Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions of organisational politics (POP) as a mediator of the relationship between high-involvement work practices (HIWPs) and employee outcomes (trust in employer and employee engagement).

Using a longitudinal time-lagged quantitative survey design, data were collected in two waves (n = 1,554, time 1, and n = 970, time 2). Direct and indirect (mediation) effects were tested through structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS.

The results of SEM suggest that HIWPs are positively associated with trust in the employer and employee engagement and negatively associated with POP. The data supported a partial mediation model in which POP mediated the relationship between HIWPs and both trust in the employer and employee engagement levels.

HIWPs reduce employees’ perceptions of the degree to which their work environment is politicised, enhance employee engagement and develop a more trusting relationship between employee and employer.

Perceptions that workplace environments are characterised by political behaviours are ubiquitous and a large body of research has highlighted their detrimental effects on both employees and employers. This is the first study that has examined the potential of HIWPs in reducing such perceptions, which in turn, can foster employee engagement and enhance trust in the employer. Longitudinal studies of the effect HIWPs have on employee perceptions and attitudes are also still scarce.

High-involvement work processes (HIWPs) are associated with high levels of employee influence over the work process, such as high levels of control over how to handle individual job tasks or a high level of involvement at team or workplace level in designing work procedures. When implementations of HIWPs are accompanied by companion investments in human capital – for example, in better information and training, higher pay and stronger employee voice – it is appropriate to talk not only of HIWPs but of “high-involvement work systems” (HIWSs). This chapter reviews the theory and practice of HIWPs and HIWSs. Across a range of academic perspectives and societies, it has regularly been argued that steps to enhance employee involvement in decision-making create better opportunities to perform, better utilization of skill and human potential, and better employee motivation, leading, in turn, to various improvements in organizational and employee outcomes.

However, there are also costs to increased employee involvement and the authors review the important economic and sociopolitical contingencies that help to explain the incidence or distribution of HIWPs and HIWSs. The authors also review the research on the outcomes of higher employee involvement for firms and workers, discuss the quality of the research methods used, and consider the tensions with which the model is associated. This chapter concludes with an outline of the research agenda, envisaging an ongoing role for both quantitative and qualitative studies. Without ignoring the difficulties involved, the authors argue, from the societal perspective, that the high-involvement pathway should be considered one of the most important vectors available to improve the quality of work and employee well-being.

This introduction seeks to provide a brief background to the notion that there are generational differences at work and to introduce the papers included in this special issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology.

The current context concerning generational differences at work is briefly outlined followed by a description of the core theory underpinning the notion of generational cohorts. Criticisms of this theoretical premise are provided before a brief outline is given to each article in the special issue.

There is evidence for changes in personality profiles across generations, and for differences in attitudes towards work and careers. However, effect sizes tend not to be large, and some findings are inconsistent with popular stereotypes regarding generational differences. Little support was found for differences in work values or motivation.

Contrary to popular hype concerning generational differences at work, managerial time may be better spent considering employee needs relating to age (maturity), life‐cycle and career stage differences than developing generationally specific management policies and practices. Significant methodological problems remain in generational research.

The papers facilitate a critical understanding of the challenges facing generational research and its limitations, and provide a litmus test against which popular stereotypes can be compared.

The purpose of this paper is to identify whether there are particular employee groups that are more vulnerable to work intensification and its outcomes for well-being.

This paper utilises data collected in two representative national surveys in 2005 (n=1,004) and 2009 (n=1,016), first to determine which employee groups are most vulnerable to work intensification and, second, to identify who is more vulnerable to the impacts of high work intensity on well-being, in terms of job (dis)satisfaction, stress, fatigue, and work-life imbalance.

Professionals reported significantly higher levels of work intensity than all other occupational groups, and higher levels of stress and work-life imbalance. In addition, full-time employees experienced greater work intensity than part-timers, and union members than non-union members. Public-sector employees reported greater stress and work-life imbalance than those in the private sector. There was also a small, but significant and consistent, interaction effect that identified women as more negatively impacted by high work intensity than men.

Professionals have become vulnerable workers, in the sense of high levels of work demand, and the notion of worker vulnerability needs to recognise this. Future research on vulnerable employees would benefit from a broader conception of what constitutes vulnerability, exploring a wider range of employee groups who might be considered vulnerable, and including a wider range of potential outcomes for the lives and well-being of the individuals concerned. In particular, a more finely grained examination of the working conditions of professionals would be desirable, as would a more detailed examination of the reasons for the higher negative impact of work intensity on women.

One way of improving the sustainability of professional working is to foster higher rates of part-time working, which brings better outcomes in terms of stress and work-life balance. This, however, is hardly a societal remedy and the question of how to reverse deteriorating job quality among professionals, particularly those struggling to balance work and family demands, is something that needs much greater attention.

The paper expands the notion of “vulnerable workers” to recognise those groups most at risk of work intensification, and the outcomes of that intensification for satisfaction, stress, fatigue, and work-life balance. The authors add to the small group of studies highlighting the degradation of professional work, as well as identifying other types of employee who are more vulnerable to work intensification. The use of two large-scale surveys, with a four-year gap, has allowed a high degree of consistency in the patterns of vulnerability to be revealed.

The purpose of this study is to test the relationships of learning, organizational commitment and talent retention across managerial generations in Europe.

Hypotheses are developed to explain the influence of learning and organizational commitment on talent retention across generations. A total of 1,666 European managers completed a survey on these issues. Depending on year of birth, they were categorized into four generational cohorts. Their answers were analyzed with statistic procedures.

Findings reveal that younger generations are less willing to remain in the same organization and have lower organizational commitment. The youngest generations (Early and Late Xers, born 1960 and after) show stronger learning orientation and lower organizational commitment than older generations (Early and Late Boomers, born 1946‐1959). Learning orientation predicted the intention to remain in the same organization for Early Xers and Late Xers. Organizational commitment mediated this relationship. For Late Boomers and Early Xers, it mediated the relationship between specific leadership development intentions and intention to stay.

Managerial, job‐related learning is confirmed as an important antecedent for the intention to stay/leave one's current organization. The differential meaning of learning and commitment across generations needs to be better understood in order to develop effective strategies for the retention of talent in all generations. In particular, differences in the psychological contract between organizations and their managers need to be understood.

The findings suggest an approach of generation‐specific HR practices for talent retention.

The study is one of the first to date to address leadership development and learning orientation in the context of talent retention, as well as one of the first to address the discussion of generational challenges in Europe and across the specific population of people in managerial roles.

The purpose of this research is to examine whether personality and motivational driver differences exist across three generations of working Australians: Baby Boomers, Gen Xs, and Gen Ys.

Using the Occupational Personality Questionnaire and the Motivation Questionnaire, the study examined cross‐sectional differences in personality and motivational drivers across three generations.

The results are not supportive of the generational stereotypes that have been pervasive in the management literature and the media. Specifically, few meaningful differences were found between the three generations. Moreover, even when differences have been observed, these have related more to age than generation.

One of the key limitations is the use of cross‐sectional data. To further explore this issue, it would be interesting to undertake a longitudinal study to assess personality preferences and motivational drivers of the different generations, when the participants are at the same age or the same point in their career.

The research emphasizes the importance of managing individuals by focusing on individual differences rather than relying on generational stereotypes, which may not be as prevalent as the existing literature suggests.

Managers and HR professionals may find the lack of differences across generations interesting and refreshing, in contrast with the popular management literature.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether four different generations (Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y) hold different beliefs about career. Career type, career success evaluation and importance attached to organizational security are to be scrutinized for each generation.

A total of 750 people completed a vignette task, rating the career success of 32 fictitious people. Each vignette contained a different combination of five career features (functional level, salary, number of promotions, promotion speed, and satisfaction) at two levels (low and high). Furthermore, several items were added in order to determine each participant's career type and the extent to which they attached importance to organizational security.

The majority of participants still had rather “traditional” careers, although younger generations seemed to exhibit larger discrepancies between career preferences and actual career situation. Overall, satisfaction appeared to be the overriding criterion used to evaluate other people's career success. No significant differences were found between generations. With regard to importance attached to organizational security, the Silent Generation and Generation Y scored significantly higher than the other generations.

The convenience sampling strategy led to large differences in sample size per generation. Using a vignette design limited the amount and richness of information that could be offered to participants. Perhaps other criteria relevant to real‐life career success evaluation should have been incorporated in this study.

The study raises questions about the validity of career success operationalizations frequently used in research. It is the first study to examine career success evaluation by means of vignettes.

The purpose of this paper is to review data from 1.4 million people who completed personality, attitude, psychopathology, or behavior scales between the 1930s and the present and to discuss how those differences may impact today's workplace.

The data are gathered from research reports using psychological scales over the last eight decades, primarily those using college student samples.

Generation Me (sometimes called Gen Y or Millennials) demonstrates higher self‐esteem, narcissism, anxiety, and depression; lower need for social approval; more external locus of control; and women with more agentic traits.

Managers should expect to see more employees with unrealistically high expectations, a high need for praise, difficulty with criticism, an increase in creativity demands, job‐hopping, ethics scandals, casual dress, and shifting workplace norms for women. Organizations can respond to these changes with accommodations (e.g. praise programs) or with counter pressure (e.g. dress codes), and it is imperative that managers consider the best reaction for their workforce.

Most studies of generations interview workers at one time; thus any differences could be due to age or generation. Many of these reports are also based on subjective opinions and perceptions. In contrast, the paper reviews quantitative data on generational differences controlling for age. This empirically based look at generations in the workplace should be useful to managers and workers.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate differences between three generational groups currently in the workforce (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y), in work values, job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and intentions to leave. The study also seeks to examine generational differences in person‐organisation values fit.

A total of 504 Auckland employees representing a range of industries completed an online questionnaire. Generation X (57 per cent) was defined as those born between 1962‐1979, Baby Boomers (23 per cent) were born 1946‐1961 and Generation Y (17 per cent) were born 1980‐2000. The remainder (3 per cent) were born 1925‐1945.

The youngest groups placed more importance on status and freedom work values than the oldest group. Baby Boomers reported better person‐organisation values fit with extrinsic values and status values than Generation X and Generation Y but there were no other generational differences in fit. Where individual and organisational values showed poor fit there were reduced job satisfaction and organisational commitment, and increased intentions to turnover across all three generational groups.

The study was cross‐sectional and based on self‐report data, limiting the generalisability of findings.

Values are important in guiding behaviour and enhancing work motivation. Organisational values must be able to meet the needs of different employees, and organisations need to clarify their work values and expectations with staff.

The paper presents evidence that person‐organisation values fit is important for all generational groups and popular notions about generational differences should not be over‐generalised.