Karasek's (1979) job demands-control model is one of the most widely studied models of occupational stress (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003). The key…
Karasek's (1979) job demands-control model is one of the most widely studied models of occupational stress (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003). The key idea behind the job demands-control model is that control buffers the impact of job demands on strain and can help enhance employees’ job satisfaction with the opportunity to engage in challenging tasks and learn new skills (Karasek, 1979). Most research on the job demands-control has been inconsistent (de Lange et al., 2003; Van Der Deof & Maes, 1999), and the main reasons cited for this inconsistency are that different variables have been used to measure demands, control, and strain, not enough longitudinal research has been done, and the model does not take workers’ individual characteristics into account (Van Der Deof & Maes, 1999). To address these concerns, expansions have been made on the model such as integrating resources, self-efficacy, active coping, and social support into the model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001b; Johnson & Hall, 1988; Demerouti, Bakker, de Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001a; Landsbergis, Schnall, Deitz, Friedman, & Pickering, 1992). However, researchers have only been partially successful, and therefore, to continue reducing inconstencies, we recommend using longitudinal designs, both objective and subjective measures, a higher sample size, and a careful consideration of the types of demands and control that best match each other theoretically.
Julian Barling received his PhD in 1979 from the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa) and is currently associate dean with responsibility for the graduate and research programs. Julian is the author/editor of several books, including Employment, Stress and Family Functioning (1990, Wiley) and The Psychology of Workplace Safety (1999, APA). He is senior editor of the Handbook of Work Stress (2005, Sage) and the Handbook of Organizational Behavior (2008, Sage), and he is the author of well over 150 research articles and book chapters. Julian was formerly the editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. In 2002, Julian received the National Post's “Leaders in Business Education” award and Queen's University's Award for Excellence in Graduate Student Supervision in 2008. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, SIOP, APS, and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. He is currently involved in research on leadership, work stress, and workplace aggression.
In our 8th volume of Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, we offer eight chapters that examine theoretical, conceptual, and methodological advances to job stress research. Our lead chapter, by Christopher Rosen, Chu-Hsiang Chang, Emilija Djurdjevic, and Erin Eatough, provides a thorough review of conceptual and empirical research examining occupational stress and performance. They review and critique theories that help to explain the workplace stressor–performance relationship and they develop an eight-category taxonomy of workplace stressors. Finally, they evaluate how well contemporary research has dealt with limitations and weaknesses previously identified in earlier research.
What do principals look for when hiring teachers? The purpose of this paper is to extend the knowledge concerning what aspects of teacher quality are in demand among the…
What do principals look for when hiring teachers? The purpose of this paper is to extend the knowledge concerning what aspects of teacher quality are in demand among the individuals who administer schools and make hiring decisions.
Rather than employing interviews or surveys, the authors utilized a conjoint instrument that assembled teacher characteristics into fictitious applicant profiles. Participating North Carolina public school principals (n = 467) then chose among the computer-generated options and regression analysis allowed the authors to identify preferences in the aggregate.
Principals in this study preferred applicants with classroom experience, but those with 15 years were no more preferred than those with 5. They also preferred applicants with more education, but an advanced degree was no more preferred than a bachelor’s from a highly selective institution. Preference for teachers who are committed to state standards varied with schools’ performance on state tests.
Conjoint analysis is a useful tool for measuring preferences but is underutilized in research on education administration. This paper contributes not only to the body of knowledge about school principal behavior but also to the field’s familiarity of research techniques.
The aim of this paper is explore consequences of ambivalence and ambiguity on self‐concept, decision‐making, and quality of interrelationships between management and…
The aim of this paper is explore consequences of ambivalence and ambiguity on self‐concept, decision‐making, and quality of interrelationships between management and employees in one for‐profit organisation.
Data were re‐read to reveal that organisational members were constantly engaged in the process of changing their perceptions of “who” and “what” were “good” and “bad” in reaction to environmental change impacts.
The paper finds that philosophically, “splitting” is an age‐old form of decision‐making; psychodynamically, “splitting” is not necessarily a signal to a pathology but instead is merely an initiator of ambiguity and ambivalence that leverages change; from a change management perspective, “splitting” can reinforce polarisation that can impede the desire to engage in continual change; and predictions and perceptions of change consequences underscore both the quality and quantity of “splitting” in regard to polarisation. “Splitting” is an integral defense and offense change mechanism that occurs in all decision‐making, so practical implications are that its affects on self and other concepts need to be understood. To establish equalising and non‐polarised interrelationships between “employer” and “worker” and to negate the line between management and employee, exercises in recognition of mutual causation such as servant leadership practises can be introduced.
Unparalleled synthesis of seemingly divergent theoretical and practical studies, this paper is a valuable ontological and epistemological tool for ongoing investigation into complexity theory, including self and other organisation.