Next Article in Journal
Financial Inclusion through Digitalization: Improving Emerging Drivers of Industrial Pollution—Evidence from China
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating the Impact of Environmental Graphics on Local Culture in Sustainable Rural Cultural Tourism Spaces
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310208
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Psychological Meaningfulness on Job Involvement, Proactive Behavior, and Performance: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy

by
Jeong-Sik Kim
Department of Business Administration, Daejin University, Pocheon-si 11159, Republic of Korea
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10208; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310208
Submission received: 26 May 2023 / Revised: 24 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 27 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Employee well-being and productivity are crucial factors for organizational success, and understanding the relationships between psychological meaningfulness, job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance can help organizations to create more supportive and engaging work environments. This empirical study aimed to examine these relationships, with a particular focus on the mediating role of self-efficacy. Research models and hypotheses were derived from a literature review and tested using structural equation analysis on data collected from a questionnaire survey of 398 employees. Results indicated that psychological meaningfulness was significantly related to self-efficacy, job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. Self-efficacy was found to play a significant mediating role in the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and job involvement, between psychological meaningfulness and proactive behavior, and between psychological meaningfulness and performance. These findings suggest that fostering employees’ psychological meaningfulness can improve their self-efficacy, job involvement, proactive behavior, and, ultimately, their performance. These results have important implications for organizations seeking to enhance their employees’ well-being and productivity.

1. Introduction

As the era of economic growth shifts to that of economic maturity, the dignity and well-being of organizational members, as well as the meaning of work in the workplace, are becoming increasingly important [1]. Due to the government-led rapid economic growth policy, South Korea has focused on the interests of the country and companies as a whole, rather than the dignity and values of individuals. As a result, while quantitative growth has been achieved, the quality of life and well-being of individuals in their workplaces has not been actively considered [2]. However, as economic growth has risen to the expected level and now enters a stage of maturity, individuals’ psychological meaningfulness experiences in the workplace have become a very important factor in South Korea. Therefore, the examination of psychological meaningfulness among employees working in Korean companies is expected to have implications for many developing countries’ companies that are experiencing rapid growth.
While members engage in work primarily for economic reasons, they spend a substantial amount of time at work in the overall context of their lives. Thus, attaining satisfaction and well-being in the workplace becomes crucial to achieving overall satisfaction and well-being [1,3,4]. Studies have shown that providing meaningful work in the workplace increases employee participation and reduces absenteeism and turnover, ultimately leading to an improved reputation and the successful attraction and retention of exceptional talent [5]. In addition, individuals who perceive their work to be meaningful are more likely to engage in positive social interactions, respect and support each other, and engage in supportive behaviors [6]. Moreover, individuals place more value on what they consider important and meaningful. Through this process, they experience well-being by maintaining a high level of life satisfaction and mental and physical health [4,7]. Furthermore, performing meaningful work increases the likelihood of being more immersed in and dedicated to one’s job, as well as improving one’s achievement and performance [8,9]. Thus, the psychological meaningfulness experienced by organizational members in the workplace is an important mechanism that not only induces positive attitudes and behavior among individuals but also contributes to improving performance. Psychological meaningfulness not only contributes to the improvement of employees’ performance but also plays a crucial role in enhancing the sustainability and competitiveness of business management [1]. Moreover, the effects of psychological meaningfulness can extend to organizational and societal dimensions, highlighting its importance as a research topic [3,4,5,9].
As competition between companies intensifies, the level of expectation that companies have of their members also increases [10]. To sustain a competitive advantage and ensure survival and growth, companies require the active participation of their members, who must be deeply committed to their assigned tasks and achieve results [8]. Additionally, companies demand proactive behavior that induces change and innovation and preemptively responds to external environments [11,12]. While being committed to one’s role is essential in performing it faithfully, engaging in proactive behavior for the company’s betterment is an extra-role but is crucial for organizational development [13]. Therefore, this study focused on job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance as important outcomes that can be induced through psychological meaningfulness.
In previous research, antecedents such as job characteristics, job–role fit, corporate social responsibility perceptions, and leadership have been studied in relation to psychological meaningfulness [1,14,15,16,17]. As for the outcome variables, work engagement, job attachment, personal growth, mental health, and task performance have been investigated [1,3,4,15,16,17]. However, the existing research mainly focuses on the direct relationship between psychological meaningfulness and these outcomes. Consequently, there has been a lack of research on the mechanisms through which psychological meaningfulness leads to these outcomes and a limitation in simultaneously examining various outcome variables. Therefore, this study aims to focus on psychological meaningfulness as a key variable and comprehensively explore and empirically substantiate the processes through which it influences various outcome variables.
When considering the mediating processes through which psychological meaningfulness is linked to outcome variables, both cognitive and affective aspects can be taken into account. In the cognitive aspect, self-efficacy, growth perception, and similar factors can be included, while, in the affective aspect, factors such as satisfaction, psychological well-being, and identification with the job can be considered [1,17]. In this study, the focus was placed on self-efficacy among various mediators. The reason for selecting self-efficacy as a mediator was that it has been extensively researched and validated as a significant antecedent that has a meaningful influence on job involvement [18,19], proactive behavior [20,21], and performance [21].
Self-efficacy refers to an objective belief in one’s ability to successfully perform a given task [22]. Studies have shown that self-efficacy tends to increase when individuals experience psychological meaningfulness [4,11]. More specifically, psychological meaningfulness provides individuals with a sense of purpose and direction, which boosts their confidence in their ability to achieve goals and helps them to persevere through adversity, thus increasing their self-efficacy [4,11]. Additionally, self-efficacy has been identified as a crucial antecedent of job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance [18,19,20,21,23,24].
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the pathways through which employees’ psychological meaningfulness leads to job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance, with a particular focus on the mediating role of self-efficacy. Specifically, this study made an attempt to adopt a multidimensional approach by expanding the domains in which psychological meaningfulness can have an impact, including self-concept, job attitude, positive behavior, and performance. Furthermore, it included integrated research that simultaneously considered these aspects and explored specific mechanisms of influence. As a result, this work is expected to contribute to expanding the research scope related to psychological meaningfulness.

2. Theoretical Background

Psychological meaningfulness is defined as pursuing something valuable and important in one’s life and work [25]. It also refers to the extent to which one’s work or activities are important and purposeful and provide a sense of accomplishment [8,12]. Psychological meaningfulness holds significant importance within organizations as it motivates members to invest greater energy and interest in their work. This, in turn, leads to improved performance [26,27].
Organizational members experience psychological meaningfulness in several ways. They experience psychological meaningfulness when they feel that their work is important and valuable and that their work benefits society and others [28]. In this context, the objective characteristics of a job are important; however, subjective perceptions also have a significant influence. Even if a job is considered inherently meaningful, it cannot be assigned meaning if a member does not perceive it as such. Therefore, it is important that employees subjectively perceive their work as meaningful [8].
Next, members experience psychological meaningfulness when they work collaboratively with colleagues toward achieving organizational goals and receive recognition and respect from their colleagues, thus feeling valued as individuals [10,22]. Positive social interactions among members of an organization increase psychological meaningfulness by providing positive feedback on their performance. Recognition from a supervisor, who is often regarded as a role model or respected, is a particularly powerful motivator [22].
In addition, members experience psychological meaningfulness when they achieve personal growth and self-realization through their work [1]. Feedback on performance and results plays a critical role in this process by enabling members to become aware of their growth and self-realization, which enhances their psychological meaningfulness.
The psychological meaningfulness that individuals experience within an organization has positive effects on various aspects. First, psychological meaningfulness enhances job satisfaction and positively affects employees’ mental health [1,3,4]. Second, it increases job involvement, work engagement, work attachment, and personal growth; reduces turnover; and contributes to improving performance [1,5,8,14,15,16,17]. Finally, it leads to more positive social interactions among members and increases their sense of belonging [9].
On the other hand, factors such as job characteristics, job–person fit, supervisors’ leadership, and a supportive organizational climate have been suggested as enhancing psychological meaningfulness [1,15,16,17]. Regarding job-related factors, it has been found that task significance, task identity, autonomy, skill variety, and feedback influence psychological meaningfulness. Additionally, leadership styles such as empowering and supportive leadership, characterized by the delegation of authority, have been shown to contribute to the enhancement of psychological meaningfulness among employees [1,15]. Furthermore, organizational social responsibility activities have been suggested to contribute to employees’ psychological meaningfulness [14].

3. Research Hypotheses

3.1. Relationship between Psychological Meaningfulness and Self-Efficacy

Psychological meaningfulness and self-efficacy are closely related [4,29]. Members who experience psychological meaningfulness are more likely to feel self-efficacious in performing their job tasks [4]. This is because meaningful work provides employees with a sense of purpose and direction and increases their confidence in their ability to achieve their goals [1,11]. Furthermore, when members feel a sense of psychological meaningfulness in their work, they are more likely to persist through challenges and setbacks, which increases their self-efficacy [4,11]. The psychological meaningfulness of an individual’s job not only contributes to the formation of self-efficacy but also helps to sustain it by allowing them to recognize their capabilities and growth [1,8]. Moreover, psychological meaningfulness promotes job involvement, which increases self-efficacy and improves competencies [8]. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis H1.
Psychological meaningfulness is positively related to self-efficacy.

3.2. Relationship between Psychological Meaningfulness, Job Involvement, Proactive Behavior, and Performance

In self-enhancement theory, members who perceive themselves as important and receive valuable positive signals from the organization are more likely to actively participate in solving organizational problems and are motivated to do so [30]. When members perceive themselves as important in the organization and their role as meaningful, they recognize their value in the organization. This motivation leads them to identify with the organization, dedicate themselves to it, and strive to contribute to it. Empirical studies also support this, demonstrating that when psychological meaningfulness is high in an organization and in an individual’s job, job involvement is also high [8,9].
This motivation also creates a willingness to take on additional roles and exhibit more proactive and discretionary behaviors [12,30]. This is possible because psychological meaningfulness enables members to recognize the value of their jobs [13]. Through this mechanism, members become more engaged in their jobs, exert additional effort, and exhibit proactive behavior [8,12,13].
Several studies have demonstrated the consistent influence of psychological meaningfulness on performance [11,31,32,33]. This is because members who perceive psychological meaningfulness in their jobs concentrate more on basic tasks, which leads to higher levels of performance [31,33]. Moreover, psychological meaningfulness generates intrinsic motivation for the job, enabling individuals to devote passion and effort to their work and experience a sense of accomplishment [8,11]. Based on these findings, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis H2.
Psychological meaningfulness is positively related to job involvement.
Hypothesis H3.
Psychological meaningfulness is positively related to proactive behavior.
Hypothesis H4.
Psychological meaningfulness is positively related to performance.

3.3. Relationship between Self-Efficacy, Job Involvement, Proactive Behavior, and Performance

Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to approach their work with confidence, a positive attitude, and a willingness to dedicate time, effort, and passion to perform their job well [23]. These individuals are also more likely to face new challenges and seek higher achievement levels [20,24]. Even when faced with adversity or difficult situations, these individuals strive to overcome challenges and achieve better results through trial and error [21].
Empirical studies have shown that self-efficacy plays an important role in inducing job involvement [21,24]. Self-efficacy also serves as an important motivational factor in pursuing new and challenging tasks. High self-efficacy enables individuals to attempt new tasks willingly and receive positive feedback [22]. This cycle reinforces highly self-efficacious individuals to engage in proactive behavior, gain courage to take more initiative, and become more resilient in the face of failure, leading to positive reinforcement [19]. Related empirical studies have shown that self-efficacy is a vital antecedent of proactive behavior among employees [18,19]. Furthermore, self-efficacy provides employees with a justified sense of confidence, enabling them to successfully complete their assigned tasks [20,21]. Based on these findings, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis H5.
Self-efficacy is positively related to job involvement.
Hypothesis H6.
Self-efficacy is positively related to proactive behavior.
Hypothesis H7.
Self-efficacy is positively related to performance.

3.4. Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy

Psychological meaningfulness provides employees with a sense of purpose and direction regarding their jobs, which can increase their confidence in achieving job tasks, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy [4]. It provides employees with the resilience to persist in challenging job situations, which can help to develop their self-efficacy [11]. It also contributes to maintaining self-efficacy by enabling employees to recognize their abilities and become more aware of their capabilities [1,8], thus making a positive contribution.
Increased self-efficacy induces employees to become more engaged in their jobs [21,24], which leads to changes and improvements in job-related processes and functions [18,19] and, ultimately, high job performance [21,25]. By linking these arguments, self-efficacy can be expected to mediate the path from psychological meaningfulness to job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. Based on these arguments, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis H8.
Self-efficacy significantly mediates the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and job involvement.
Hypothesis H9.
Self-efficacy significantly mediates the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and proactive behavior.
Hypothesis H10.
Self-efficacy significantly mediates the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and performance.

4. Method

4.1. Data Collection

A survey of 500 employees working in companies in South Korea was conducted. To maintain objectivity in measuring subordinates, direct supervisors were asked to write about their subordinates’ proactive behavior and performance. Employees’ responses were combined with those of their supervisors to create pairs of data. The survey was conducted over four weeks and targeted 20 companies, with 20–40 participants selected from each company, resulting in 500 responses. Of these, 398 were valid, resulting in a response rate of 79.6%. To ensure smooth survey progress, the survey was approved in advance by the company officials in charge of the survey, and sufficient time was provided for respondents to complete the survey. Additionally, when distributing the survey, it was announced that it would be used only for research purposes, all information would be treated anonymously, and confidentiality would be guaranteed. Written informed consent was obtained from all respondents.
Table 1 summarizes the sample profiles of the respondents. The demographic characteristics of the respondents were as follows. Most participants (253) were male. On average, respondents were aged 35.5. Many respondents (157) were in their 30s, followed by those who were in their 20s (120), 40s (95), and 50s (26). Most respondents (217) had a university degree, followed by those who had completed vocational college (75), had a high school education (60), and had a graduate degree (46). Regarding the industry that the respondents worked in, many respondents (113) worked in the service industry, followed by the distribution (61), automobile (55), other (39), finance (34), electronics (31), information and communication (29), construction (21), chemical (10), and apparel (5) industries. The average length of employment was 7.0 years, and the average number of group members was 13.9.

4.2. Measurement

The major variables in this study were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with participants instructed to choose a number between 1 and 5.
Meaningfulness can be defined as the positive emotions that members experience when they feel that their work responsibilities are important and valuable [34]. To measure it, six items from May et al. [35] were used. Examples of survey questions are “The work I do in my job is very important to me” and “The work I do has personal significance to me”.
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s confidence in their ability to effectively perform assigned tasks [18]. To measure it, three items from Jones [36] were used, including “I have the skills necessary to perform my job” and “I believe I have the qualifications to perform my current job well.”
Job involvement is defined as a sense of oneness with one’s current job responsibilities [37]. Six items from Kanungo [37] were used to measure it. Examples of survey questions are “I live and breathe my work” and “My current work is so important to me that I can’t imagine not having it”.
Proactive behavior is defined as behavior undertaken for organizational improvement and change [38]. Seven items from Morrison and Phelps [38] were used to measure it, with immediate supervisors responding directly. Survey items included “My subordinate … makes an effort to change unproductive company policies or regulations” and “My subordinate … makes changes to perform their work more efficiently”.
Performance refers to the degree to which one successfully meets the official requirements or expectations of job responsibilities [39]. It was measured using seven items from Williams and Anderson [39], with immediate supervisors evaluating and responding. Examples of survey questions are “My subordinate … performs the tasks expected of them well”, and “My subordinate … is engaged in activities that can affect their performance evaluations”.

5. Empirical Analysis Results

5.1. Validity and Reliability Analysis

In this study, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the validity (χ2 = 762.52, df = 367, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.95, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis are presented in Table 2. Psychological meaningfulness, self-efficacy, job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance all had factor loadings above the cutoff of 0.50, and the average variance extracted (AVE) was also above 0.50, indicating convergent validity [40]. Discriminant validity was also confirmed by comparing the square root of the AVE and the correlation coefficient values. Table 3 shows that the square root of the AVE of each variable was higher than the correlation coefficients of the other variables [41]. Furthermore, composite reliability (CR) was above the standard of 0.70, indicating that reliability was ensured [40].
The results of the correlation analysis of the variables used in this study are presented in Table 3. It can be seen that there were significant correlations between all the variables.

5.2. Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS to test the research hypotheses. SEM, utilized as the primary analytical technique in this study, allows for the extraction of latent variables through measured variables. Thus, both the measured variables and latent variables can be simultaneously included and estimated in the model [42]. Consequently, SEM has the advantage of conducting both measurement modeling, which explains the measurement structure of concepts, and path analysis, which analyzes direct and indirect effects between variables. This distinguishes SEM from regression analysis, which is limited to analyzing only direct effects between independent and dependent variables. Therefore, SEM is an appropriate analysis method for research that aims to measure direct and indirect effects among multiple variables, as in this study.
The results showed that the fit of the hypothesized model was acceptable (χ2 = 1063.15, df = 370, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07). When comparing the hypothesized model with the competitive models, the competitive models were found to be nested models of the hypothesized model. Specifically, Competitive Model 1 removed the direct path from psychological meaningfulness to performance, Competitive Model 2 removed the direct path from psychological meaningfulness to proactive behavior, Competitive Model 3 removed the direct path from psychological meaningfulness to job involvement, and Competitive Model 4 removed all direct paths from psychological meaningfulness to job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. As shown in Table 4, the hypothesized model had a significantly lower chi-square value than Competitive Models 1 to 4.
This indicated that the hypothesized model was the most appropriate, as a lower chi-square value is more desirable [40]. Additionally, the major fit indices showed that the CFI, TLI, and RMSEA were the same for all models. Based on these results, the hypothesized model was deemed the most suitable and adopted as the final model.
Figure 1 presents the path analysis results obtained from the adopted research model. The results showed that psychological meaningfulness and self-efficacy were significantly and positively related (β = 0.48, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis H1. Psychological meaningfulness and job involvement also had a significant positive relationship (β = 0.32, p < 0.01), thus supporting Hypothesis H2. Hypothesis H3 was also supported because psychological meaningfulness and proactive behavior had a significant positive relationship (β = 0.17, p < 0.01). Next, psychological meaningfulness and performance were found to be significantly and positively related (β = 0.19, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis H4.
Self-efficacy was found to be significantly related to job involvement (β = 0.21, p < 0.01), proactive behavior (β = 0.33, p < 0.01), and performance (β = 0.32, p < 0.01), thus supporting Hypotheses H5, H6, and H7, respectively.
The mediating effect of self-efficacy was tested for statistical significance using bootstrapping [43]. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was analyzed using AMOS. The significance criterion is that zero should not be included between the lower and upper bounds. According to the results presented in Table 5, the indirect effect of self-efficacy on the path from psychological meaningfulness to job involvement was statistically significant (β = 0.10, p < 0.05) as zero was not included between the lower and upper bounds (95% CI = [0.04, 0.16]). Therefore, Hypothesis H8 was supported.
Similarly, zero was not included between the lower and upper bounds in the path from psychological meaningfulness to proactive behavior through self-efficacy (95% CI = [0.08, 0.21]). Thus, it could be inferred that the indirect effect of psychological meaningfulness on proactive behavior through self-efficacy was statistically significant (β = 0.16, p < 0.05). Based on these results, Hypothesis H9 was also supported. Upon testing Hypothesis H10 in the same way, zero was not included between the lower and upper bounds in the path from psychological meaningfulness to performance through self-efficacy (95% CI = [0.08, 0.21]). Therefore, the indirect effect of psychological meaningfulness on performance through self-efficacy was considered statistically significant, leading to the acceptance of Hypothesis H10 (β = 0.15, p < 0.05).

6. Discussion

Based on the analysis results of this study, the following discussion can be made regarding the findings. First, this study confirmed the significant relationship between members’ psychological meaningfulness and self-efficacy. Previous studies have shown that psychological meaningfulness highlights the importance and necessity of one’s work and activities, providing a sense of purpose and direction that enhances self-confidence or self-efficacy [1,4,11]. This study’s findings are consistent with those of previous studies, indicating that fostering psychological meaningfulness can improve employees’ self-efficacy, job involvement, proactive behavior, and, ultimately, their performance. Considering that psychological meaningfulness is a concept focused on members’ subjective perceptions of meaningfulness, assigning significance to one’s job and oneself plays an important role in increasing self-efficacy. The objective meaningfulness of a job is important, but it is also important for individuals to assign significance to their jobs and themselves, perceiving them as valuable. According to related studies, psychological meaningfulness can increase one’s resilience and ability to endure challenging situations or frustration, which can positively impact self-efficacy [4,11]. Psychological meaningfulness also influences one’s recognition of one’s self-capacity enhancement and self-growth [1] and thus plays an important role. The results of this study suggest that as difficult situations arise, the importance of one’s job and self-perception increases, which, in turn, enhances self-efficacy.
Second, the psychological meaningfulness of members serves as a crucial antecedent of job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. These results are consistent with those of previous studies [1,3,4,5,8] that show how psychological meaningfulness helps to form a positive job attitude, induce proactive behavior, and improve performance. In this regard, self-enhancement theory suggests that as individuals recognize themselves as valuable and important members of the organization, they become more internally motivated and passionate to engage in their work and roles [30]. The results of this study showed that recognizing psychological meaningfulness leads to greater job involvement and enhances proactive behavior. Moreover, the higher the psychological meaningfulness, the higher the performance, which empirically confirms previous theories.
Third, it was confirmed that members’ self-efficacy was significantly correlated with job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. Many studies have shown that self-efficacy leads individuals to have a positive attitude toward their work, devote time and effort to it with passion, enjoy a higher level of achievement, and achieve better performance [19,20,21,24]. The results also showed that self-efficacy had an empirical influence on members’ job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance, supporting the relationship between them. Furthermore, self-efficacy had a stronger correlation with proactive behavior and performance than with job involvement. This is likely because self-efficacy is directly linked to individuals’ confidence in their abilities, which can have a more direct impact on their behavior and performance than on their attitudes, such as job involvement.
Fourth, this study identified the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. In particular, it was confirmed that self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship of psychological meaningfulness with job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. Results showed that psychological meaningfulness directly affects job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance, but it also affects them indirectly through self-efficacy, demonstrating that self-efficacy plays a partial mediating role. These results show that psychological meaningfulness impacts job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance not only as a standalone factor but also through the mediation of self-efficacy. Furthermore, the mediating effect of self-efficacy was found to be significant, with a threshold of 0.08 or higher [40], confirming the vital mediating role of self-efficacy. However, the direct effects of psychological meaningfulness on its outcomes were found to be larger than the indirect effects mediated by self-efficacy. These findings reaffirm that psychological meaningfulness is a strong antecedent that influences job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance without the need for the self-efficacy process. These results further support the previous findings that have established the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and job involvement, as well as the relationship between psychological meaningfulness and performance [1,14,15,16].

7. Conclusions and Implications

7.1. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of psychological meaningfulness on job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance among organizational members, with self-efficacy as a mediating variable. The study conducted a theoretical discussion based on the relevant literature and formulated research hypotheses and a research model. Empirical analysis using survey data was conducted to test these hypotheses and the research model. The key findings of the study are as follows.
First, this study revealed the mechanism of the influence of members’ psychological meaningfulness. Specifically, the results confirmed that a significant positive relationship exists between psychological meaningfulness and job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance, which is mediated by self-efficacy. Psychological meaningfulness had both direct and indirect effects on job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance through self-efficacy.
Second, it was empirically demonstrated that self-efficacy plays an important role as a precedent factor affecting attitudes, behavior, and performance enhancement. This study revealed that self-efficacy plays an important role in enhancing job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. In particular, the results showed self-efficacy as a factor that has a greater impact on behavioral and performance aspects, such as proactive behavior and performance, than on attitude formation, such as job involvement.
Third, the results of this study indicated that increasing psychological meaningfulness from a managerial perspective is crucial. To achieve this, individuals must continuously make efforts to assign personal value and recognize themselves as important in terms of their own job and self.

7.2. Theoretical and Managerial Implicaions

Through this study, several theoretical and managerial implications can be suggested.
First, psychological meaningfulness has been receiving academic and practical attention. While some theoretical approaches and empirical studies have been conducted, the discussion is still not very active, and existing research has primarily focused on fragmented relationships between the antecedents and outcomes of psychological meaningfulness, lacking an integrated approach [1,14,15,16,17]. In this regard, this study has opened up a new approach in the field of psychological meaningfulness, which has previously been fragmented, by examining its impact on members within an organization from the integrated perspectives of self-concept, attitudes, behavior, and performance. Specifically, in contrast to previous research that primarily focuses on job involvement and performance, this study has explored the influence of psychological meaningfulness on a broader range of factors, including self-concept represented by self-efficacy and discretionary behavior represented by proactive behavior, thereby providing evidence of the various domains in which psychological meaningfulness can exert its influence.
Second, this study explored and empirically substantiated the specific processes and mechanisms through which psychological meaningfulness influences job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. The results of the study demonstrated that while there is a significant direct path from psychological meaningfulness to job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance, the indirect path mediated by self-efficacy is also significant, highlighting the importance of the pathway through self-efficacy. The identification of these mechanisms not only enhances the understanding of this issue but also provides direction regarding which aspects to focus on with greater interest and effort. Considering the scarcity of empirical research exploring such mechanisms in the context of psychological meaningfulness, this study’s approach is highly valuable.
Third, according to the findings of this study, psychological meaningfulness plays a significant role as a critical antecedent influencing self-efficacy, job involvement, and performance. These results indicate that experiencing psychological meaningfulness in the workplace is important for personal satisfaction, a sense of existence, well-being, and happiness. While psychological meaningfulness is an individual’s psychological state, when this positive psychological state is proactively fulfilled, it can lead to improved self-efficacy and enhanced job involvement and performance, ultimately creating positive effects for the organization. Therefore, organizational efforts are required to enable members to maintain a state of psychological meaningfulness. Efforts are needed to enhance the fit between members and their jobs. This involves considering members’ abilities, preferred tasks, and previous job experiences to create profiles and assign them suitable tasks, along with systematic career management. Additionally, granting autonomy, encouraging participation in decision making, and providing continuous coaching through empowering leadership are essential to actively support members in maintaining psychological meaningfulness.
Fourth, it is important to recognize that self-efficacy is a significant antecedent that directly influences job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance. Self-efficacy is a crucial factor that predicts positive attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. Therefore, various activities should be implemented to enhance members’ self-efficacy. Providing opportunities to accumulate diverse successful experiences, promoting knowledge and skill sharing among members, and offering support to enhance members’ job competencies are essential in improving self-efficacy. Within the organizational operations and systems, fostering an open communication atmosphere and creating a climate of psychological safety should be considered.

7.3. Limitations and Future Research

Through an empirical analysis, this study produced significant and diverse research findings and implications. Despite these efforts, several limitations have been identified. Future research directions that address these aspects are as follows.
First, this study utilized data from employees in various companies to increase the data reliability. To enhance the data reliability further, surveys were conducted across multiple companies, and supervisors were asked to evaluate their subordinates’ proactive behavior and performance. However, there was still a possibility of errors resulting from the use of the same method. To minimize such errors, future research could consider conducting multiple surveys.
Second, future research should aim to further elaborate on the process leading to job involvement, proactive behavior, and performance in terms of psychological meaningfulness and establish a more specific mechanism. While this study focused on the mediating role of self-efficacy, additional psychological processes and self-concepts could be included in future research. Such approaches are expected to provide research results and implications in various dimensions related to psychological meaningfulness beyond the results of this study.
Third, it is essential to consider the job and organizational characteristics that can affect the influence of psychological meaningfulness. Job characteristics, such as skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback, as well as organizational characteristics, such as leadership, organizational culture, decision-making style, personnel systems, reward systems, and the degree of concentration of authority, should be included in future research to gain a comprehensive understanding of the influence of psychological meaningfulness.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Daejin University (protocol code 1040656-202206-SB-01-06).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for their constructive comments and suggestions for this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chah, D.; Yong, S.H.; Lee, H.S.; Kim, J.S. The impact of empowering leadership between personal growth, task performance: Focus on the mediating role of psychological meaningfulness and the moderating role of job-characteristics. Korean Acad. Organ. Manag. 2021, 45, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yoo, M.B. South Korea, Spirit of the Times, and Reform; Parkyoungsa: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rosso, B.D.; Dekas, K.H.; Wrzesniewski, A. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav. 2010, 30, 91–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Steger, M.F.; Frazier, P.; Oishi, S.; Kaler, M. The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. J. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 53, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dik, B.J.; Eldridge, B.M.; Steger, M.F.; Duffy, R.D. Development and validation of the calling and vocation questionnaire (CVQ) and brief calling scale (BCS). J. Career Assess. 2012, 20, 242–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Grant, A.M.; Dutton, J.E.; Rosso, B.D. Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 898–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. De Clercq, D.; Haq, I.U.; Azeem, M.U. Why happy employees help: How meaningfulness, collectivism, and support transform job satisfaction into helping behaviours. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 1001–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, J.S. An empirical analysis of the relationships among participatory decision making and employees’ task performance and personal growth. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wrzesniewski, A.; Dutton, J.E. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yukl, G.A. Leadership in Organization, 8th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  11. Allan, B.A.; Duffy, R.D.; Collisson, B. Task significance and performance: Meaningfulness as a mediator. J. Career Assess. 2018, 26, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, S.; Zhang, H.; Dai, Y.; Ma, J.; Lyu, L. Distributed leadership and new generation employees’ proactive behavior: Roles of idiosyncratic deals and meaningfulness of work. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 755513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Woods, S.A.; Sofat, J.A. Personality and engagement at work: The mediating role of psychological meaningfulness. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, 2203–2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Chaudhary, R. Corporate social responsibility perceptions and employee engagement: Role of psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability. Corp. Gov. 2019, 19, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jacobs, H. An Examination of Psychological Meaningfulness, Safety, and Availability as the Underlying Mechanism Linking Job Features and Personal Characteristics to Work Engagement. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rothmann, S. Callings, work role fit, psychological meaningfulness and work engagement among teachers in Zambia. S. Afr. J. Educ. 2013, 33, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Akmadelita, W.P.; Kusumaputri, E.S. Psychological meaningfulness at work as a mediator of job characteristic and job attachment in public elementary schools in Yogyakarta. Psychol. Res. Interv. 2018, 1, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Den Hartog, D.N.; Belschak, F.D. When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 97, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huang, J. The relationship between employee psychological empowerment and proactive behavior: Self-efficacy as mediator. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2017, 45, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Song, J.H.; Chai, D.S.; Kim, J.; Bae, S.H. Job performance in the learning organization: The mediating impacts of self-efficacy and work engagement. Perform. Improv. Q. 2018, 30, 249–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tian, G.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wen, Y. Self-efficacy and work performance: The role of work engagement. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2019, 47, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  23. Carter, W.R.; Nesbit, P.L.; Badham, R.J.; Parker, S.K.; Sung, L.K. The effects of employee engagement and self-efficacy on job performance: A longitudinal field study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 2483–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, M.; Wang, Z.; Gao, J.; You, X. Proactive personality and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers. Curr. Psychol. 2017, 36, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Luthans, F. Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2002, 16, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yidong, T.; Xinxin, L. How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 116, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yuan, F.; Woodman, R.W. Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Thomas, K.W.; Velthouse, B.A. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1990, 15, 666–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Duffy, R.D.; Manuel, R.S.; Borges, N.J.; Bott, E.M. Calling, vocational development, and well being: A longitudinal study of medical students. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, J.; Lee, C.; Hui, C.; Kwan, H.K.; Wu, L.Z. Idiosyncratic deals and employee outcomes: The mediating roles of social exchange and self-enhancement and the moderating role of individualism. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 832–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Allan, B.A.; Autin, K.L.; Duffy, R.D. Self-determination and meaningful work: Exploring socioeconomic constraints. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Han, S.H.; Sung, M.; Suh, B. Linking meaningfulness to work outcomes through job characteristics and work engagement. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 2021, 24, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kubiak, E. Increasing perceived work meaningfulness by implementing psychological need-satisfying performance management practices. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2022, 32, 100792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chaudhary, N. Early childhood education in contemporary Indian society: Finding meaning through cultural traditions and developmental science. J. Psychosoc. Res. 2020, 15, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. May, D.R.; Gilson, R.L.; Harter, L.M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jones, G.R. Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 1986, 29, 262–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kanungo, R.N. Measurement of job and work involvement. J. Appl. Psychol. 1982, 67, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Morrison, E.W.; Phelps, C.C. Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 403–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  41. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fan, S.; Thompson, B.; Wnag, L. Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indices. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 56–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10208 g001 550
Figure 1. Results of structural equation modeling. Note: ** p < 0.01.
Figure 1. Results of structural equation modeling. Note: ** p < 0.01.
Sustainability 15 10208 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.
VariableCategoryFrequencyPercentage (%)
GenderWomen25363.6
Men14536.4
Age20–2912030.1
30–3915739.4
40–499523.9
Above 50266.5
Education LevelHigh School Graduate6015.1
Vocational Gollege Graduate7518.8
University Graduate21754.5
Graduate School Graduate4611.6
IndustryApparel51.3
Automobile5513.8
Chemical102.5
Construction215.3
Distribution6115.3
Electronics317.8
Finance348.5
Information and Communication297.3
Service11328.4
Other399.8
Table
Table 2. Validity and reliability.
Table 2. Validity and reliability.
VariableFactor LoadingComposite ReliabilityAVE
Psychological meaningfulness×10.78 0.94 0.75
×20.84
×30.86
×40.85
×50.88
×60.88
Self-efficacy×10.86 0.900.77
×20.88
×30.84
Job involvement×10.75 0.89 0.63
×20.62
×30.67
×40.85
×50.87
×60.71
Proactive behavior×10.80 0.91 0.65
×20.79
×30.75
×40.78
×50.71
×60.81
×70.73
Performance×10.84 0.95 0.75
×20.85
×30.85
×40.86
×50.85
×60.88
×70.79
Note: The factor loadings are standardized measurement values. AVE: average variance extracted.
Table
Table 3. Correlation analysis results.
Table 3. Correlation analysis results.
VariableMeanS.D.12345
Psychological meaningfulness3.96 0.79 (0.87)
Self-efficacy3.81 0.77 0.44 **(0.88)
Job involvement3.20 0.75 0.42 **0.35 **(0.80)
Proactive behavior3.79 0.66 0.29 **0.34 **0.25 **(0.81)
Performance3.94 0.65 0.30 **0.39 **0.27 **0.79 **(0.87)
Note: The AVE square roots are given in parentheses along the diagonal. ** p < 0.01. S.D.: standard deviation.
Table
Table 4. Structured equation model comparison.
Table 4. Structured equation model comparison.
Modelχ2dfχ2/dfCFITLIRMSEA△χ2△df
Hypothesized Model1063.15 **3702.870.920.910.07--
Competitive Model 11073.89 **3712.900.920.910.07+10.74 **+1
Competitive Model 21071.03 **3712.890.920.910.07+7.88 **+1
Competitive Model 31092.90 **3712.950.920.910.07+29.75 **+1
Competitive Model 41107.77 **3732.970.920.910.07+44.62 **+3
Note: △χ2 is the difference between the chi-square value of the competitive model and the chi-square value of the hypothesized model. ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 5. Mediation analysis results.
Table 5. Mediation analysis results.
PathTotal EffectDirect EffectIndirect Effect95% Confidence Interval
Psychological meaningfulness → self-efficacy → job involvement0.420.320.10LowerUpper
0.040.16
Psychological meaningfulness → self-efficacy → proactive behavior0.330.170.16LowerUpper
0.080.21
Psychological meaningfulness → self-efficacy → performance0.340.190.15LowerUpper
0.080.21
Note: Arrows indicate the direction of influence.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, J.-S. Effect of Psychological Meaningfulness on Job Involvement, Proactive Behavior, and Performance: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310208

AMA Style

Kim J-S. Effect of Psychological Meaningfulness on Job Involvement, Proactive Behavior, and Performance: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310208

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Jeong-Sik. 2023. "Effect of Psychological Meaningfulness on Job Involvement, Proactive Behavior, and Performance: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310208

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop