Search results

The anticipation of organizational change and the transition process often creates uncertainty for employees and can lead to stress and anxiety. It is therefore essential for all organizations, especially those that operate in high-demand working environments, to support the well-being of staff throughout the change process.

Research on how employees respond to the organizational change of relocating to a new work space is limited. To fill this gap in the research, we present a case study examining the well-being of clinical and health care employees before and after a disruptive change: relocation in workplace facilities. In addition, factors that enabled successful change in this high-stress, high-demand working environment were investigated. Interviews were conducted with 20 participants before the relocation and 11 participants after relocation. Following an inductive approach, data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes.

Our findings suggest that a supportive team, inclusive leadership and a psychologically safe environment, may buffer negative employee well-being outcomes during disruptive organizational change.

This research contributes to the literature on successful organizational change in health care by highlighting the resources which support well-being throughout the change process and enabling the successful transition to a new facility.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new measure of employee resilience. Employee resilience is a key capability enabling employees to manage and adapt to continually changing circumstances. While there is an increasing body of research on how to best promote resilience among employees in organizations, the measurement of the construct has received less research attention. The measure introduced in this paper focuses on employee resilience as a work-related capability that can be developed.

This paper presents three survey-based studies describing the development of a new measure, the Employee Resilience Scale and its preliminary validation. Study 1 concerns the scale development and testing, along with a confirmatory analysis of the measurement structure in a different sample. Study 2 investigates the discriminant validity of the scale in relation to a well-known measure of personal resilience, the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale. Study 3 was concerned with work-related outcomes of employee resilience (e.g. job engagement).

Support was found for the unidimensionality of the scale in Study 1. Study 2 showed a clear differentiation between the two measures of resilience: employee resilience and personal resilience, supporting the discriminant validity of the measure. Study 3 provided evidence for the criterion-related validity of the scale.

The three studies presented here provide preliminary support that the Employee Resilience Scale can be used to measure resilience among employees.

While the concept of employee resilience has gained attention in the literature, a measure of the construct has lacked. The study presents a valid measure of employee resilience which can be used to diagnose and develop a more adaptive workplace.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the independent and joint effects of regulatory focus (promotion and prevention) on the relationship between workplace resources (support and feedback) and employee resilience. It proposed that, at high levels of resource availability, a high promotion-high prevention profile would elicit the highest levels of employee resilience.

An online survey was completed by 162 white collar employees from four organisations. In addition to the main effects, two- and three-way interactions were examined to test hypotheses.

Promotion focus was positively associated with employee resilience, and though the relationship between prevention focus and resilience was non-significant, both regulatory foci buffered against the negative effects of low resources. Employees with high promotion-high prevention focus displayed the highest levels of resilience, especially at high levels of feedback. Conversely, the resilience of low promotion-low prevention individuals was susceptible to feedback availability.

Employee resilience development and demonstration are contingent not only on resources, but also on psychological processes, particularly regulatory focus. Organisations will develop resilience to the extent that they provide workplace resources, and, importantly, stimulate both promotion and prevention perspectives on resource management.

This study extends the research on regulatory focus theory by testing the joint effects of promotion and prevention foci on workplace resources, and the relationship between regulatory foci and employee resilience.

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether Chief Executive Officers’ (CEOs) discrepant leadership styles are reflected on CEO succession outcomes, operationalised as changes to employee views of the organisation following the succession.

Hypotheses were tested in a sample of 230 employees who completed an online survey at four time points over a three-year period. Linear mixed models analyses tested for significant changes to alignment, participation, learning culture, organisational commitment and engagement perceptions over time. Qualitative data were content-analysed to ascertain the CEOs’ leadership styles and explore employee views of the organisation.

While alignment and participation scores did not significantly increase following the CEO succession, learning culture, organisational commitment and engagement increased significantly.

This study adds to the limited research on CEO succession. It suggests that what renders a succession adaptive or disruptive may be contingent on the leadership styles of outgoing and incoming CEOs.

The transition from a transactional to a transformational CEO may have a stronger impact on motivational and attitudinal outcomes (e.g. engagement) than on operational outcomes (e.g. alignment).

This study is the first to longitudinally examine a range employee outcomes of CEO succession considering the incoming and outgoing CEOs’ discrepant leadership styles. It extends the leadership literature by empirically showing that, despite the disruption underlying a succession event, employee views of the organisation improve significantly following the transition from a transactional to a transformational leader.

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate how employees' coping (problem, emotion and avoidance focused coping) may affect the reactions to job insecurity. Because the coping investigated in the present study addresses the stressor in different ways, the authors expect different moderating effects depending on the type of coping, which results in three different hypotheses.

A sample of 579 Swedish accountants was used to test these hypotheses via surveys.

The findings support the authors' assumptions that emotion focused coping weakened the relation of job insecurity and some of the outcomes. Both avoidance and problem focused coping strengthened the relation between job insecurity and some of the outcomes.

As this study utilizes cross-sectional data and only one occupational group, it is important to test the relations using longitudinal data with different occupational groups in future research.

From these results some practical conclusions can be drawn as to which coping forms might be more beneficial, which can be helpful for organizations in order to develop intervention programs.

This study expanded the understanding of coping in the context of job insecurity by testing different forms of coping and including a variety of important outcomes of job insecurity.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a measure of job insecurity climate by: first, testing whether job insecurity climate and individual job insecurity are two separate constructs; and second, investigating the relative importance of individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate in predicting work-related and health-related outcomes.

Data were collected by questionnaires in a simple stratified random sample of 1,380 white-collar workers in Sweden. The response rate was 56 percent.

Confirmatory factor analyses showed that job insecurity climate was distinct from individual job insecurity. Four separate ridge regression analyses showed that qualitative job insecurity climate was a significant predictor of demands, work-family conflict, psychological distress, and poor self-rated health and that quantitative job insecurity climate predicted demands and work-family conflict.

The study is based on self-reports, which may involve common method bias. The cross-sectional study design limits the possibility to make causal inferences regarding the relationship between job insecurity climate and outcomes.

Future studies may consider measuring job insecurity climate in line with a referent-shift model. Work environment surveys in organizations that include measures of individual job insecurity and job insecurity climate can provide practitioners with a fuller picture of the psychosocial work environment.

The present study adds to previous research by introducing a new approach to measuring and conceptualizing job insecurity climate.

The purpose of this study is to introduce the concept of work‐related health attributions and investigate the effects of such perceptions as well as of health status on work‐related attitudes and turnover intentions.

Building on attribution theory, the study tests the assumption that negative work‐related health attributions impair employee work‐related attitudes and intentions, and moderate the relation between health status and work‐related attitudes. Cross‐sectional questionnaire data from 785 Swedish retail white‐collar workers are collected to test these assumptions by utilizing moderated regression analyses.

The results show that negative work‐related health attributions are related to lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as well as higher levels of turnover intention, even after controlling for demographics, work climate variables, and mental distress. Further, the significant interaction between attributions and mental distress indicates that it makes a difference for employees' turnover intentions if an individual with high mental distress attributes it to work or not.

Work‐related health attributions should be taken into account in order to avoid impaired levels of employee work motivation. The measure introduced renders it possible to identify and help those individuals who believe that work affects their health negatively.

The results underscore the relevance of how individuals think their health is affected by their work, and contributes to the understanding of how health status relates to work‐related attitudes. Since the measure of work‐related health attributions is easily administered it is also valuable for practitioners working with employee health and attitudes.