Search results

In this chapter, we argue that despite the fact that empirical research on trait neuroticism has shown fairly weak relations between the broad neuroticism trait and overall job performance, organizational research can benefit by increased attention to the neuroticism construct. This is because the influence of neuroticism on work behavior can be best understood by separating the more general neuroticism domain into its lower level facets. We discuss various conceptualizations of neuroticism and then review existing research on the relation between the facets of neuroticism and job performance. Next, we turn our attention to a theoretical framework that suggests that the relations between neuroticism facets and job performance outcomes are explained by the social, cognitive, and behavioral effects of having varying levels of neuroticism-based traits. In so doing, we not only focus on mediated relationships between facets of neuroticism and job performance dimensions but also recognize some important moderators, as well as some expected direct relations between the facets and job performance. Finally, we discuss implications for further conceptual development, offer some suggestions for testing the propositions, and discuss potential practical implications of finding support for this model.

Because our emotions are crucial determinants of how well we function in our personal and professional lives, researchers from different perspectives have sought to understand how emotions can be best managed for optimal functioning. In this chapter, we focus on two research traditions that have examined this issue, the emotion regulation (ER) tradition and the emotional labor (EL) tradition. This effort is predicated on the belief that a more fundamental research tradition such as ER can inform and complement a more applied research tradition such as EL, first by extending our understanding of the various processes by which employees deal with their emotions, and second, by permitting a more accurate prediction of the consequences of these emotions. A case is presented that discriminating more finely between the various emotion management strategies may help to resolve some of the paradoxical findings observed in the EL literature.

For half a century, psychologist Albert Bandura has worked to advance a cognitive interactional model of human functioning that emphasizes the role of cognitive and symbolic representations as central processes in human adaptation and change. In his seminal 1977 publication, Bandura emphasized that these representations – visualized actions and outcomes stemming from reflective thought – form the basis from which individuals assess their personal efficacy. An efficacy belief, he contended, is the “conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” one desires (p. 193). Efficacy beliefs serve as the primary means by which people are able to exercise a measure of control over their lives. During the next two decades, Bandura (1986, 1997) advanced his social cognitive theory, in which people are viewed as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating rather than as solely reactive organisms, products of environmental or concealed inner influences. From this agentic perspective, people are seen as contributors to their life circumstances, not just recipients of them. In this way, people are “partial architects of their own destinies” (Bandura, 1997, p. 8).

This chapter addresses issues of power distribution in the context of doctoral research supervision. In this respect, manifestations of abusive practices constitute real problems for doctoral students in terms of the success and continuation of their research. A first reflection is made on the way this phenomenon is addressed in the literature and the explanations given. Then, it is brought into perspective with the notion of “excessive faculty entitlement” (Ratnam & Craig, 2021), to better understand how this asymmetrical power relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee is constructed and experienced. To provide exploratory answers on how to promote more equitable spaces for doctoral students, this study focuses on monitoring committees which represent an a priori more equitable way of addressing the issue of power distribution in supervision and which are therefore likely to help students in their doctoral journey. Our study of a recorded session of a monitoring committee is based on an analysis of the different discourses at work, discourse analysis being considered as a form of social action that has an impact on the lived experience and its foreseeable consequences (Fairclough, 2001). Characteristic features related to the specific detrimental asymmetries in this situation were identified. Several categories of power asymmetries detected in supervision were found to hinder the identification process at stake and thus the conditions for the doctoral student's success. It is suggested that awareness of these asymmetries could help supervisors to develop a more supportive and equitable relationship, leading to positive change.

Liliana Alzate-Pérez is a fifth semester student in the Bachelor's in English-Spanish Education (Licenciatura Inglés-Español) at Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana in Medellín, Colombia. She serves as a Research Assistant at the Research Group on Pedagogies and Didactics of Subject Knowledge (Pedagogías y Didácticas de los Saberes). She has helped with data collection and analysis procedures on two research studies: An exploratory study about teacher education policies in Medellín and a study regarding school violence. She is also a member of the Student Research Group on Second Language (SRG-L2), currently drafting a project about impact of teacher education programs. In addition, she works at a partnership project between UPB and local newspaper El Colombiano for the inclusion of the newspaper as a pedagogical tool. She has also been teaching a biology preparation course for the Colombian ICFES High School standardized test at UPB High School for four years. Her first research presentation was about her study (along with Mr. Gómez-Yepes) on teacher education practices in the new curricular proposal at the Faculty of Education at a research symposium at UPB. Her primary research interest is in the field of teacher education, specifically in the area of teacher education policies. Additional research interests include issues of technology and literacy in the high school setting, working in the inclusion of different educational needs in the curriculum, and the development of creative strategies for teaching improvement.

Although much attention has been devoted to the study of accounting students’ performance, little attention has been shown to the process of accounting students’ performance. Attention to process necessitates that the subject of accounting students’ test-taking behavior be explored. This study invites attention to the amount of time students take to return their examinations. Time spent on this critical task can be understood as a measure of student ambition to do well, student preparation or cognitive engagement. Using data collected from many classes taught by several instructors at one selective private institution, the results suggest that there is a non-linear relationship between the order in which exams are returned and exam performance. Specifically, those who work on their exams for longer tend to score lower. However, those that return their exams relatively quickly do not necessarily score better. The middle range, wherein students complete their exams neither early nor late relative to others, is associated with better test performance. The relationship between exam return order and test performance also varies by the type of exam and by the matriculation level. The study offers to add to our understanding of accounting students, an achievement that may be an underappreciated prerequisite to effective instructional outcomes.

A key feature of performance in many professions is that of vigilance, carefully monitoring one’s environment for potential threats. However, some of the characteristics that may make someone successful in such work may also be more likely to make them fail in the long-term as a result of burnout, fatigue, and other symptoms commonly associated with chronic stress. Among these characteristics, neuroticism is particularly relevant. To exert the effort that vigilance work requires, sensitivity to threats, a core aspect of neuroticism, may be necessary. This is evidenced by higher rates of neuroticism in vigilance-related professions such as information technology (IT). However, other aspects of neuroticism could attenuate performance by making individuals more distractible and prone to burnout, withdrawal, and emotional outbursts. Four perspectives provide insight to this neuroticism–vigilance paradox: facet-level analysis, trait activation, necessary conditions, and job characteristics. Across these perspectives, it is expected that too little neuroticism will render employees unable to perform vigilance tasks effectively due to lack of care while too much neuroticism will cause employees to become overwhelmed by work pressures. Contextual and personological moderators of the neuroticism–vigilance relationship are discussed, as well as two behavioral styles expected to manifest from neuroticism that could explain how neuroticism may be associated with either good or bad performance-relevant outcomes.