Search results

Constructive deviance has received increasing attention across the last 20 years. However, because the distinction between constructive and traditional forms of deviance (i.e., destructive) is based on the intent behind the behaviors, it can be difficult to determine which acts are constructive. As an umbrella construct consisting of several forms of deviant acts (e.g., whistle-blowing, employee voice, necessary evils), research into constructive deviance has largely remained focused on the individual behaviors to date. While advancements have been made, this focus has limited the consideration of an overarching understanding of constructive deviance in the workplace. Further, constructs like constructive deviance that straddle the bounds between beneficial and detrimental necessitate the exploration into their antecedents as determined by the employees (i.e., apples), their environments (e.g., barrels), or some combination of the two. The author seeks to advance the research in constructive deviance by proposing a testable model. In which, the author develops an interactionist perspective of the antecedents to reposition constructive deviance as the acts of good employees in restrictive or negative environments. In doing so, the author considers how various aspects of individuals, their organizational environments, and the influence of their leaders interact. The author then develops a multi-stakeholder approach to the outcomes of constructive deviance to consider how the various parties (i.e., organization, coworkers, customers) are expected to respond and how these responses impact the more distal outcomes as well as the likelihood of engaging in future constructive deviance.

This study focuses on assistant principals, the “forgotten future workforce” of educational leadership. We explored the current landscape of assistant principalship within the context of work performance, including both task and discretionary performance, and the future career aspirations of assistant principals from a cross-national perspective. Specifically, the study aimed to fulfill the following objectives: (a) to identify the factors affecting the task and discretionary performance of assistant principals, (b) to identify the factors affecting three future career aspirations of assistant principals, and (c) to determine whether the influences of these factors differ by national origin. Personal initiative and perceived organizational support (POS) were the independent variables. This study also examined the demographic attributes of the participants and their schools. Two randomly selected samples, which composed of 227 Turkish and 144 American assistant principals were the participants. The data-gathering instrument incorporated the revised versions of the Personal Initiative Scale (Fay & Frese, 2001), the Perceived Organizational Support Scale (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), and the School Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). The findings of the study showed that personal initiative and POS significantly predicted the task performance, discretionary performance, and certain future career aspirations of assistant principals. National origin appeared to be a significantly differentiating factor of the assistant principals' task performances, discretionary performances, and future career aspirations. We drew conclusions and provided suggestions for future research.

Purpose: Drawing upon the conservation of resources (COR) theory, the purpose of this chapter is to investigate the influence of supervisor family support (SFS) on job performance of employees through work and family demand, work-family conflict (WFC), work-life balance (WLB), job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and organizational commitment. In doing so, this chapter aims to respond to the limited existing research on WLB in the Australian financial industry, despite its substantial contribution to the economy. Study Design/Methodology/Approach: The study uses an online panel which recruits participants at different levels of financial organizations in Australia. The data comprise 305 employees to test a model with structural equation modeling. Findings: Results demonstrate that SFS relates positively to WLB and inversely to perceived family demand, WFC, and family-work conflict, with no significant link to perceived work demand. Findings show further that WLB associates positively with employee attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, life satisfaction, organizational commitment). Results also demonstrate positive relations between employee attitudes and job performance. Finally, results show a significant positive relationship between WLB and job performance. Research Limitations/Implications: The survey data were collected from a single source (the financial industry) and from Sydney; therefore, the conclusions may carry less weight than those triangulated from multiple sources and across Australia. The variables were self-reported, which may leave the data subject to some response biases. Consistent with the past research, steps were taken to reduce single-source bias. Practical Implications: The results demonstrate that SFS is important in determining employee job performance in financial industry. It also highlights the role of work and family demand, WFC, WLB, and job attitudes. Originality/Value: The study would guide employers, employees, and managers involved in the financial industry to implement policies which may aim to augment job performance and promote balance between work, home, and life.

Purpose of This Chapter: This chapter aims to clarify how employee voice (EV) is conceptualized in the extant literature. Then, the present chapter develops a model of EV based on previous studies from 1970 to 2022.

Design / Methodology / Approach: In all, 53 articles were investigated in this study – the focus was on articles in the field of management. The target articles were limited to those which were written in English and were indexed by the Web of Science (WOS).

Findings: The concepts related to EV have been presented in five main dimensions. The content analysis results revealed a theoretical agreement over the central elements reflecting an integrated description of EV.

Research Limitations: The study was limited to the sources published in the WOS database, which could affect the scope of findings.

Research Implications: The conclusion showed that EV is a multi-dimensional, emerging field that has been undergoing a definitional debate in the literature. This concept indicates an ongoing responsibility for the public’s benefit, welcomes different financial activities to supply market forces’ requirements, and investigates society’s existing demands.

Originality: It represents the first attempt to conduct an EV systematic literature review based on the definition of key factors and the complex relations in a typical EV process. Also, according to the review of selected articles from 1970 to 2022, there has been no coherent conceptualization of employees’ voices.

Scholars have argued that different forms of proactive behaviors (e.g., career initiative, feedback seeking, and taking charge) all involve employees’ self-initiated and future-focused efforts to bring about change in a situation (Parker et al., 2006). There are at least three important elements that define proactivity: future-focus, change-orientation, and self-initiation (Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker et al., 2006). First, proactive behavior is future-focused, which means that this action is targeted at anticipated problems or at opportunities with a long-term focus. Second, proactive behavior is change-oriented, involving not just reacting to a situation but being prepared to change that situation in order to bring about a different future. Third, and underpinning the prior two elements, proactive behavior is self-initiated, which means that employees initiate a proactive goal without being told to, or without requiring explicit instructions from supervisors. Accordingly, proactivity has also been conceived of as a process in which employees generate and implement, under their own direction, a proactive goal to bring about a different future (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012; Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008).

This chapter discusses proactive leadership by elaborating the meaning of leaders' proactivity, the required competencies of proactive leadership, and the potentially different evaluations of leaders' proactivity by different observers, including leaders themselves, their supervisors, peers, and subordinates. Specifically, based on the goal generation – goal striving process view of proactivity, we define leaders' proactivity as “generating and enacting self-initiated and future-focused leading actions that are persistently sustained to bring changes toward the environment.” In line with the process view, we also propose the competency requirement of proactive leadership, by benchmarking against a scientifically developed, comprehensive competency dictionary, the Universal Competency Framework (UCF). Finally, we discuss the possibility that leaders' proactivity can be observed and evaluated differently by raters at different positions. Overall, this chapter provides a conceptual analysis of proactive leadership and points to potential research directions subject to empirical investigation.

We examine how input- (vs. output-) based performance evaluation and incentive intensity impact employees’ autonomous motivation, thereby influence their proactive work behaviors.

We collected survey responses from 309 employees of different firms. Multi-group Structural Equation Modeling analyses were used to analyze the data.

Input-based evaluation had a positive effect on autonomous motivation and proactive work behaviors when task uncertainty was high, but a negative effect when it was low. Autonomous motivation had a positive effect on proactive work behaviors.

Our results on the moderating effect of task uncertainty provide insights into inconsistencies in earlier studies. Moreover, applying self-determination theory of motivation to incentive research can provide some insights into why sometimes, incentives can negatively affect performance.

The study of proactive work behaviors is important because despite their necessity in the fast-changing business environment, they are relatively unexplored in the incentive literature. Proactivity is especially important for tasks that are high in uncertainty because the exact tasks to achieve those goals are hard to specify.

We investigate the effect of performance management system on proactive work behaviors, mediated by autonomous motivation and moderated by task uncertainty.

Interest in psychological resilience has grown rapidly in the last couple of decades (Britt, Sinclair, & McFadden, 2016; King & Rothstein, 2010; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Psychological resilience occurs when a person can “recover, re-bound, bounce-back, adjust or even thrive” in the face of adversity (Garcia-Dia, DiNapoli, Garcia-Ona, Jakubowski, & O’flaherty, 2013, p. 264). As such, resilience can be conceptualized as a state-like and malleable construct that can be enhanced in response to stressful events (Kossek & Perrigino, 2016). It incorporates a dynamic process by which individuals use protective factors (internal and external) to positively adapt to stress over time (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Rutter, 1987). Building on the dual-pathway model of resilience, we integrate adaptive and proactive coping to the resilience development process and add a heretofore unexamined perspective to the ways in which resilience changes over time. We propose that resilience development trajectories differ depending on the type of adversity or stress experienced in combination with the use of adaptive and proactive coping. We outline the need for future longitudinal studies to examine these relationships and the implications for developing resilience interventions in the workplace.