Search results

The evolution of an increasingly systematic approach to management training, recruitment, appraisal and development has spawned an increasing interest in the nature of managerial jobs as both a reference point towards which training and development may be pertinently oriented and a yardstick against which managers' performance and potential may be appraised. Any discussion of managers' training needs, potential, performance strengths and weaknesses, incentives and rewards or development needs is predicated on some idea, perhaps implicit, of what managers should be doing and, hence, some assessment of the extent to which managers are doing or could do it. But whilst managerial performance and potential have been variously investigated and measured, the question of what managers should be doing in their respective jobs has not been so systematically addressed. Certainly, there has been increasing use of managerial job descriptions as formal statements of managers' responsibilities, tasks and, perhaps, detailed activities. However, these “descriptions” often contain a heavy dose of prescription, not to say exhortation, and tend to be non‐behavioural, abstract and open to considerable interpretation. In particular, it is often difficult to deduce unambiguously from them which observable behaviours or performance indicators would be consistent with “doing the job” or, indeed, doing it well. Moreover, the content of managerial job descriptions tends to derive from limited sources — either the manager's immediate boss's beliefs about what the manager should be doing, or a process of negotiation between manager and immediate boss. Both of these approaches are at odds with the general recognition that managers' jobs are neither static nor neatly circumscribed, but lie at the intersections between shifting networks of organisational relationships. In short, there has not, hitherto, been a serious attempt to evolve, through a process akin to triangulation, accurate descriptions of managerial jobs as they are constituted by the expectations, demands and requirements of the managers' network, and then to use those descriptions as a yardstick for training, development, recruitment, appraisal and reward.

The purpose of this paper is to propose and test a model to examine how the active management of work-family boundary strength acts as behavioral mechanism through which role-based factors – role demands and role identity – influence the conflict experienced by individuals.

Three studies were conducted to examine the proposed model. Studies 1 and 2 used an experimental design to test the causal effects of role demands on the strength of work and family boundaries, whereas Study 3 surveyed 389 working professionals to test the interactional and mediating effects of the model variables on inter-role conflict.

Results suggest that increasing demands in one domain weaken the boundary strength around the cross-domain to make resource drain possible, which, in turn, increases the conflict experienced in that domain; moreover, results show that work identity reinforces the weakening of the boundary strength at home caused by increasing work demands.

The study of boundary management decisions as an underlying mechanism through which individuals’ role-based factors affect work-family conflict (WFC) can offer new insights into how to manage increasing work-family responsibilities.

This study findings can help individuals to cope with role demands and organizations to promote a culture that supports work-family balance.

This paper advances WFC research by examining alternative mechanisms through which role demands influence WFC. Methodologically, the research improves on past studies by bringing together experimental and correlational designs.

Stress damages us and our performance. It is a real part of most manager's experience and can be said to occur when significant demands exceed perceived management responsibilities and routines. Stress can be the essence of working life, and certainly need not always be damaging to us. But when it becomes excessive, it is something unwanted.

The purpose of this study was to examine the possibility that culture influences burnout. Characterized by emotional, cognitive and physical exhaustion, burnout stems from chronic, unresolvable stress experienced when resources to meet demands are insufficient or inaccessible. This study investigated whether people in the US experience burnout differently than people in Sweden.

The relationship between demands and burnout was hypothesized to be mediated by perceived stress, role conflict and role ambiguity. Country was hypothesized to moderate these relationships. Data collected through surveys from Swedish and American participants were analyzed using a process macro model.

The results showed demands as positively related to burnout. This relationship was mediated by perceived stress and the mediation was moderated by country with a stronger effect for Swedes. The relationship between demands and role conflict was significant and moderated by country; however, role conflict did not predict burnout. Role ambiguity was not a significant predictor or mediator. After accounting for covariates and predictors, demands generated unique variance in burnout and country played a moderating role in this direct relationship, which was stronger for Americans than Swedes.

The results suggest that culture may play a role in the burnout process. Although a global issue, between-country differences and cultural influences on burnout have received little attention, even though shared culture governs perceptions, identities, roles, norms and practices associated with known predictors of burnout. By examining burnout cross-culturally, this study adds to the limited literature on burnout processes across different professional contexts.

Changing work/family dynamics and economic developments have made it more likely that an employee might work with a family member or spouse. Such working relationships offer a unique perspective by which to understand the work/family interface; however, relatively little research has explored the implications of working with family for employee stress and well-being. In this chapter, we review the existing research concerning stress associated with working with family. We integrate this research into broader demand/resource perspectives on employee stress and well-being, highlighting the manner in which working with family provides unique demands and resources through differences in work–family linking mechanisms. We conclude with suggestions for future research that might enhance our understanding of the work/family interface by considering the dynamics of working with family.

In this chapter we extend previous theory on the effects of stressors at the intersection of the work–family interface by considering the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework. Our central proposition is that stressors in one domain (work or non-work) are associated with criteria in the same domain and across domains through four core mediating variables. Through this theoretical lens we develop a set of propositions, which as a set, suggest that managing the work–family interface involves balancing the offsetting indirect effects of challenge and hindrance stressors.

The present study follows the conflicting outcomes perspective of Human Resources Management (HRM) and examines the effects of employees' perceptions of high performance work systems (HPWS) on job demands (role conflict, role ambiguity and work pressure) and work engagement (vigor and dedication).

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used on a sample of 524 front-line employees across three Greek manufacturing companies.

The findings show that HPWS is negatively associated with all three job demands. Hence, the “critical perspective” is not supported. In turn, role conflict and role ambiguity reduce employees' work engagement, although the third job demand included in the study (work pressure) showed a positive relationship on dedication. Last but not least, this study calculates HPWS as both a system and as subsets of HRM practices, and provides useful insights regarding the differences between the two different measurement methods.

The present study brings further empirical evidence in the HRM field by examining whether HPWS is good or bad for employee well-being. Moreover, the findings underscore the detrimental impact that job demands may have on employees' work engagement, and highlights the fact that HPWS might not necessarily be a “win-win” scenario for employees and employers.

This study follows the most recent developments in the HRM literature and examines the dark (negative) approach of HPWS in the Greek manufacturing sector. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications are drawn for improving our understanding of how HPWS influences job demands and ultimately employees' work engagement.

Aims to corroborate the observation which the title states, and answers the question which it poses by drawing on the results of a project conducted at a pharmaceutical company. Results showed that: the roles of sales executive and sales management had primary performance demands which were opposites; the primary attributes required for success in the two roles were also opposites; therefore those who succeed in the sales role because they possess the attributes which that role requires for success can succeed in the management role only if they also possess the opposite attributes; it is known from personality research that personality traits cluster in positive correlations, so people who possess opposite attributes are rare. Discusses the implications of this state of affairs and closes by pulling its separate strands together.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the mediating roles of work and family demands and work-life balance on the relationship between self-efficacy (to regulate work and life) and work engagement. Specifically, it seeks to explain how self-efficacy influences employees’ thought patterns and emotional reactions, which in turn enable them to cope with work and family demands, and ultimately achieve work-life balance and work engagement.

Structural equation modelling (SEM) of survey data obtained from a heterogeneous sample of 1,010 Australian employees is used to test the hypothesised chain mediation model.

The SEM results support the hypothesised model. Self-efficacy was significantly and negatively related to work and family demands, which in turn were negatively associated with work-life balance. Work-life balance, in turn, enabled employees to be engaged in their work.

The findings support the key tenets of social cognitive theory and conservation of resources (COR) theory and demonstrate how self-efficacy can lead to work-life balance and engagement despite the presence of role demands. Study limitations (e.g. cross-sectional research design) and future research directions are discussed.

This study incorporates COR theory with social cognitive theory to improve understanding of how self-efficacy enhances work-life balance and work engagement through a self-fulfilling cycle in which employees achieve what they believe they can accomplish, and in the process, build other skills and personal resources to manage work and family challenges.