Running Head: SELF-CONCORDANCE Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment

The present study tested a model explaining how the core self-evaluations (i.e., positive selfregard) concept is linked to job and life satisfaction. The self-concordance model, which focuses on motives underlying goal pursuit, was used as an explanatory framework. Data were collected from two samples: (1) 183 university students that included longitudinal measures of goal attainment and life satisfaction; (2) 251 employees where longitudinal measures of goal attainment and job satisfaction were utilized. In both studies, the core self-evaluations concept was positively related to goal self-concordance, meaning that individuals with positive selfregard were more likely to pursue goals for intrinsic and identified (value-congruent) reasons. Furthermore, in both studies, goal self-concordance was related to satisfaction (job satisfaction in one study, life satisfaction in the other). Core Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 3 Core Self-Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self-Concordance and Goal Attainment Recently, considerable research attention has centered on a broad personality trait termed core self-evaluations. Introduced by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997), the core self-evaluations concept represents the fundamental assessments that people make about their worthiness, competence, and capabilities; such evaluations vary from positive to negative self-appraisals. In their original development of the concept, Judge et al. (1997) identified three fundamental, broad, self-evaluative traits (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, and neuroticism) that indicated core self-evaluations. They also suggested that locus of control might qualify, and most subsequent research includes all four core traits. In the past six years, there have been 16 investigations of core self-evaluations. Although the core self-evaluations concept has been related to several criteria--including motivation (Erez & Judge, 2001), job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001), stress (Best, 2003), and leadership (Eisenberg, 2000)--the most commonly investigated criterion is job satisfaction. The studies that have investigated the relationship between core self-evaluations to job satisfaction have shown that there is a relationship between the two concepts (Judge & Bono, 2001), and have shed light on the processes by which individuals with a positive self-regard are more satisfied with their jobs (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). However, these studies have focused on only one specific mediating factor—intrinsic job characteristics—and have not tested a theoretical framework that might further explain psychologically how and why those with positive core selfevaluations are more job satisfied. As Judge, Bono, Erez, Locke, and Thoresen (2002) commented, “Other theoretical mechanisms will need to be studied to more fully understand the nature of the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction” (p. 70). Core Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 4 One psychological mechanism that may link core self-evaluations to job satisfaction is the way in which people choose goals. A growing body of research suggests that people who chose goals that are concordant with their ideals, interests, and values are happier than those who pursue goals for other (e.g., extrinsic or defensive) reasons (see Sheldon & Elliot, 1997). In addition, several authors (Elliot & Sheldon, 1998; Elliot et al., 1997) also found that people who perceive themselves positively (i.e., high self-esteem, low neuroticism) tend to pursue selfconcordant goals to a greater extent than people with a negative self-view. Based on this research, Judge and Larsen (2001) have suggested that positive individuals may be also more likely to evoke and pursue approach work goals (i.e., goals that entail moving toward a positive outcome or state [Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997] or accomplishment through the attainment of aspirations [Shah & Higgins, 2001]). In contrast, they argued that negative individuals should be more likely to pursue avoidance or prevention goals (goals that entail moving away from a negative outcome or state or averting a negative result [Elliot et al., 1997; Shah & Higgins, 2001]). Thus, one mechanism that may link core self-evaluations (positive self-regard) and job satisfaction is the motivation underlying goal pursuit, such that approach goals are likely to lead to satisfaction and avoidance goals are more likely to lead to dissatisfaction (Roberson, 1990). In sum, the arguments advanced by goal researchers (i.e., Elliot & Sheldon, 1998; Elliot et al., 1997) are that people with a positive self-regard tend to pursue self-concordant goals and that these self-concordant goals make them happy. In parallel fashion, industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists argue that people with positive self-regard tend to be more satisfied with their work and life (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 1998, 2000). However, these two lines of research have not yet been combined in a meaningful manner. Thus, the overall purpose of this research is to test a model that brings together these two theoretical models—core selfCore Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 5 evaluations and the self-concordance model (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998), a model explaining the approach and avoidance processes underlying goal pursuit—in further understanding the dispositional source of job satisfaction. In the next section of the paper, we describe the theoretical concepts that are at focus here: core-self-evaluations and self-concordance. We then introduce a hypothesized model and provide theoretical support for the linkages in the model. Core Self-Evaluations, Self-Concordance, and Hypothesized Model Core Self-Evaluations According to Judge et al. (1997), the core self-evaluations concept is a higher-order trait representing the fundamental evaluations that people make about themselves and their worthiness, competence, and capability. In core self-evaluations theory, the core concept is indicated by four traits: self-esteem, locus of control, neuroticism, and generalized self-efficacy. Self-esteem can be defined as the overall value that one places on oneself as a person (Harter, 1990). Generalized self-efficacy is an appraisal of how well one can handle life’s challenges (Locke, McClear, & Knight, 1996). Neuroticism is the tendency to have a negativistic outlook and to focus on negative aspects of the self (Watson, 2000). Finally, locus of control is concerned with beliefs about the causes of events in one’s life—locus is internal when individuals see outcomes as being contingent on their own behavior (Rotter, 1966). In considering the relationships among these traits, it is worth noting that self-esteem, locus of control, and neuroticism (also known as emotional stability or emotional adjustment) are the most widely studied personality concepts in psychology--cumulatively, the traits have been the subject of more than 50,000 studies (Judge & Bono, 2001). Despite the prominence of these traits, and some rather obvious connections among them, few investigations have included more than a single core trait. Recently, in the most thorough analysis of the traits to date, Judge, Erez, Core Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 6 Bono, and Thoresen (2002) found that an overall core self-evaluations factor could be extracted from the correlations among the four traits, and that this common factor was an important positive predictor of life satisfaction, and a negative predictor of stress, strain, and depression. Moreover, Judge et al. (2002) found that the individual core traits were highly related, displayed quite similar patterns of correlations with other variables, and failed to add incremental validity beyond the common core factor. That the individual core traits fail to add incremental validity beyond the common core factor provides support for the validity of the core self-evaluations concept, and suggests that the variance attributable to each individual core trait is less important than the variance these traits share in common (which represents core self-evaluations). In trying to explain the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction noted earlier, Judge et al. (1998) found that the link was mediated by perceptions of intrinsic job characteristics. For example, individuals with a positive self-regard were more likely to perceive their jobs as interesting, significant, and autonomous than individuals with negative self-regard. Expanding on this explanation, Judge et al. (2000) demonstrated that individuals with positive self-regard, measured in early childhood, not only perceived their job as more intrinsically satisfying, but also were more likely to hold more complex jobs. In turn, choosing more complex jobs was associated with increased levels of job satisfaction. Thus, this study provided both perceptual and behavioral explanations for the link between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. However, it did not account for, nor has other research accounted for, the psychological or cognitive mechanisms that underlie these relationships. Similarly, although Judge et al. (2002) and Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003) found strong relationships between core self-evaluations and life satisfaction, no theoretical explanations were given to Core Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 7 account for these relationships. In this study, we attempt to illuminate these psychological mechanisms using the self-concordance model. Self-Concordance Model Goals have played an important role in psychology. In I-O psychology, the performance implications of goal-setting are well documented (Locke & Latham, 2002). In the subjective well-being literature, goals have been thought of as personal strivings (Emmons, 1992). Recent research on how goals contribute to well-being has been conducted by Sheldon and Elliot (1998, 1999) under the auspices of the self-concordance theory. Self-concordance theory, derived from Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory, predicts that individuals are happiest when stated goals match enduring interests and values. The authors argue that self-concordance leads to well-being because: (a) it enables individuals to put effort into goals, thus increasing the probability of goal attainment; and (b) people are more likely to have attained the goals that will make them happy (because the identified and intrinsic goals better fulfill an individual’s enduring needs, interests, and values). The self-concordance model argues that individuals may pursue a goal for one or more of four types of reasons (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998): (1) External—pursuing a goal due to others’ wishes, or to attain rewards that indirectly satisfy needs or interests (e.g., performing a task to earn money); (2) Introjected—pursuing a goal to avoid feelings of shame, guilt, or anxiety (e.g., organizing one’s files out of a sense of guilt or obligation); (3) Identified—pursuing a goal out of a belief that it is an intrinsically important goal to have (e.g., helping a co-worker with a computer problem out of a belief that it is important to help other employees); and Core Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 8 (4) Intrinsic—pursuing a goal because of the fun and enjoyment it provides (e.g., setting aside time to chat with a co-worker because one finds the conversation personally engaging). There are several points worth noting with respect to the self-concordance model. First, these reasons are not argued to be mutually exclusive; individuals may pursue a goal for several reasons. Second, Sheldon and Elliot (1998) argue that goals pursued for identified or intrinsic reasons represent autonomous motives because they emanate from self-choices that reflect deeply held personal values, whereas goals pursued for extrinsic or introjected reasons represent controlled motives because they emanate from forces outside the self to which the person does not give full assent. (Elliot et al. [1997] have equated autonomous motives with approach goals and controlled motives with avoidance goals.) Third, in self-concordance research, goals are not objectively classifiable. Rather, two individuals may pursue the same goal for different reasons. Thus, in order to measure self-concordance, one must ask people about their reasons for pursuing various goals rather than assuming certain goals per se are self-concordant or not selfconcordant. Of course, it is true that some goals are inherently more likely to be self-concordant for most individuals than are others (e.g., reading an important book vs. serving on a dull, unimportant committee or task force). Research on the self-concordance model has been supportive. Sheldon and Elliot (1999) found that self-concordant motives are more likely to lead to well-being. According to these authors, when a person strives because of strong interest or because of self-identified personal convictions, the goals are held to be well integrated with the self. As such, self-concordant goals are likely to receive sustained effort over time, be more attainable, and as such are more satisfying. In contrast, goals pursued only because of external pressure or because of feelings of Core Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 9 guilt and anxiety are assumed to come from nonintegrated areas of the self. Because they are less integrated and representative of stable interests, the motivational strength behind non-selfconcordant goals is likely to fade, thus making them less attainable and less satisfying. Indeed, in three separate studies Sheldon and Elliot (1999), found that self-concordant goals were more sustainable, more attainable, and led to increased levels of subjective well-being. Moreover, there is also evidence that self-concordance leads to an upward spiral of well-being that leads to stronger and stronger effects over time (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). Although prior research has linked goal self-concordance to happiness (e.g., Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001) and a broad subjective well-being composite that includes both affect and life satisfaction (e.g., Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), no research has specifically tested the selfconcordance model with respect to life satisfaction per se. More importantly, no research has tested self-concordance as a mediator of the relationship between core self-evaluations and life satisfaction. Similarly, given the broad support for the self-concordance model, it is somewhat surprising that little published research has studied the model in a work context in general, or linked it to job satisfaction in particular. If self-concordant goals do indeed lead to an increased level of happiness, and satisfaction with the job and life, it seems important to identify the antecedents to the adoption of the different types of goals. However, with only few exceptions (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999), very little work has been conducted to identify these antecedents. We argue in the next section of the paper that the common core of the four dispositional traits of selfesteem, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and locus of control should be considered as one of the major antecedents for choosing self-concordant goals. Core Self-Evaluations and Self-Concordance 10