Work‐contingent self‐esteem: A boon or bane for worker well‐being?

• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Author: Louis Tay,Lydia Craig,Lauren Kuykendall
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2408
• Date: 01 January 2020

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Work‐contingent self‐esteem: A boon or bane for worker well‐

being?

Lauren Kuykendall

1

|Lydia Craig

1

|Louis Tay

2

1

Department of Psychology, George Mason

University, Fairfax, Virginia

2

Department of Psychological Sciences,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Correspondence

Lauren Kuykendall, Department of Psychology,

George Mason University, 4400 University

Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030.

Email: lkuykend@gmu.edu

Summary

Work‐contingent self‐esteem (WCSE; the degree to which workers' self‐esteem is

based on workplace performance) has positive consequences for performance, yet less

is known about its consequences for well‐being. In this paper, we contribute to the

literature on WCSE by examining the mechanisms through which it impacts well‐

being at work and outside of work. We challenge contingent self‐esteem (CSE) theory

(Crocker & Park, 2004), which argues that CSE negatively impacts well‐being by

fostering internally controlled (introjected) motivation and diminishing autonomous

motivation, by suggesting that WCSE fosters autonomous and internally controlled

motivation and thus has both beneficial and harmful effects on well‐being. We also

expand CSE theory by suggesting that WCSE can negatively impact well‐being out-

comes by causing work–nonwork conflict. Results from a time‐separated design in a

sample of full‐time employees supported our arguments, revealing that WCSE

impacted well‐being at work through both autonomous and internally controlled work

motivations. WCSE also had negative effects on well‐being at and outside of work

through work–nonwork conflict. The beneficial effects of WCSE outweighed its harm-

ful effects on job satisfaction and neutralized its harmful effects for all other outcomes.

We discuss theoretical implications for CSE theory, self‐determination theory, and

work–nonwork issues and note important practical implications.

KEYWORDS

performance‐based self‐esteem, self‐determination theory, well‐being,work‐contingent self‐

esteem, work‐nonwork

1|INTRODUCTION

Over the past several decades, research has shown that self‐esteem

predicts a range of valued worker outcomes, including job performance

and well‐being (Bowling, Eschleman, Wang, Kirkendall, & Alarcon,

2010; Brown & Zeigler‐Hill, 2017; Judge & Bono, 2001). Although

research on self‐esteem has traditionally focused on the level of self‐

esteem—that is, how highly individuals assess their worth or value—it

has been suggested that a more complete understanding of the conse-

quences of self‐esteem requires considering not only how high one's

self‐esteem is but also what individuals believe they must be or do to

have worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). This latter construct, referred to

as contingent self‐esteem (CSE), has been shown to have important

motivational, behavioral, and affective consequences in domains in

which self‐esteem is pursued (Crocker & Knight, 2005).

Applying this concept within the work context, Ferris et al. concep-

tualized work‐contingent self‐esteem (WCSE; also called importance of

performance to self‐esteem) as the degree to which employees' self‐

esteem is contingent upon their work performance (Ferris, Brown,

Lian, & Keeping, 2009). This research has shown that WCSE facilitates

motivational processes that have positive consequences for perfor-

mance (Ferris et al., 2009; Ferris, Lian, Brown, & Morrison, 2015;

Received: 2 April 2018 Revised: 4 July 2019 Accepted: 9 July 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2408

J Organ Behav. 2020; © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1

4

1:1–16.

Ferris, Lian, Brown, Pang, & Keeping, 2010; Ferris, Spence, Brown, &

Heller, 2012). Given these apparent positive effects of WCSE on

performance, organizational researchers have suggested that WCSE

may be a desirable worker characteristic (Ferris et al., 2015).

Yet a full consideration of whether WCSE is desirable needs to also

consider how it impacts the well‐being of workers. Outside the organi-

zational sciences, CSE is conceptualized as an undesirable type of

fragile self‐esteem that harms well‐being in the contingent domain

(Crocker & Park, 2004; Deci & Ryan, 1995). Although CSE theory has

garnered support from studies showing that it has negative conse-

quences (Crocker & Knight, 2005), this perspective has not been sup-

ported consistently. Specifically, studies have occasionally shown

neutral effects of CSE on well‐being in contingent domains, and other

studies have even hinted at possible positive effects of CSE on well‐

being in contingent domains (Brook, 2005; Villacorta, 2006). These

findings highlight the need to further expand CSE theory to understand

and test the different pathways through which CSE impacts well‐being

and to understand how CSE impacts well‐being in noncontingent

domains, broadening the emphasis beyond the contingent domain.

The current paperaims to provide such an account and to clarify the

consequences of WCSE on employees' well‐being both at and outside

of work. To do so, we focus on explaining mechanisms (i.e., motivation

types and work–nonworkconflict) through which WCSE generates and

depletes personal resources, leading to both positive and negative

effects on well‐being.Our account extends CSE theory (Crocker& Park,

2004) in several ways.First, challenging the idea that CSE has primarily

harmful effectson well‐being in contingent domains, we argue that CSE

can have beneficial and harmful effects on well‐being by generating

both autonomous motivation (i.e., being motivated by the inherent

value of an activity [identified motivation] or the inherent enjoyment

of an activity [intrinsic motivation];Koestner & Losier, 2002) and inter-

nally controlled motivation(i.e., engaging in activities out of guilt, com-

pulsion, or to maintain self‐worth [introjected motivation]; Koestner &

Losier, 2002). By evoking motivation types that have divergent

consequences for employees' energetic resources, CSE should have

both harmful and beneficial effects on well‐being at work.

Second, we respond to calls in CSE theory to consider how

CSE impacts well‐being outside of the contingent domain (Ferris,

2014). To do so, we integrate insights from CSE theory (Crocker &

Park, 2004) and work–nonwork conflict and enrichment theories

(Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Building on

the prediction in CSE theory that CSE motivates employees to invest

large amounts of time into contingent domains, we suggest that WCSE

diminishes the amount of time and energy available for nonwork roles,

causing work–nonwork conflict. This conflict should lead to diminished

investment of resources in and satisfaction with one's family and lei-

sure experiences and should also lead to diminished well‐being at work

(Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011). We also argue that

WCSE can benefit nonwork experiences, because the autonomous

motivation facilitated by WCSE generates energetic resources that

can be invested in nonwork domains. Thus, by drawing on work–

nonwork conflict and enrichment perspectives, we identify mecha-

nisms through which WCSE impacts well‐being outside of work (i.e.,

through work motivation types and work–nonwork conflict). In consid-

ering conflict, we also identify a new mechanism through which WCSE

impacts well‐being at work (i.e., through work–nonwork conflict).

Third, we also provide the first examination of whether the bene-

ficial effects of WCSE on well‐being outweigh its harmful effects. To

explore this question, we draw on literature suggesting that the

effects of autonomous motivation on well‐being at work outweigh

those of introjected motivation (Gillet, Fouquereau, Vallerand,

Abraham, & Colombat, 2017; Van Beek, Taris, & Schaufeli, 2011), as

well as literature suggesting that well‐being in a specific domain is

most strongly impacted by within‐domain experiences (Vallerand,

1997). We posit that, particularly for well‐being at work, the beneficial

effects of WCSE will outweigh its harmful effects.

Overall, we clarify the multiple positive and negative mechanisms

through which WCSE impacts well‐being at work and outside of work

and provide the first examination of whether WCSE has overall bene-

ficial or harmful effects on well‐being at work and outside of work.

Our paper is structured as follows. First, we review the argument for

the harmful effects of CSE on well‐being based on SDT (Crocker &

Park, 2004). We then highlight the limitations of this argument and

propose a model that expands CSE theory and explains both positive

and negative effects of WCSE on well‐being at work and outside of

work. Our full model is presented in Figure 1.

2|CONTINGENT SELF‐ESTEEM,

MOTIVATION TYPES, AND WELL‐BEING

Self‐determination theory—the basis of CSE theory—has identified

different motivations people have for pursuing specific activities.

These motivations differ in the extent to which they are controlled

FIGURE 1 Proposed model. Direct effects

from WCSE to outcomes, which were included

in the structural model, are not shown for

visual clarity. Mediators were allowed to

correlate, as were outcomes. Work outcomes

are shown in a single box for visual clarity, but

each (job satisfaction, burnout, and work

anxiety) was specified as a separate factor,

with burnout as a higher order factor with

three subfactors and anxiety as a higher order

factor with two subfactors (see Section 5.3.1)

2KUYKENDALL ET AL.