Search results

The post-COVID-19 era is characterised in the professional field by a deterioration in the psychological health of employees and by “The Great Resignation”. These phenomena require managers to rethink both organisational and HR strategies to protect their workers’ health, to retain them in their job and, in fine, to ensure the sustainability of the organisation. However, studies have demonstrated that high performance work systems (HPWS), which are currently the dominant approach in human resource management, are related to an intensification of work and consequently a deterioration of employees’ health (conflicting outcomes perspective). At the same time, workers’ well-being has been shown to be associated with numerous organisational outcomes, such as individual performance. However, relatively few articles have investigated win–win organisational practices or programmes that promote the well-being and consequently performance of workers. These include virtuous organisational practices (VOPs), which specifically aim to enhance employees’ well-being, considered not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself (mutual gains perspective). This paper aims to develop the general hypothesis that VOPs could increase employees’ performance by protecting their health and thus offer an alternative to HPWS.

We review relevant current research on psychological well-being and work performance and present innovative systems of organisational practices such as VOPs that create psychologically healthy workplaces and enhance workers’ optimal functioning (well-being and performance).

Based on theoretical arguments and empirical studies, we hypothesise that alternative practices such as VOPs can increase employees’ performance while protecting their health and encouraging them to stay in the organisation.

After this review, we discuss future avenues for research to encourage the scientific community to test this hypothesis.

Finally, we make a number of specific recommendations about how to (1) appraise, design and implement VOPs, (2) enhance organisational communication and managerial adherence to VOPs, and (3) train managers in R.I.G.H.T leadership behaviours.

Presentation of an original approach in this research field: the VOPs.

Despite the increasing attention given to product-service integration (PSI), little is known about this innovation strategy from a key decision-maker’s perspective. To address this gap, our study draws from personality psychology and decision-making (DM) logics theory to better understand why and how companies’ decision-makers strategize for PSI.

Using an abductive, empirics-first approach, we identify the study’s theoretical building blocks, followed by an exploratory quantitative analysis to generate new theory. We propose a fit-as-mediation conceptual framework suggesting that (1) specific personality traits [i.e. honesty-humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C) and openness to experience (O) (HEXACO)] make decision-makers more likely to include PSI in their company’s strategy and (2) depending on their personality, they apply different DM logics (i.e. causation or effectuation) to do so. To empirically examine this, we use data from 289 SMEs’ decision-makers.

We report several meaningful relationships among our key theoretical constructs. For instance, we find that conscientious decision-makers are more likely to develop a PSI strategy via causation, whereas extravert decision-makers are more likely to do so via both causation and effectuation.

This service study is the first to apply the well-established HEXACO Personality Inventory to companies’ key decision-makers. Moreover, it contributes to the microfoundations of PSI strategy and DM logic theories.

Celebrate Michael Buckland's impressive legacy to LIS by showing his humanity, generosity and versatility.

This article is walk through a scientific career in LIS. Through personal anecdotes and life history and building upon Michael Buckland's legacy, it summarises the author’s own work seen through the prism of her interactions with Buckland, leading to scholarly contributions articulating significant statements about the field of LIS as well as pointers to past relevant publications.

Michael Buckland has a unique way of putting an end to thorny LIS issues as well as being a documentator extraordinaire.

It is a personal account, as such cannot be evaluated through the classical norms of empirical research as there is no ground truth. This account shows how chance encounters with fellow scholars can have a lasting influence on one's academic career as well as wider impact in a field.