Table 1
Summary of Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations.
| Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Male | – | – | ||||||||
| 2. Tenure | 21.18 | 9.08 | .10 | |||||||
| 3. Fulltime | – | .16* | –.22** | |||||||
| 4. Occupational position | 3.40 | 1.12 | –.04 | –.22** | .08 | |||||
| 5. Dutch | – | – | –.05 | .03 | –.11 | –.03 | ||||
| 6. Job insecurity | 3.36 | .93 | .15 | .10 | –.02 | –.15* | .14 | |||
| 7. PC Breach | 3.55 | .80 | .04 | .02 | .02 | –.06 | .05 | .33** | ||
| 8. Idea generation | 3.43 | .64 | .07 | –.24** | .12 | .25** | .15* | –.01 | .21** | |
| 9. Idea implementation | 2.86 | .73 | .19** | –.08 | .20** | .18* | .06 | .01 | .16* | .67** |
[i] Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Idea Generation and Implementation Behaviour from Job Insecurity and Breach of Psychological Contract.
| β | ΔR2 | β | ΔR2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | .13*** | .11** | ||
| Male | .10 | .18* | ||
| Tenure | –.19** | –.03 | ||
| Fulltime | .05 | .15* | ||
| Occupational position | .21** | .18* | ||
| Dutch | .17** | .09 | ||
| Step 2 | .00 | .00 | ||
| Job insecurity | –.08 | –.03 | ||
| Step 3 | .05** | .03* | ||
| PC breach | .24** | .17* | ||
| Adjusted R2 | .15 | .10 | ||
| N | 190 | 190 |
[i] Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 3
Bootstrap Point Estimates and Bias-Corrected and – Accelerated (Bca) Confidence Intervals (Cis) for the Indirect Effects on Idea Generation and Idea Implementation.
| Lower | Upper | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JI – PC breach – idea generation | .08 | .03 | .03 | .16 |
| JI – PC breach – idea implementation | .05 | .03 | .01 | .13 |
[i] Note. JI = job insecurity; SE= standard error.
Figure 1
Mediation of psychological contract breach in the relation between job insecurity and innovative work behaviour. Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.