Background
During the course of the current century, the landscape of the modern business world has drastically changed. Due to megatrends like Globalization, Digitalization and Talent Shortage, businesses face ever increasing competition and are constantly looking for ways to gain a competitive edge. Especially since the intellectual capital of a company is becoming increasingly valuable (Demediuk, 2002; Hormiga, Batista-Canino, & Sánchez-Medina, 2011;
O’Donnell, O'Regan, Coates, Kennedy, Keary, & Berkery, 2003), companies try to gain an advantage by focusing on attracting and retaining highly qualified talent (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001; Sommer, Heidenreich, & Handrich, 2017). Companies therefore have to make sure to create appealing and engaging jobs in order to do so.
Recently, particularly the concept of work engagement has attracted more research interest, since it has been shown to be directly correlated with important business variables, such as job performance and job satisfaction(Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012; Demerouti &
Bakker, 2008; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008). Work engagement can be defined as a mental state including vigor, dedication, and absorption(Demerouti & Bakker, 2008). Most of the present research examining work engagement focuses around certain situations or behaviors, which occur at the workplace (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010; Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Giallonardo, Wong & Iwasiw, 2010). However, it might very well be the case that work engagement might be just as much if not even to a bigger proportion influenced by universal factors that don’t originate at the office but in employee’s personal lifes (LaMotte, 2015; Sonnentag, 2003). This could also hold true for another staple variable of human resource centered research, namely job satisfaction. Due to the tremendous importance of both of these variables, such potential factors require closer investigation as they influence almost the entirety of employee behavior at the workplace.
One such possible influencing factor, which is increasingly gaining attention across various disciplines, is an individuals’ circadian rhythm or chronotype. The circadian rhythm describes individual’s tendency to sleep and be active during certain time frames throughout a 24-hour window (Tankova, Adan, & Buela-Casal, 1994; Turek, 1985). Through analyzing peoples preferences for certain circadian rhythms, three distinct chronotypes have been established, which help to classify if an individual is a morning, neutral or evening person(Adan, Archer, Hidalgo, Milia, Natale, & Randler, 2012). Research in various different directions has shown, that an individual’s chronotype has a significant influence on life habits and
performance capability (Gau, Shang, Merikangas, Chiu, Soong, & Cheng, 2007, p. 217; Preckel, Lipnevich, Schneider, & Roberts, 2011, p. 487-488; Randler, 2011; Randler, & Frech, 2009).
However, only very little research exists investigating individual’s chronotypes and their influence on an individual’s working life (Randler, 2010). It should therefore be deemed important to start filling this research gap, as this concept could have far reaching impacts on an individual’s career and provide valuable insights into how to allow an employee to perform better at their job.
Consequently, the research at hand aims to investigate the relationship between employee’s circadian rhythm and work engagement with the addition of also examining the moderating role of employee’s personality dimensions and the mediating effect of job satisfaction. Past research, has already repeatedly demonstrated the connection and effect of certain personality dimensions with both main concepts (Adan, 1994; Bakker, Tims, et al., 2012;
Carciofo, Yang, Song, Du, & Zhang, 2016; Randler, 2008b). Similarly, job satisfaction has been linked to both variables (Giallonardo, Wong, & Iwasiw, 2010; Lu, Lu, Gursoy, & Neale, 2016; Moreno, Marqueze, Lemos, Soares, & Lorenzi-Filho, 2012; Wheatley, 2017).
Followingly, by including personality dimensions and job satisfaction in the present research, it allows for a more complete and in-depth analysis of the related concepts.
The research shall be conducted among white collar office workers in Taiwan. A Reason for this choice, is that typical office work in Taiwan is characterized by long working hours (Huang, 2018). Workdays typically start around 8 to 9 a.m., which theoretically should clearly favor morning persons. Consequently, if evening persons are discriminated against when it comes to levels of work engagement, it should be clearly shown in the collected data.
Additionally, looking at prior research regarding chronotypes in Taiwan, it is notable that most research was conducted among adolescent populations (Gau et al., 2007; Gau &
Soong, 2003). It should therefore be deemed important, to add to these research findings by focusing on an adult working population in the same country. The research findings will not only provide general insights on adult populations but also information for local HR managers on how to more effectively deal with the human capital at their disposal.
Problem Statement
The problem this study aims to address is the lack of research examining how employees’
circadian rhythms affects their work engagement and how this relationship is influenced by their various personality dimensions and job satisfaction. The research gap constitutes a serious problem as an increasing body of research suggests, that employees benefit or suffer
significantly in their careers due to the constraints of their individual chronotype in combination with fixed company’s office hours (Yam, Fehr, & Barnes, 2014).
Additionally, the mentioned concepts are closely linked to critical business variables, such as performance and productivity. Thus, if a business wants its business unit and its employees to perform to their fullest potential, it is essential to know and understand the scientific background information closely related to this. Consequently, the discovered research gap requires closer attention.
Research Purpose & Questions
The purpose of this study is to examine whether an employee’s chronotype significantly impacts their work engagement and how an employee’s various personality dimensions moderate and job satisfaction mediates the relationship. The independent variable will be morningness, which indicates the degree to which an individual classifies as a morning or in contrast as an evening or neutral person. The dependent variable, work engagement, is defined as an employee experiencing a mental state regarding their work, which is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption. The moderating variable will be the basic personality dimensions derived from the Big Five Model. The mediating variable will be job satisfaction, which expresses the degree to which employees like their jobs.
Research questions include
• Are there statistically significant differences in levels of work engagement and job satisfaction between people belonging to different chronotypes?
• Do the Big Five personality dimensions (Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to new experience) moderate the relationship between employee chronotypes and work engagement?
• Does job satisfaction mediate the relationship between employee chronotypes and work engagement?
Significance of the Study
Recently, more and more research has been conducted, which indicated that being a morning person is connected to better physical, academic and cognitive performance (Randler
& Frech, 2009; Thun, Bjorvatn, Flo, Harris, & Pallesen, 2015; Vollmer, Pötsch, & Randler, 2013). However, these advantages are not solely limited to sports and academia.
Evidence emerged that being a morning person can also have significant advantages when it comes to an individual’s career, since belonging to mentioned chronotype is linked to career boosting personality traits such as proactivity(Bakker, Tims, et al., 2012; Randler, 2009).
Morning people are also perceived to be better employees and evening persons could quite possibly be discriminated against by morning person supervisors (Yam, Fehr, & Barnes, 2014).
Especially nowadays, where human capital increasingly represents one of the most valuable assets a company can have, it is more important than ever to not only treat employees fairly but also in a supportive manner. Therefore, the above-mentioned findings should be considered alarming. If there is the possibility for a company to be more supportive towards its employees and enable them to perform better by simply adjusting working times or helping employees understand the relationship between their physiology and work performance, then that is definitely a research gap worth exploring.
Further, it is assumed, that the study at hand has the potential to help the researched subjects in a number of ways. Firstly, it can help raise awareness of employee’s chronotypes and its relation to their personal career. Due to the topic being largely under-researched, most people aren’t even aware of its potential impacts and significance. Additionally, it can lead to employees trying to adjust their sleeping schedule in an effort to match their chronotype to their specific line of work. This could translate into higher levels of work engagement, job satisfaction and last but not least career success.
These mentioned variables however should not only be of interest to the researched employees but also to the employer. In today’s working world, with constantly shrinking competitive advantages, it is crucial to enable your employees to perform to the best of their abilities. Followingly, realizing the opportunities and limitations of the setting in which an employer lets their employee perform, such as work schedule, is of tremendous importance. In order to help employees, perform better and feel more comfortable at work, employers could consider alternative approaches to their work schedules, such as later start times or flexible working hours to accommodate individual differences.
Definition of Terms Chronotype / Circadian Rhythm
The circadian rhythm or chronotype is a biological process occurring in every human being. This process describes an individual’s tendency to sleep and be active during certain time frames throughout a 24-hour window (Tankova et al., 1994; Turek, 1985). Through analyzing peoples preferences for certain circadian rhythms, three distinct chronotypes have been established, which help to classify if an individual classifies as a morning, neutral or evening person(Adan et al., 2012).
Morning-Type & Morningness
Morning-Type people are individuals with lifestyles characterized by early wake up and early going to bedtimes. As a result, these individuals experience their highest mental and physical performance in the morning and early noon(Adan et al., 2012). In chronotype self-assessment questionnaires, these individuals score high on the dimension called Morningness.
Evening-Type & Eveningness
Contrarily to Morning-Types, Evening-Type people are individuals with lifestyles characterized by late wake up and late going to bedtimes. Consequently, Evening-Types peak in terms of mental and physical performance starting in the late afternoon up until the advanced part of the evening(Adan et al., 2012).
Work Engagement
As outlined in the next chapter, there exists no universally agreed upon definition for the term Work Engagement as of today. However, certain themes constituting the term are widely acknowledged and incorporated in the following definition, which will therefore be used for the remainder of this work. Work Engagement describes “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Demerouti & Bakker, 2008; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-romá, & Bakker, 2002, p.74).
Big Five Personality Dimensions
The big five personality dimensions, incorporated in the Big Five Model introduced and popularized by John, Costa & McCrae (1990; 1992), are Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience.
Extraversion is a personality dimension describing the degree to which an individual experiences and publicly displays “positive affect, assertive behavior, decisive thinking, and desires for social attention” (Wilt & Revelle, 2017, p.57).
The personality dimension Conscientiousness is defined as the propensity to follow socially prescribed norms for impulse control, to be goal directed, to plan, and to be able to delay gratification (Roberts, Jackson, & Fayard, 2009).
Agreeableness is a dimension that emphasizes a person’s motivation and need to maintain harmonious relationships with the surrounding persons and to minimize or avoid conflicts (Gleason et al., 2004). Agreeableness is characterized by traits “such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty” (John, 1990, p. 121).
The personality dimension Neuroticism is concerned with the emotional stability or instability of a person. People with high levels of Neuroticism are characterized by “negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad and tense (John, 1990, p. 121).
Lastly, the personality dimension Openness to Experience “describes the breadth, depth, orgininality and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life” (John, 1990, p. 121).