Org cites - recall cites Flashcards
Job Characteristics Model of work motivation-5 core job characteristics: Feedback, Autonomy, Task identity, Task Significance, Skill Variety-Lead to 3 critical psych states: experienced meaningfulness, knowledge of results, and felt responsibility.-Which lead to 4 outcomes: increased internal motivation, performance, job satisfaction, and reduced absenteeism.-Implies that by enriching jobs on these characteristics, you can enhance these outcomes.-Humphrey et al., 2007 found that meaningfulness was the primary mediating mechanism.
Hackman and Oldham, 1976
This is a chapter on work design.-Task (autonomy, variety, significance, feedback), knowledge (e.g., complexity, problem solving, specialization), social (e.g., social support, interdependence), and contextual characteristics (e.g, ergonomics, physical demands, work conditions) influence employees’ attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, and well-being outcomes.-Mediators to outcomes of W.D.: meaningfulness, responsibility, knowl of results, empowerment, & SE.-Outcomes of effective W.D.: attitudinal (e.g., satisfaction, commitment), behavioral (e.g., productivity, OCB, turnover), cognitive (e.g., role ambiguity, turnover intentions), and/or well being (e.g., stress, burnout, overload, work-family)-Moderators: e.g., cog ability, conscientiousness, PA-Work design interventions can help to increase satisfaction and efficiency, so tradeoffs are reduced. -Increasing autonomy increases role-breadth self-efficacy, which increases proactive behaviors. Two theories that may help explain how work characteristics impact outcomes are JCM and regulatory focus.
Morgeson et al, 2013
This is the first meta that tested the JCM model and it expanded upon it. -The primary mediator in the characteristics-psych states-outcomes model is experienced meaning. Aligns with SDT (ultimate goal of life is meaningfulness)- They extended JCM by testing additional motivational job characteristics (e.g., job complexity) and found that they impact a variety of work outcomes such as job satisfaction and overload.- They also added social and work context characteristics and found they have comparable relationships with work outcomes as job characteristics, and they had incremental impact, especially social characteristics.
Humphrey et al (2007)
This is an empirical article on relational work design. -They found that relational work redesign that enhances structural support can reduce role overload and improve performance and proactive behaviors. -Effects were dependent on the individuals understanding of others’ work roles & their NA.-Relational work design: whereas JCM focuses on design of jobs to fuel intrinsic motivation and performance, relational focuses on the design of jobs to fuel prosocial motivation (motivation to care about protecting and promoting the wellbeing of beneficiaries, i.e., patients). So it focuses on social charact. (per Morgeson et al.’s model) -When jobs are high in both task significance & contact with beneficiaries, employees will experience higher impact on and affective commitments to beneficiaries, which fuels prosocial motivation (effort, persistence, helping behavior). Grant, 2007
Parker et al., 2013
This is an empirical article on planning methods’ effects on engagement and performance.-Time management planning (TMP) and contingent planning (CP) positively and uniquely influence daily performance through enhanced work engagement. -Interruptions had no influence on CP effects, but weakened the effects of TMP.-Employees can utilize either method to increase daily engagement and performance at work, but TMP might not be as effective when employees experience high levels of interruptions at work on a particular day. -In dynamic work environments, CP is a good strategy individuals can employ to help them maintain engagement and performance.
Parke et al., 2017
This is an empirical study on negative consequences of job crafting. -Job crafting is associated with individual benefits such as higher levels of job satisfaction, work engagement, and psychological capital, as well as lower levels of burnout and boredom and higher performance.-This is because it helps enhance a sense of meaning for employees.However, what is good for the individual may not be good for the org.-There is a curvilinear relationship between job crafting and OCB & job proficiency outcomes, such that high/low levels of job crafting led to more positive outcomes than moderate. Maybe bc at moderate levels, they not yet integrated & accepted by others, so not yet functional. -Moderators: in cases of high autonomy, low ambiguity, and high social support, the relationships are positively linear b/w crafting and outcomes. (makes even mod levels of job crafting effective)
Dierdorff et al., 2018
This is an empirical paper presenting their affective shift model of work engagement.-Negative affect can lead to engagement when there are positive emotions that follow the negative affect. Increasing positive emotions can therefore help increase engagement, even when people have experienced negative events in their day.
Bledow et al, 2011
This is an empirical article on affective shift. Upward and downward shifts in positive and negative affect over the course of one work day interacted to predict unique patterns in motivation, cognition and performance.Upshift in both PA and NA - increased task performance Upshift in PA and downshift in NA - to increased OCBsPA downshift, NA upshift - thorough, analytical, alertDownshift in both - analytical, slow, broad
Yang et al., 2016
This was an empirical article on the impact of leaders’ transformational leadership in times of organizational change and transition. They found that, in times of transition, a new leader’s TL has weaker effect when former leader was high in TL. Conversely, when former leader was low in TL, their TL was more impactful. This is explained by contrast effect theory.
Zhao et al., 2016
This is a meta on the costs of emotional labor. Emotional labor is not necessarily harmful to employees:Surface acting and the emotion-rule dissonance are harmful led to impaired well-being, job attitudes and performance.Deep acting leads to better performance and does not affect well being. Emotion-rule dissonance - the discrepancy between required and felt emotions; a form of person-role conflict stemming from the incongruence between emotions that are actually felt and emotions that are required by display rules and resulting in an unpleasant state of tension.
Hulsheger & Schewe, 2011
This is a theory paper on emotional labor as emotional regulation.-Hochschild (1983) emotional labor: The management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display. Surface and deep acting. Surface: regulating the emotional expressions only; Deep: consciously modifying feelings-Applied Gross’s (1998) emotional reg theory to emotional labor. Emotional regulation: individuals receive stimulation from the situation and respond with emotions. Response provides info to the person and others. -Antecedents: customer interaction expectations due to job characteristics & discrete emotional events. -Outcomes: affective (burnout and satisfaction) and behavioral (performance and withdrawal). Surface acting is more likely to promote negative outcomes than deep acting.-Job characteristics like autonomy can minimize the stress of the emotion regulation process, and supportive climates can lead to greater job satisfaction, meaning less emotional labor is necessary.
Grandey, 2000
This is in a review article on emotional labor. They expanded upon Grandey’s (2000) model in several ways. -The new model is multi-level: event-level EL can impact person and org-level outcomes-Expands focus of ER beyond simply customers to team members, leaders, followers-Includes both momentary and chronic well-being outcomes.-Conceptualizes display rules at group, organizational, and national level.-Represent ER more broadly than deep and surface acting, e.g., authentic displays and situation selection.
Grandey and Melloy, 2017
This is a review on why affect matters in orgs.-Affect has important implications for a number of critical organizational variables, including performance, decision-making and creativity, withdrawal, prosocial behavior, negotiation and conflict resolution, team effectiveness, and leadership.
Barsade and Gibson, 2007
This is a review article on group affect.-Group affect is made up of affective convergence, diversity, culture, and dynamism.-Group affect is impacted by leadership, individual differences, relationship structure, and interaction frequency.-Positive group affect leads to positive individual attitudes, interactions, creativity, decision-making, and performance.-Negative group affect leads to the opposite.
Barsade and Knight, 2015
This is a chapter on creativity.-Creativity is the production of NEW and USEFUL ideas for products, services, or procedures. Has been examined using mechanisms of motivation, cognition, and affect-Creativity and motivation: intrinsic motivation is essential to creativity and is more likely when contextual factors are informational rather than controlling.(i.e., high transformational leadership, creativity goals vs productivity goals; developmental performance evals, high job complexity).-Creativity and cognition - individual creativity more likely under conditions of mindless work, creative intention, psychological safety, and indentity integration. -Creativity and affect - PA leads to creativity directly & through cognitive flexibility. NA can lead to creativity when used as an expression of voice, perceived recognition for creativity, and clarity of feelings are high, and negative moods are activating and increase performance.
Zhou & Shalley, 2011
Distinguishes between task & contextual performance behaviors, & presents a taxonomy ofcontextual performance (containing elements of OCB & prosocial behavior).5 categories of contextual performance: 1) Persisting with enthusiasm and extra effort to complete own task activities; 2) Volunteering for extra-role activities; 3) Helping and cooperating with others 4) Following org rules and procedures; 5) Endorsing, supporting and defending org objectives-Note that supervisors consider contextual performance on the part of subordinates when making overall performance ratings and that they weight it approximately as highly as task performance in making overall judgements.-Found that personality predicts contextual performance, which provides alternative explanation for personality predicting overall performance.
Borman & Motowidlo, 1997
This is a meta-analysis on OCB and CWB.-The relationship between OCBs and CWBs is modestly negative.-OCBs and CWBs are relatively distinct constructs (not opposite poles of same construct) and should be targeted separately in intervention work.-Literature suggests OCBs and CWBs share similar antecedents: job satisfaction, org justice perceptions, PA and NA, conscientiousness, org commitment-But, they more strongly predict CWBs than OCBs.
Dalal, 2005
This is a chapter on proactive work behavior. -Increasingly important that employees take charge of their careers & work environments. -Orgs can shape employee proactivity through designing work structures, leader behaviors, & work climates that foster employee confidence, challenging goals, and positive affect. -Antecedents of proactive work behavior: job characteristics (autonomy, complexity, control), individual factors (education and conscient.), interpersonal factors (support and relationships), leadership styles (participative, transformational, and LMX) all predict proactivity at work.-Outcomes of proactivity at indiv & team levels include increased performance & more positive attitudes.-Situational factors & individual differences may play important moderators when examining effects.
Bindl & Parker, 2011
This is an empirical article on when proactivity is ineffective in the workplace. -Found that when employees with proactive personalities had low political skill, they received lower evaluations from supervisors. -When political skill is high, there is no negative effect.
Sun et al, 2014
This is an empirical study on OCBs and CWBs for employees who are on their way out. -Employees who are thinking about leaving the organization tend to decrease OCBs and increase CWBs. -This seems to be due to them having a “transactional” (shorter-term, economic-based) orientation toward the organization and weaker relational (longer-term) contract orientation. -This is particularly problematic when the organization is perceived to be responsible for the potential exit (i.e., injustice issues, changes they do not agree with, etc).
Mai et al., 2016
This is a meta-analysis on the structure of CWB as a construct. -CWB is a broad umbrella construct that captures behavior that has a detrimental effect on organizations and their members. -These behaviors can be self-, other-, or org-directed.-There is some general latent factor underlying all 11 of these acts (tested Gruys et al acts).There are 11 categories of CWBs (per Gruys & Sackett, 2003).1.Theft 2.Destruction of property. 3.Misuse of information.4.Misuse of time and resources. 5.Unsafe behavior 6.Poor attendance. 7.Poor quality work 8.Alcohol use 9.Drug use 10.Inappropriate verbal actions 11.Inappropriate physical actions
Marcus et al., 2016
This is a review article on incivility at work.-Definition: Incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior that violates workplace norms for mutual respect & may or may not be intended to harm the target. -Negative outcomes for targets (as well as witnesses/observers): decreased commitment and productivity & increased withdrawal, turnover, & CWBs.-Most likely instigators: Men and those with higher status -A dilemma because: it is not illegal, is less overt (flies under radar), mgrs not trained to deal-Dangerous bc: ambiguous in intent, causing rumination for targets, harder for mgrs to manage, and it can spiral upward, resulting in increased aggression & more purposeful efforts to harm each other -Less likely to be reported, so less likely orgs will be aware of it.
Pearson and Porath, 2005
This is a theory paper with empirical support on a 3x3 model of work role performance.-Argue that the new work environment is more interdependent (to degree that they are embedded within a broader social system) and that uncertainty determines whether work roles can be formalized (and thus judged solely on proficiency), or whether they emerge through adaptive and proactive behavior. -3 behaviors (proficiency, adaptivity, proactivity) x 3 membership levels (individual, team, org)-The matrix describes how work behaviors cross with work roles.
Griffin et al., 2007
This is a review on ostracism. Ostracism: the extent to which an individual perceives they are being ignored or excluded by others. -Example behaviors include being avoided, having calls go unanswered, and withholding interaction).-Ostracism and incivility are both low intensity behaviors that are ambiguous in intent and counter to norms of respect. But ostracism is non-interactive. -Ostracism can be especially aversive because it threatens basic human needs for belonging, self esteem, control and having a meaningful life (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). -Antecedents of someone being ostracized are having a competitive mindset, being unpopular, being uncivil to colleagues.
Ferris et al., 2017