He received his Ph.D.
degree in management and organizational studies from the University of Wisconsin. His
current research interests focus on the development of self-esteem in organizational
settings, on change, and on the development of ownership in participative organizational settings.
Donald G. Gardner is an associate professor of management and organization at the

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He received his Ph.D. degree in organiza-
tional behavior from the Krannert Graduate School of Management at Purdue Univer-
sity. His research interests include antecedents and consequences of employee attentional processes, activation theory and task design, and human stress and cognition.
L. L. Cummings is the Carlson Professor of Management in the Carlson School of Man-
agement, University of Minnesota. His current scholarship centers on executive focus

of attention, feedback generation, and self-esteem in organizational settings.
Randall B. Dunham is a professor of organization behavior in the Graduate School of
Business at the University of Wisconsin. He received his Ph.D. degree in industrialorganizational psychology at the University of Illinois. His current research interests are
organizational change, self-esteem, and employee attentional processes.

Organization-Based Self-Esteem Construct Definition and Validation

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Organization-Based Self-Esteem Construct Definition and Validation

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Organization-Based Self-Esteem: Construct Definition, Measurement, and Validation

?) Academy of Management Journal

and its measurement. We developed a partial nomological network

spected through conducting field studies and a laboratory experiment.

We present results from a validation effort involving seven studies that

measurement and most of the hypotheses.

A number of researchers have shown an interest in investigating the role

1989 Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham 623

work organizations, individuals with high self-esteem will develop and

self-esteem construct, different levels of generality for self-esteem have

Many measures of global self-esteem have been developed, and some

624 Academy of Management journal September

lation between the two variables. For instance, task-specific self-esteem

should predict task-related phenomena like task performance more strongly

been confounded by the use of global and academically specific self-concept

A Rationale for a Measure of Organization-based Self-esteem

Many of the constructs that are traditionally employed in organizational

This article introduces the construct "organization-based self-esteem"

1989 Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham 625

According to Coopersmith (1967), the concept "self" is complex and

multidimensional. It reflects diverse attributes and capacities, some of

Building from the work of Coopersmith (1967), Gelfand (1962), Korman

Self-esteem expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval of self; it is a

the context of an organization. People with high OBSE have a sense of

personal adequacy as organizational members and a sense of having satisfied

Employees with high self-esteem are likely to have a strong sense of

626 Academy of Management journal September

Properties of Organization-based Self-esteem

esteem as both shaped by experiences and central to the explanation of

posited that experiences within an organization will shape OBSE, which

enced self-worth in one domain is likely to be correlated with experienced

1989 Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham 627

628 Academy of Management Journal September

agree with Tharenou's (1979) suggestions that the construct be treated as

consequence of work-environment experiences.

Our nomological network specifies several expected antecedents of

Previous research has also identified environmental conditions as major

shaping factors. Korman's (1970) work suggested that in a mechanistically

der such organizational conditions, employees will eventually develop a

1989 Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham 629

Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive relationship be-

(Tharenou, 1979). In other studies, job complexity has had a consistently

pect OBSE to be related to perceived job complexity. Thus,

630 Academy of Management Journal September

perform at a high level, actually perform at a high level, have favorable

consistency. Thus, we hypothesized that OBSE would relate to the following

Hypothesis 7: There will be a positive relationship be-

tween organization-based self-esteem and intrinsic work

tween organization-based self-esteem and general job satisfaction.

2 Actually, performance level is expected to be a strong determinant in the formation

1989 Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham 631

ment). A high level of organizational self-esteem implies a correspondingly

Hypothesis 12: There will be a positive relationship be-

tween organization-based self-esteem and organizational

are likely to involve reciprocal effects (Bandura, 1978; Tharenou, 1979).

Building on the concerns expressed by Song and Hattie (1985), Simpson

measures, the predictive accuracy of existing measures, and appropriate

OBSE and organizational commitment to be stronger than the relationship

632 Academy of Management Journal September

tionship between global self-esteem and organizational satisfaction. Thus,

tween organization-based self-esteem and organizational

Study Designs and Respondents