Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of a second-order state-like construct “psychological capital” (or PsyCap) as an underlying mechanism explaining the personality–academic achievement (AA) relationship in the educational context.

The conceptual model was statistically tested on a sample of 305 post-graduate students at a premier business school in central India using standard measures of personality and PsyCap. AA was measured through cumulative grade point average obtained from the administrative office. Data were collected through multiple sources to minimize common method variance. Analysis was done using macro PROCESS and validated using PLS–SEM.

Results indicated that PsyCap positively influenced AA. Furthermore, PsyCap mediated the relationship between openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness dimensions of student personality and AA.

Longitudinal research designs with interventions to enhance PsyCap of students may strengthen the findings of this study.

The findings suggest that the curriculum in higher education institutions should include interventions on building the PsyCap of the students as it positively correlates to the AA. Academic administrators may not have control on students’ dispositional traits, but they can design interventions to improve the psychological (state like) resources of the students. Follow-up interviews with academic administrators reinforced these implications.

This study provided initial evidence that positivity, in general, and PsyCap, in particular, have a positive impact on students’ AA. This is one of the first studies to examine the role of PsyCap in personality–AA relation in the higher educational context wherein high levels of stress and burnouts have been reported by students due to high competition in achieving goals.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a process model on how mindfully performed organisational routines can simultaneously enable organisational stability and organisational change.

Via conceptual analysis, the authors develop several propositions and a process model integrating the theory of mindfulness and performative aspects of organisational routines with organisational stability and change. To do so, the authors review the literature on organisational routines, mindfulness, stability, inertia and change.

First, the authors demonstrate that, based on levels of mindfulness employed, performative aspects of organisational routines can be categorised as mindless, mindful and collectively mindful (meta-routines). Second, in the process model, the authors position the mindless performance of routines as enabling organisational stability, mediated through inertial pressure and disabling change, mediated through constrained change capacities. Finally, the authors state that engaging routines with mindfulness at an individual (mindful routines) or collective (meta-routines) level reduces inertia and facilitates change. Such simultaneous engagement leads to either sustaining stability when required or implementing continuous organisational change.

The framework uses continuous, versus episodic, change; future research can consider the model’s workability with episodic change. Future research can also seek to empirically validate the model. The authors hope that this model informs research in organisational change and provides guidance on addressing organisational inertia.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to categorise the performative aspects of organisational routine based on the extent of mindfulness employed and propose that mindfulness-based practice of routines stimulates either inertia-induced or inertia-free stability and continuous change.