Category Archives: *Journal of Organizational Behavior
I/O Psychology – Supporting your mentors benefits the protégés
One thing we like to talk about in IO psychology is the importance of perceived organizational support (POS). POS has been linked to all sorts of outcomes, such as better task performance and increased helping behaviors. In a recent study, Changya Hu and her colleagues applied POS to mentoring relationships in a Taiwanese sample.
Hu correctly predicted that mentors’ POS would be related to the extent to which they exhibited mentoring behaviors; the greater the mentors’ POS, the more mentoring functions they provided, and that in turn partially predicted protégés’ POS. The personality of the mentor also played a part in this relationship. When mentors’ trait level of altruism was low, then their level of POS was important in predicting the extent of the mentoring functions provided. Mentors with greater levels of POS provided more mentoring functions. However, when their altruism was high, mentors provided about the same level of mentoring functions, regardless of their level of POS.
The results of this study indicate that mentors have the power to at least partially affect their protégés’ perceptions of the organization, so it’s important to increase mentors’ POS and boost the likelihood of them providing more mentoring functions to the protégé. In addition, organizations may want to consider selecting altruistic people to be mentors, as they are more likely to consistently provide more mentoring functions.
Mentoring has significant benefits for both mentors and protégés (IO Psychology)
Topic: Mentoring
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (NOV 2012)
Article: A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring relationships
Authors: J. U. Chun, J. J. Sosik, & N. Y. Yun
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
Do you have a formal mentoring program in your company? If so, you might want to take advantage of it – a recent study by Jae Chun and his colleagues found some pretty good benefits for both mentors and protégés!
The study’s authors tracked mentors and their protégés over the duration of a seven-month formal mentoring program and determined the effects of three mentoring functions: psychosocial support, role modeling, and career support. These mentoring functions had more effect on mentors than protégés. When mentors provided more career or psychosocial support to their protégés, the mentors had higher levels of organizational commitment. Mentors also showed enhanced transformational leadership when they provided more career support or role modeling, and they had greater affective well-being when they acted more as role models.
The authors also measured protégé outcomes. When mentors provided more career support, protégés had higher levels of affective well-being and organizational commitment.
This research suggests that formal mentoring programs have significant benefits for both mentors and protégés. The fact that mentors showed enhanced transformational leadership as a result of providing career support and acting as role models to protégés indicates that participating in a formal mentoring program could be one form of developing leaders. In addition, the more career support and role modeling the mentors provided, the more they developed as transformational leaders. It wasn’t sufficient to just provide some base level of support.
Providing the three mentoring functions assessed in this study led to positive outcomes for both mentors and protégés. Mentors had higher levels of organizational commitment, enhanced transformational leadership, and greater affective well-being. Protégés had higher levels of affective well-being and organizational commitment. Is that enough to make you consider participating in a mentoring program? I think it should be.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Should Leaders Care About the Work or the Workers? How About Both?!
Topic: Leadership, Counter-Productive Work Behavior
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (in press)
Article: Effects of Leadership Consideration and Structure on Employee Perceptions of Justice and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Authors: Brian C. Holtz & Crystal M. Harold
Reviewed By: Thaddeus Rada
Although research on a variety of leadership “types,” such as charismatic and visionary leaders, has flourished in recent years, there has also been a return to a basic distinction that was made in the leadership literature many years ago: the distinction between consideration and initiating structure. Consideration refers to leaders’ “people-oriented” behaviors, such as showing respect for followers and facilitating group cohesiveness. Initiating structure refers to clarifying roles, establishing rules, and providing a framework for effective group and individual performance. These dimensions are not mutually exclusive, and some leaders may be high on both, others low on both, and still others high on one and low on the other. With interest in these dimensions increasing, a recent study examined them in relation to two important outcomes: employee perceptions of justice, and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).
Across two studies using multi-source data, the authors found that both consideration and structure were related to organizational justice in important ways; specifically, structure and distributive justice were strongly related, as were consideration and interpersonal justice. In addition, the authors found that, when consideration was low, higher levels of structure were associated with an increase in CWBs in the workplace.
These findings suggest that, while both consideration and structure are important for understanding leadership, what may be most important is the combination of these dimensions that a leader possesses. As interest in these leadership dimensions continues to return, it is likely that we will gain additional knowledge about how these dimensions interact with a variety of important outcomes.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Discrimination in selection: Who’s most at risk? (IO Psychology)
Topic: Selection, Discrimination
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (MAY 2012)
Article: Multiple categorization in resume screening: Examining effects on hiring discrimination against Arab applicants in field and lab settings
Authors: Eva Derous, Ann Marie Ryan, & Hannah-Hanh D. Nguyen
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
You’re probably aware that discrimination can occur during selection. However, in recent years, various predictions have been made regarding who is most likely to be discriminated against, and why. The multiple minority status hypothesis (MMS) posits that someone who is a member of more than one minority group (e.g., an Arab woman in the United States) is more likely to be discriminated against than someone who is only part of one minority group (e.g., an Arab man in the U.S.). Another perspective is the ethnic prominence hypothesis (EP), which suggests that numerical minority status (in other words, women are not counted as a minority) leads to stereotyping. In a series of recent studies in the Netherlands, Eva Derous and her colleagues studied discrimination against Arabs and tested the MMS and EP perspectives.
In these studies, Arabs were discriminated against in selection practices, supporting the EP hypothesis. Arabs were much more likely to be rejected based on resumes that differed only in the name of the applicants, and not in experience or other qualifications. However, raters who were motivated to control their prejudice did not show discrimination based on the ethnicity of the applicant. Arabs were discriminated against more when raters’ prejudice was high, as would be expected. In addition, when the job was stereotypically held by white men (i.e., HR manager), Arab women were discriminated against more than Arab men, supporting the MMS hypothesis.
The authors found support for the ES hypothesis for lower-status jobs and support for the MMS hypothesis for higher-status jobs. In other words, discrimination may depend on how the applicant, job, and recruiter characteristics interact.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Are you being treated badly by coworkers? It might just be affecting your home life (IO Psychology)
Topic: Counter-Productive Work Behavior, Work-Life Balance, Stress
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (MAY 2012)
Article: You cannot leave it at the office: Spillover and crossover of coworker incivility
Authors: M. Ferguson
Reviewed by: Alexandra Rechlin
Do you have a coworker who is rude to you? Ignores you? Is condescending to you? If so, that’s called coworker incivility and it is probably not only affecting your satisfaction with and performance at work, but also your home life.
In a recent study, Meredith Ferguson investigated if and how coworker incivility affects the marital satisfaction of both the target of workplace incivility and the target’s partner. She was also interested in the role that stress might play in the spillover effects from coworker incivility.
Ferguson collected data from 190 workers and their partners. She found that coworker incivility led to stress that transferred to the family domain; both the target and the target’s partner reported lower levels of marital satisfaction due to the extra stress. The target’s partner also experienced more family-to-work conflict, probably because the partner was taking on more responsibilities to help alleviate the stress of the target.
From an organizational perspective, several implications from this research should be noted. In addition to poor organizational outcomes (e.g., lower work satisfaction, absenteeism), coworker incivility can also lead to negative effects for the target’s home life. In turn, having work-to-family conflict can lead to family-to-work conflict; in other words, negative spillover from workplace incivility may spill back to the organization. Therefore, organizations should take coworker incivility seriously, explain unacceptable behavior, and actively discourage it. They also could provide employee assistance programs for employees who are suffering stress from coworker incivility so that spillover and negative outcomes are reduced.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
Bring Your Partner to Work Day (Human Resource Management)
Topic: Work-Life Balance
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Article: The costs and benefits of working with one’s spouse: A two-sample examination of spousal support, work-family conflict, and emotional exhaustion in work-linked relationships
Authors: Halbesleben, J. R. B., Wheeler, A. R., & Rossi, A. M.
Reviewed by: Larry Martinez
Unlike many years ago, it is commonplace for both partners in a relationship to have full-time jobs. But spouses working together? Many would argue that most couples need a break from each other (no matter how much in love they are). Halbesleban and colleagues (2012) investigated just under what conditions there are benefits and negative consequences (in regards to reported emotional exhaustion) for these “work-linked” couples.
These authors predicted that because spouses who work together have a greater understanding of each other’s jobs and a greater ability to actually help each other at work, they should both experience higher levels of support from one another. However, at the same time, these couples may also experience more strain between work and family responsibilities (work/family conflict) because there isn’t a clear boundary between these two domains.
Indeed, in two samples (one American and one Brazilian) work-linked couples reported higher levels of support and lower levels of time-related conflict. However, these individuals also reported higher levels of behavior-related conflict (in the US) and strain-related conflict than those that were not linked. Together, it seems that work-linked couples can support each other better and feel that they manage their time better, but also have a harder time balancing work and family duties and negative emotions.
This research is unique because highlights both the positive and negative aspects of working with your partner. In doing so, it offers recommendations for organizations managing their paired-up employees. For instance, one might encourage their employees to share their work experiences with their significant others and/or invite family members to employee events. We know from other research [link to turnover/embeddedness blog here] that being embedded in one’s job and community can reduce turnover, and more strongly integrating the family into the organization (while still managing the negative aspects listed previously) is one way of doing that.
human resource management, organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
You Look Good in Those Genes!
Topic: Surveys, Human Resources
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (APR 2011)
Article: Genetic underpinnings of survey response
Authors: Thompson, L. F., Zhang, Z., & Arvey, R. D.
Reviewed by: Larry Martinez
Not many people like surveys. Employees and participants don’t like taking them and survey administrators (if they are at all like me) don’t like bothering people with them. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that organizational practitioners and researchers alike live and breathe on data obtained through surveys. And no matter how we try to coax people into taking our surveys, it is virtually impossible to obtain that coveted 100% voluntary response rate on any given survey. A lot of research has been done to try and determine what factors are related to whether someone will respond to a survey and both environmental and personality characteristics have been identified. However, Thompson and colleagues (2011) go even deeper for an explanation, into our genes.
The logic goes like this: we know that personality characteristics such as conscientiousness and agreeableness are related to survey response rates, and these personality characteristics have genetic underpinnings; thus, genetic influences should explain a proportion of the variabilitiy in survey response behaviors.
Using data from the Minnesota Twin Registry, these authors found that, indeed, a whopping 45% of the variability in survey response was explained by genetic factors alone. This is especially impressive considering the 3.1% and 3.3% or variability explained by the two most powerful predictors of survey response, prior notification and monetary incentive, respectively (Yammarino et al., 1991).
Getting Emotional at Work
Topic: Stress, Change Management
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (MAY 2011)
Article: Stability, change, and the stability of change in daily workplace affect
Authors: Beal, D. J., Ghandour, L.
Reviewed by: Larry Martinez
Have you ever noticed how some people are just more emotionally volatile than others? A coworker that comes to work happy as a clam one day and down in the dumps the next? Researchers call this affect spin, which refers to an individual characteristic that reflects the extent to which people experience more than one emotion over time. For example, in the picture above, each point represents one’s levels of positive and negative affect of any particular day (so four days in total). So, since the points fall all on different parts of the circumplex, the figure represents someone with high affect spin, or several varying emotions on different days. Beal and Ghandour (2001) examined this concept with positive and negative emotions and task motivation in the midst of a major natural disaster: Hurricane Ike.
These researchers examined several different aspects of emotional reactions. First, they found support for a weekly cyclical cycle such that emotions are most positive during the weekend and most negative around Wednesday. Also, for people who were high in affect spin there was a relationship between task motivation and positive emotions and motivation on one day influenced positive emotions next day. This was not the case for those low in affect spin. Finally, those high (but not those low) in affect spin experienced more negative emotions after Hurricane Ike than before.
So, the results show that most employees experience a predictable pattern of emotions throughout the week. In addition, some employees are more likely to have stable variability in the extent to which they oscillate between emotions over time, over and above the weekly cyclical pattern. Finally, some employees will recover emotionally from catastrophes than others. This information can inform workplace human resource management decisions.
human resource management,organizational industrial psychology, organizational management
As with Fine Wines, Motivation Matures with Age
Topic: Motivation, Strategic HR
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (JAN 2011)
Article: Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta-analysis
Authors: D.T. Kooij, A.H. De Lange, P.G. Jansen, R. Kanfer, J.S. Dikkers
Reviewer: Neil Morelli
You’ve most likely read the following headline, “The US workforce is aging.” Whether organizations like it or not this change is coming and with it comes the possibility of skilled labor shortages and “brain drain”. To prevent this, companies have often turned to offering financial or other economic incentives to persuade employees to stay on.Does this work? What job qualities motivate a maturing employee?
The current research on motives suggests that as we age, our priorities change in regards to our need to develop ourselves professionally (growth), be emotionally connected to others (social), and maintain our personal resources (security). Our focus on intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards can also fluctuate. Kooij and colleagues (2011) recently analyzed the cumulative findings from 86 studies that explored the relationship between age and the motivation umbrella of needs, values, and motives. In general, older employees were found to be less motivated by growth opportunities (e.g., training and learning; depended on job type), work-related security, and extrinsic motivators.
A closer look at the individual work-related motives showed that older employees are MORE motivated by jobs that allow for accomplishment, interesting work, autonomy, helping others, and job security (intrinsic security). They also revealed that older employees are LESS motivated by jobs that focus on development/challenge, advancement/promotion, working with people, recognition, and compensation/benefits.
Thinking about age in employee engAGEment…
Topic: Job Attitudes, Diversity, Motivation
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (JAN 2011)
Article:Predicting employee engagement in an age-diverse workforce.
Authors: J. B. James, S. McKechnie, & J. Swanberg
Reviewed by: Charleen Maher
A large portion of today’s working population consists of the Baby Boomer population. Although these individuals are becoming eligible for retirement, many remain employed for various reasons. As a result, research has picked up on the importance of examining job attitudes of older workers.
The present article examined differences in employee engagement among five age groups: emerging adults (age 24 and older), settling-in adults (25-39), prime-working years (40-54), approaching retirement (55-65), and retirement eligible (66 and older). Overall, the retirement eligible group reported the highest average engagement while the emerging adults reported the lowest average engagement.
The authors also examined job quality factors as predictors of engagement among each of the age groups. Supervisor support and recognition, schedule satisfaction (having flexibility and autonomy in one’s work schedule), and job clarity were significant predictors of employee engagement for all age groups. Specifically, supervisor support and recognition had the largest effect on employee engagement for the two older groups, approaching retirement and retirement-eligible.
