Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which felt job insecurity facilitates or hinders employees from raising voice (i.e. speaking up to their authority). The authors introduce punishment and reward sensitivity, two constructs of reinforcement sensitivity theory, as dispositional factors that might lead employees to appraise felt job insecurity as a hindrance vs challenge stressor. The authors propose employees high on punishment sensitivity to feel more constrained in raising voice because felt job insecurity to them is akin to a threat. Employees high on reward sensitivity should see felt job insecurity as a challenge, making it more likely that they will speak up.

Hypotheses were tested using moderated structural equation modeling analysis. The sample consisted of 232 employees confronted with organizational change.

The results are in line with the view of felt job insecurity as a hindrance stressor. Felt job insecurity negatively affected voice among both high and low punishment-sensitive individuals. Similarly, felt job insecurity was negatively related to voice in both low and high reward-sensitive individuals, although in the latter group the relationship was less pronounced.

The literatures on felt job insecurity and voice have developed parallel to one another, without much cross-dialogue. Furthermore, the few existing studies that did relate felt job insecurity to employee voice have yielded conflicting results. The present study offers a theoretical account of the existing ambiguities in the literature, and generates new insights into why some employees more than others react to felt job insecurity by self-censoring their ideas and opinions.

The purpose of this paper is to show that academic misconduct appears to be on the rise; some research has linked academic misconduct to unethical workplace behaviors. Unlike previous empirically‐driven research, this theory‐based study seeks to examine the usefulness of a modification of Ajzen's theory of planned behavior to predict academic misconduct.

A total of 271 students enrolled at a US university were surveyed. Structural equation modeling was used to test the model.

The modified theory of a planned behavior model in which intentions and justifications both serve as antecedents to behavior fits the data well. The model accounted for 22 per cent of the variance in intentions to cheat and 47 per cent of the variance in self‐reported cheating.

The primary limitations of this research are the cross‐sectional research design, the self‐selected sample, and the single source of survey data.

The study extends the TPB model in the prediction of misconduct behavior. Attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral control, intentions and justifications were related to cheating behaviors. Academic misconduct may be reduced by shaping attitudes toward cheating, changing perceptions of subjective norms regarding the prevalence of cheating, and lowering students' perceptions of their control of cheating by, for example, emphasis on the consequences of getting caught. Understanding and reducing academic misconduct are important for promoting ethical behavior and values in future worker and organization leaders.

Identification of factors that influence academic misconduct is an important aspect of professional development research, given its link to workplace misconduct. To date, academic misconduct research has been primarily empirically‐ rather than theory‐driven. The current study identifies factors that contribute to academic misconduct by extending an established theoretical model of behavior.

Drawing from the job characteristics model and the job demands‐resources model, this study aims to examine the associations of resources (i.e. feedback, autonomy, and variety) with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and employability.

Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling on data from 611 employees of a Dutch municipality.

Consistent with the hypotheses, the authors' results indicated that resources are related to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and that the association between resources and employability was mediated by extrinsic motivation but not by intrinsic motivation.

The authors use a one‐dimensional measure of perceived employability and do not make a distinction between internal and external employability and other dimensions of employability. The authors feel that distinguishing between internal employability and external employability will contribute to understanding if internal and external opportunities relate differently to perceptions of employability with the same organization and with a different organization.

Job resources are important for improvement of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, but the route from job resources to employability is via extrinsic job opportunities and not via intrinsic job opportunities. That is, the perception of performance outcome goals by employees is important for the association between job resources and employability. The paper shows that, without denying the value of intrinsic motivation, it is important for management to emphasize the instrumental value of resources embedded in the job itself that have implications for employability and career advancement.

Drawing on social capital theory and self‐identification theory, this study aims to examine the associations of two indicators of social capital, personal networks and deep‐level similarity, with team capability measures of team efficacy and team potency. The central focus of the study is to be the hypothesized mediating role of team learning behaviors.

Hypotheses were tested using questionnaire data obtained from 221 teachers working in 33 teams and data were analyzed using multilevel analyses.

Consistent with the hypotheses, the results supported the contention that team learning behaviors mediate the relationship between different types of social capital and team efficacy and team potency. Specifically, it was found that, in highly (deep‐level) similar teams, the level of team learning behaviors is higher than in diverse teams, and this is hardly dependent on the extent of social capital based on personal networks. For diverse teams (i.e. teams scoring low on deep‐level similarity) more social capital based on personal networks translates into more team learning behaviors. Finally, it was found that team learning behaviors mediate the influence of social capital on team efficacy and team potency.

The paper's findings suggest that it is important for managers not to focus exclusively on surface level characteristics but instead to attempt to facilitate the development of deep‐level similarity. Organizations can also encourage group social capital by allowing teams to develop a shared history, rather than change membership frequently, and by increasing contact among team members.

The paper examined exchange and identification processes that are important in generating resources to increase the development of team learning behaviors, thereby emphasizing the role of the interpersonal context for understanding how interaction processes between team members shape team learning behaviors and subsequently lead to more team efficacy and team potency.