Suchergebnisse

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether research and practice on task design and work teams could benefit from a more nuanced perspective on task (inter)dependencies among team members. Prior research often overlooked that task interdependence captures the average exchange of resources, while asymmetrical task dependence captures the inequalities within an individual's work relationships. To date, no study on work teams has combined the two aspects.Design/methodology/approach– Data were obtained from 262 individuals working in 67 work teams. Multilevel and bootstrapping analyses were used.Findings– Drawing from interdependence theory and power-dependence theory it was argued, and subsequently found, that asymmetrical task dependence interacts with task interdependence, and affects the job satisfaction of individuals and their affective commitment to their team.Practical implications– A key practical implication is that both asymmetrical task dependence and task interdependence should be taken into account when optimizing intra-team task dependencies, for instance when (re-)designing jobs or teams.Originality/value– This study contributes to research on asymmetrical task dependence within work teams, by investigating its interaction with task interdependence, its effects on the affective reactions of workers, and its effects on the individual level of analysis.

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to investigate how social exchanges modify the relationship between psychological contract breach and work performance. It aims to present two concurrent hypotheses, based on theoretical interaction effects of social exchanges (conceptualized as social exchange relationships, POS, and trust).Design/methodology/approachData were collected from a sample of 266 employees in a service sector company in the USA. Regression analysis was used to explore the moderating effects of social exchanges on the relationships between psychological contract breach and work performance (operationalized as in‐role behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors).FindingsIt was found that the negative relationship between psychological contract breach and work performance was moderated by social exchanges, such that the relationship was stronger for employees with high social exchange relationship, perceived organizational support, and trust.Research limitations/implicationsThe data were collected cross‐sectionally, and thus causal inferences have to be made with caution. Moreover, the data were collected from a single source. The study shows that the relations between contract breach and outcomes are moderated by the existing relationship between employee and organization.Practical implicationsAlthough organizations may invest in long‐term relationships with their employees, psychological contract breaches have a profound impact on work performance. Therefore, organizations should diminish perceptions of contract breach; for instance by providing realistic expectations.Originality/valueThe paper provides new theoretical insights on how social exchange can have two distinct effects on the breach‐outcomes relations. It shows that social exchanges moderate the relations between contract breach and work performance.

Drawing on the work-home resources model and conservation of resources theory, in this study, we explore how flexibility idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) relate to employees' work performance through their family performance. In line with the work-home resources model, we introduce 2 contextual conditions to explain when our proposed associations may unfold. One is a facilitator: perceived organizational support; and the other is a stressor: perceived hindering work demands. The results of a matched sample of employees and their supervisors working in 2 companies in El Salvador support our hypotheses. Our findings show that the benefits of flexibility i-deals to the work domain (i.e., work performance) extend only through the family domain (i.e., family performance). Our findings also emphasize that flexibility i-deals do not unfold in a dyadic vacuum: For employees who perceive organizational support to be higher, the association between flexibility i-deals and family performance is stronger, whereas for employees who perceive hindering work demands to be lower, the association between family performance and employee work performance is also stronger. We contribute to i-deals research by (a) exploring a relevant mechanism through which flexibility i-deals influence work performance, (b) integrating the role of social context to emphasize the social aspects of i-deals, and (c) enriching the i-deals literature by introducing a resource perspective.

PurposeThis study aims to explore generational differences in the psychological contract of hospitality employees and work outcomes such as commitment and turnover intention.Design/methodology/approachData were collected in 20 hotels (n=359) from a four‐star hotel chain in The Netherlands using a self‐administered questionnaire. Data were analysed using MANOVA andpost‐hocanalysis.FindingsFindings suggest that opportunities for development and challenge, variation and responsibility are more important to younger generations of hospitality workers. Generation X placed high value on work‐life balance, autonomy and job security. No differences were found for work atmosphere, salary and task description. Significantly lower commitment and higher turnover intention was also found for Generation Y.Practical implicationsThe findings provide insight into generational differences in expectations that hospitality workers have of their employers. This helps managers in developing management styles as well as human resource policy to better address these expectations.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first to explore the psychological contract in a hospitality context and contributes empirical evidence to the body of knowledge on generational differences.

ORIENTATION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a 'coronafication' of research and academia, including the instrumentalisation of academic research towards the demands of society and governments. Whilst an enormous number of special issues and articles are devoted on the topic, there are few fundamental reflections on how the current pandemic will affect science and work and organisational psychology in the long run. RESEARCH PURPOSE: The current overview, written by a group of members of the Future of Work and Organisational Psychology (FOWOP) Movement, focuses on the central issues relating to work and organisational psychology that have emerged as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY: The study discusses the inability of dominant theories in work and organisational psychology to understand contemporary problems and the need to advance the theoretical realm of work psychology. We also discuss the need for pluralism in methodologies to understand the post-COVID-19 workplace, the urgency of attending to neglected voices and populations during the COVID-19 crisis and teaching during COVID-19. RESEARCH APPROACH/DESIGN AND METHOD: This article uses conceptual argumentation. MAIN FINDINGS: The COVID-19 crisis forces work psychology to address at least its theorising, methods, unheard voices and teaching in the COVID-19 crisis. PRACTICAL/MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of this article, researchers and practitioners may be better aware of the neglected perspectives in the current pandemic. CONTRIBUTION/VALUE-ADD: This article adds to the understanding of the future directions for a sustainable Work and Organisational Psychology as an applied scientific discipline during and beyond the COVID-19 crisis.