Magazine 2017
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 7 SEPT. 2017
THE IMPACT OF GENDER, AGE AND WORK TENURE ON
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL
Shantanu A. Tamore*,
Vishwa S. Talsania* and
Vinay V. Prabhu**
ABSTRACT
Positive psychological capital is defined as the positive and developmental state of an individual as
characterized by high self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resiliency. The present study studied the impact
of factors like gender, age and work tenure on psychological capital. It was found that there were no
significant gender differences in psychological capital nor was there any significant correlation between
psychological capital and age and work experience. These findings are important in the context of
employee selection and placement in organizations.
Keywords: Psychological capital, gender, age, work experience
For decades psychology has been associated as dealing mainly with the treatment of mental illness. At the
very end of the twentieth century a new approach in psychology gained popularity: positive psychology.
Positive psychology, the study of optimal human functioning, is an attempt to respond to the systematic bias
inherent in psychology’s historical emphasis on mental illness rather than on mental wellness. Seligman (2002)
focused on two, forgotten but classical psychological goals: (1) Help ordinary people to live a more productive
and meaningful life and (2) a full realization of the potential that exists in the human being. Two new branches
of positive psychology have emerged in the industrial-organizational world: 1) Positive organizational scholarship
(
POS) and 2) Positive organizational behavior (POB).
The origins of Positive organizational scholarship is credited to Kim Cameron and colleagues. It is a research
field that emphasizes the positive characteristics of the organization that facilitates its ability to function during
periods of crisis.
The origins of Positive organizational behavior is credited to Fred Luthans. It focuses on measurable positive
psychological states that are open to development and have impact on desired employee attitudes, behaviors,
and performance. Luthans recommended that POB researchers study psychological states that could be validly
measured, and that are malleable in terms of interventions in organizations to improve work performance.
Psychological capital (PsyCap) is a positive mental state in an individual’s growth and development to encourage
people to have a positive organizational behavior.
Four positive psychological capacities have been identified as best meeting the above PsyCap inclusion
criteria of being positive, unique, theory and research-based, measurable, developmental and manageable for
performance impact in the workplace. These capacities are: self-efficacy/ confidence, hope, optimism and
resiliency (Luthans, 2002; Luthans et al., 2007).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, or simply confidence, is largely based on Bandura’s (1986, 1997) social cognitive
theory, and when applied to the workplace can be defined as ‘an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about
his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action necessary to successfully
execute a specific task within a given context’ (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998b). Self-efficacy has been found to
be strongly correlated with work-related performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998a).
Hope. Snyder (2002) described hope as a multidimensional construct that consists of an individual’s ‘willpower’
and ‘waypower’. Willpower is an individual’s agency or determination to achieve goals and ‘waypower’ is one’s
ability to devise alternative pathways and contingency plans in order to achieve a goal in the face of obstacles
(
Snyder, Irving & Anderson, 1991). Hope enables individuals to be motivated to attain success with the task at
hand by looking for the best pathway (Avey et al., 2008). The components of hope thus complement each
156)
(
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 7 SEPT. 2017
other (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Hope has made a significant contribution to positive PsyCap and has demonstrated
importance in the workplace (Duggleby, Cooper & Penz, 2009; Luthans & Jensen, 2002).
Optimism. Optimism is more closely associated with positive psychology than the other constructs (Luthans
et al., 2004). It is regarded as being a realistic, flexible and dynamic construct that can be learned and developed
(
Peterson, 2000). Optimism is defined by persistence and pervasiveness – two key dimensions of how people
explain events (Carver & Scheier, 2002). People with an optimistic outlook see setbacks as challenges and
opportunities that can eventually lead to success (Luthans et al., 2005). These individuals persevere in the face
of obstacles (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). In the work context, an optimistic employee is better able to assess
external, temporary and situational circumstances (Youssef & Luthans, 2007).
Resilience. Rutter (1987) defined resilience as people’s ability to manipulate their environment successfully in
order to protect them from the negative consequences of adverse events. Luthans (2002) extended this definition
to include people’s ability to ‘bounce back’ from adversity. In this regard, resilient people move on in life after
having had a stressful tenure or event such as personal adversity, conflict and/or failure. Therefore, resilience
highlights the strength of the individual and his or her coping resources to successfully resolve and/or manage
testing situations (Baumgardner & Crothers, 2010).
Combining the four psychological capacities together, Luthans et al. (2007) defined Psychological capital as:
an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence
(
self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive
attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary,
redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining
and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success.
Literature Review
PsyCap, has been the subject of considerable theory and research over the past several years. PsyCap researchers
(
Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007a) have developed and validated (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007)
measures of PsyCap. Taken to the workplace, preliminary empirical evidence supports the PsyCap latent core
construct and its relationship to performance (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2007) in multiple cultural
contexts (Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005).
PsyCap is impactful on work-related performance. Research to date supports that PsyCap is significantly
related to performance in the workplace, both the individual components (efficacy/confidence, hope, optimism
and resiliency) and in combination as overall PsyCap (e.g. Luthans et al., 2005, 2006b; Youssef, 2004). This
relationship has been shown through utility analysis to make a dramatic contribution to the organization
(Luthans et al., 2006, 2007). Thus, PsyCap becomes a meaningful and justifiable investment and means toward
veritable organizational performance and possibly sustained competitive advantage.
PsyCap and positive emotions may play a key role in combating dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors that
may deter organizational change (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008). PsyCap helps to discourage deviant
behaviors in the workplace and will in fact be a catalyst for positive organizational change (Avey, Wernsing, et
al., 2008). Avey et al. (2011). In their meta-analysis they found that PsyCap is negatively related to undesirable
workplace attitudes such as cynicism, turnover intentions, deviance, stress and anxiety. Beal, Stavros and Cole
(
2013) found resistance to change had a negative correlation with PsyCap. They found a positive relationship
between PsyCap and organizational citizenship behavior in the context of organizational change.
THE PRESENT STUDY
AIM OF THE STUDY
The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of age, gender and work tenure on psychological
capital.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of the study were:
(1) To study gender differences in psychological capital.
(157)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 7 SEPT. 2017
(2) To study the relationship between age and psychological capital.
(3) To study the impact of work tenure (the number of years of work experience of the employee) on
psychological capital.
METHODOLOGY
Sample Selection
The sample for the study consisted of 56 employees in one of India’s large public sector banks. 78 questionnaires
were distributed among the employees. 66 employees returned the duly filled questionnaires. The responses
of 10 participants were rejected as the respondents had either not filled up the questionnaires fully or had not
filled them correctly. The findings and conclusions in this study are based on the responses of 28 male and 28
female employees. The average age of the participants in the study was a little over 45 years.
Measuring Tools
PsyCap was measured with the PCQ-24 questionnaire developed by Luthans et al. The reliability and validity
of the PCQ-24 questionnaire have been demonstrated in previous research. The PCQ-24 questionnaire consists
of four dimensions: self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism. The total scale consists of 24 items, and each
of the four dimensions is measured by six items. Each of the items was scored on a Likert scale in which 1
indicated strongly disagree and 5 indicated strongly agree. All questions asked the participants how they felt
“
right now.” Higher values indicate higher levels of PsyCap.
Hypotheses
Based on past research findings, the following three hypotheses were proposed and tested:
H1: There is no significant difference in the psychological capital of males and females.
H2: There is no significant correlation between employees’ age and psychological capital.
H3: There is no significant correlation between employees’ work tenure and psychological capital.
RESULTS
The data collected from the study was tabulated and analyzed using popular statistical tools and techniques.
Table 1, represents the findings of the hypothesis test between the two levels of I.V. The mean psychological
capital scores of the females were higher than that of the males however this difference was not statistically
significant. Thus, the results are consistent with the null hypothesis (H1). There was a significant difference
between males and females on only one of the four components of psychological capital: Hope. The mean
scores of females were reliably higher than that of the females. No such reliable difference was found between
males and females on the other three components of psychological capital: self-efficacy, resilience and optimism.
TABLE 1: Independent samples test for differences in gender Psychological Capital and
its four components
(158)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 7 SEPT. 2017
Table 2, presents the bivariate correlations of the variables under investigation. There was a small positive
correlation (0.176) between employees’ age and psychological capital as well as between employees’ work
tenure and psychological capital (0.197). However, both these correlations were statistically not significant.
Neither the age of the employees’ age nor their years of work experience was a reliable predictor of psychological
capital. Thus, the findings of the study were consistent with hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3.
TABLE 2 : Interco-relations between study variables:
Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
DISCUSSION
The current study investigated psychological capital (PsyCap) amongst employees of a public sector Bank.
The authors were interested in studying the impact of employees’ gender, age and work tenure on psychological
capital.
The first hypothesis examined the impact of employee’s gender on psychological capital. It was found that
gender had no significant impact on psychological capital among the study respondents. These findings were
consistent with past researches. In the Indian context, these findings were deftly explained by Barmola (2013),
“
… in earlier researches there used to be differences between male and female in various aspects of the life in
India but since the beginning of the LPG (liberalization,privatization and globalization) age this difference has
come down and the same is found in the present study in the name of positive psychological capital among
adolescents.” According to Barmola, the significantly higher scores of females on the ‘hope’ dimension of
psychological capital is on account of high rate of spirituality, specifically amongst females. This is mainly due
to parenting, family environment and traditional Indian values and culture.” Snyder, Irving and Anderson (1991)
found that females are better than males willpower’ and ‘waypower’. Willpower is an individual’s agency or
determination to achieve goals and ‘waypower’ is one’s ability to devise alternative pathways and contingency
plans in order to achieve a goal in the face of obstacles. Hope enables individuals to be motivated to attain
success with the task at hand by looking for the best pathway (Avey et al., 2008).
The second and third hypothesis examined the impact of employee’s age and work tenure on psychological
capital. The findings supported the null hypothesis and were consistent with past researches (Hidayat and
Mangundjaya, 2010)
Significance of the Study
Psychological capital is a very important factor in organizational success and well-being. Low psychological
capital of the employees can be a major obstacle in the face of organizational change. The findings of the study
are particularly important during the time of recruitment. Recruiters need to keep in mind that psychological
capital is not affected by gender, age or number of years of work experience. This will help to prevent confirmatory
bias in the selection process. But the positive side of these findings is that it is possible to manage and increase
the level of PsyCap of employees in organizations through deliberate interventions and the outcomes are not
going to be affected by gender, age or work tenure. Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs (2006) demonstrated
that organizations can increase the level of PsyCap by using short training sessions of one to three hour micro
interventions in which they measure PsyCap before and after the interventions.
Limitations of the Study
An important limitation is that researchers used the same sample to gather data on both independent and
dependent variables. This method of obtaining data may result in common source bias and lead to inflated
relationships (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podskoff, 2003). The prescribed approach to reducing common
(159)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 7 SEPT. 2017
source bias is to obtain predictor measurements from one observer and measurements of outcomes from
another (or use separate occasions for measuring). The authors did not use these methods because of resource
constraints about the ability to issue several surveys and use several observers. However, one should note that
data from distinct observers or measurement occasions might distort the prediction estimates as much as
common source variance does (Kammeyer-Muller, Steel & Rubenstein, 2010).
The study examined the effects of psychological capital in the context of only one organization. Research with
different sample compositions and bigger sample sizes should be conducted to better understand the factors
impacting psychological capital.
CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the impact age, work tenure and gender on psychological capital. The study found no
significant gender differences in psychological capital nor was there any significant correlation between the
psychological capital and age work tenure. Future research in the area of PsyCap would benefit from longitudinal
studies in which researchers observe levels of PsyCap over time. Such a study would improve our understanding
of how age, work tenure, gender and PsyCap interact overtime. A longitudinal study would yield this information.
This would reveal the point in time that psychological capital has greatest effect.
References :
Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational
change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevantattitudes and behaviors. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beal III, L., Stavros, J.M., & Cole, M.L. (2013). Effect of psychological capital and resistance to
change on organisational citizenship behaviour. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir
Bedryfsielkunde, 39(2)
Bercovitz, J. and M.P. Feldman. (2008). “Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the
Individual Level.”Organization Science, 19(1): 69–89
Claire V. Brisson Banks, (2010) “Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models
and their commonalities”, Library Management, Vol. 31 Iss: 4/5, pp.241 - 252
Del Val, M., & Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and empirical study.
Management Decision , 41 (1/2), 148-155.
Kammeyer-Muller, J; Steel, PDG; & Rubenstein, A (2010). The other side of method bias: The perils of
distinct source research designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research 45 (2), 294-321
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working
through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221-240.
Luthans, F. (2002a) ‘The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior’, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F. (2002b) ‘Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological
strengths’, Academy of Management Executive, 16 (1), 57–72.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M. and Combs, G.J. (2006a) ‘Psychological capital
development: Toward a micro-intervention’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387–93.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J. and Norman, S. (2006b) ‘Psychological capital: Measurement and
relationship with performance and satisfaction’, Gallup Leadership Institute, Working Paper. Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska.
(160)
International Peer-Reviewed Journal
RESEARCH HORIZONS, VOL. 7 SEPT. 2017
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Li, W. (2005) ‘The psychological capital of Chinese
workers: Exploring the relationship with performance’, Management and Organization Review, 1, 247–
69.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2007) Psychological Capital. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 25–44
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Difference Measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology , 88 (4), 680-693.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101.
Piderit, S.K. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 783-94.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Snyder, C.R. (2000). Handbook of hope. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stavros, J., & Wooten, L. (2012). Positive strategy: Creating and sustaining strengths-based strategy
that SOARs and performs. In K.S. Cameron, & G.M. Spreitzer (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 824–842). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Van den Heuvel, S., & Schalk, R. (2009). The relationship between fulfillment of the psychological
contract and resistance to change during organizational transformations. Social Science Information,
48(2), 283-313.
Youssef, C.M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: the impact of
hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206307305562
*
Final Year Student and **Associate Professor, Dept. of Psychology, N.K. College. Email:
shantanutamore@gmail.com
(161)