Tag Archives: liu

Culture Matters When it comes to Stressors and Strains

Reply

Topic:  Culture, Self Efficacy, Work Environment
Publication: Applied Psychology: An International Review (JAN 2010)
Article: A cross-national examination of self-efficacy as a moderator of autonomy/job
strain relationships
Authors: M.M. Nauta, C. Liu, and C. Li
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

In work settings, autonomy refers to the degree of control that employees have over their work.  While research has generally shown that low levels of autonomy are stressful to employees (i.e., leads them to experience strain), this is not necessarily true for all employees.  Indeed, employees who are confident in their ability to exercise control over their lives and work environments (i.e., high generalized self-efficacy) appear to be buffered from the negative effects of low autonomy.  However, most of the research on this topic has been conducted in North America and it is unclear whether these findings are consistent across cultures. Recently, Nauta, Liu, and Li (2010) explored whether culture plays a role in determining how employees respond to low (vs. high) levels of autonomy and self-efficacy. The authors chose to compare American and Chinese employees because they typify individualistic and collectivistic cultures respectively.

That is, employees in the U.S. tend to be more individualistic and place a heavier focus on independence, while Chinese employees tend to be more collectivistic and place a heavier focus on the needs of the group to which they belong. Nauta, Liu, and Li collected data from a wide range of university employees working at a large university in the U.S. and three universities in China.

Much like U.S. employees, low levels of autonomy appear to make highly efficacious Chinese employees uncomfortable. In other words, for employees who feel confident that they can effectively exert control over their work environment, not being able to do so is stressful (regardless of culture).

However, Nauta et al. discovered an interesting difference in how American and Chinese employees, low in self-efficacy, react to autonomy. In other words, American employees who lack confidence in their ability to exert control over their work find low levels of autonomy stressful, while Chinese employees who lack such confidence find high levels of autonomy stressful.

These findings are particularly pertinent to organizations operating globally. If nothing else, Nauta et al.’s study is a reminder that management policies and job characteristics in one country or culture may not have the same effects in another country or for another culture.

Nauta, M.M., Liu, C., & Li, C. (2010). A cross-national examination of self-efficacy as a moderator of autonomy/job strain relationships. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(1), 159-179.

Leading Employees by Involving Them Leads to Results

1

Topic: Leadership, Job Performance, Citizenship Behavior
Publication: Journal of Organizational Behavior (JAN 2010)
Article: Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates
Authors: X. Huang, J. Iun, A. Liu, and Y. Gong
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Isn’t it nice when our supervisors invite our ideas/opinions and include us in decision making?  Of course it is!  These kinds of supervisory behaviors are known as participative leadership behaviors and, not surprisingly, they tend to positively impact employee job performance.  Although this effect is expected for all employees, a recent study by Huang and colleagues (2010) suggests that the reasons why participative leadership behaviors lead to improved performance depends on a subordinate’s hierarchical level in the organization.

In their study, Huang et al. collected a sample of 527 employees from a Fortune 500 telecommunications company in China. As expected, they found that participative leadership behaviors of supervisors leads to improved task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) of their subordinates.  But, as mentioned above, there appear to be slightly different reasons why these effects occur depending on the hierarchical level of the subordinate (i.e., managerial vs. non-managerial).

Specifically, the effect of participative leadership behaviors on performance for managers appears to be due to psychological empowerment (i.e., feelings of competence and meaningfulness) whereas these effects are due to the trust placed in leaders for non-managerial employees.

According to Huang and colleagues, these findings suggest that managerial and non-managerial employees interpret the participative leadership behaviors of their supervisors differently. While non-managerial employees seem to focus on trust in their supervisor, managerial employees seem to focus on the increased autonomy and empowerment resulting from participative leadership behaviors.

Despite the differences identified, Huang et al.’s results suggest that participative leadership behaviors have a positive impact on employee psychological empowerment, trust in the leaders, and ultimately job performance (task performance and OCBs).

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance
 work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on
managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31(1), 122-143.

Mentoring: A Win-Win-Win Situation

3

Topic: Mentoring, Job Performance
Publication: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (DEC 2009)
Article: What can I gain as a mentor? The effect of mentoring on the job performance and social status of mentors in China
Authors: D. Liu, J. Liu, H.K. Kwan, and Y. Mao
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Generally, mentoring relationships are intended to develop younger and/or less experienced employees.  However, research has shown that mentoring relationships benefit mentors as well as their protégés. In a recent investigation, Liu and colleagues (2009) found that mentoring relationships relate favorably to mentors’ job performance ratings and social status within the organization.

Using a large sample of mentors from a Chinese manufacturing firm, Liu et al. found that mentors who engage in more mentoring activities tend to have higher job performance ratings. This relationship appears to be due the increased learning opportunities made available to mentors through the mentoring process. Thus, mentoring activities offer mentors additional opportunities to learn which may influence their job performance.

Additionally, mentors who engage in more mentoring activities tend to have higher social status (as rated by their supervisors). Importantly, mentors who engage in more mentoring activities report better social interaction with others in the workplace, which relates directly to the social status of the mentor.

Based on Liu et al.’s findings, organizations can be confident that formal mentoring relationships benefit both mentors and protégés. Organizational mentoring programs appear to be win-win-win situations as they help develop less-seasoned employees, improve the job performance and social status of experienced mentors, and ultimately contribute to organizational effectiveness.

Liu, D., Liu, J., Kwan, H.K., & Mao, Y. (2009). What can I gain as a mentor? The effect of mentoring on the job performance and social status of mentors in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 871-895.

Stressed at Work? Here’s a Drink on Me!

Reply

Topic: Stress
Publication: Personnel Psychology (AUTUMN 2009)
Article: Daily work stress and alcohol use: Testing the cross-level moderation effects of neuroticism and job involvement
Authors: S. Liu, M. Wang, Y. Zhan, and J. Shi
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

Many employees (perhaps as many as 92.5 million in the U.S. alone) use alcohol to cope with daily work stress. Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with having an adult beverage after a long day of work, but research suggests that employees who use alcohol tend to have more health and work-related problems than those who do not.

Liu, Wang, Zhan and Shi (2009) tested whether certain personality characteristics and job involvement levels make some employees more likely to use alcohol to deal with work-related stress. Liu and colleagues surveyed 37 Chinese employees in Beijing daily over the course of five work weeks about their daily work-stress levels and alcohol consumption.

Liu et al.’s results suggest that for some employees (high in neuroticism and/or high job involvement), alcohol use rises when job-stress rises. Given the known health and psychological risks of alcohol use, Liu and colleagues support the use of stress-reducing programs at work such as training employees to avoid stressful situations (e.g., interpersonal conflicts). They also recommend that organizations take care not to place employees who are high in neuroticism in jobs that may be highly stressful by nature.
Finally, although there are many known advantages to having employees who are high in job involvement (feel that their job is a central part of their life), it may also indicate a greater reliance on alcohol to cope with stressful work situations.

Liu, S., Wang, M., Zhan,, Y., & Shi, J.. (2009). Daily work stress and alcohol use:  Testing the cross-level moderation effects of neuroticism and job involvement. Personnel Psychology, 62, 575-597.