Suchergebnisse

This study examines when and why internal job transitions enhance employees' motivation and retention. Building on the Challenge–Hindrance Framework and the Self-Determination Theory, we hypothesize that transition challenges (i.e., horizontal and vertical transition magnitude) satisfy people's basic psychological needs and may therefore enhance motivation and retention, whereas transition hindrances (i.e., increased work–life conflict) thwart basic needs satisfaction and are accordingly likely to decrease motivation and retention. In addition, we argue that transition resources (i.e., social support and personal control) may boost the impact of transition challenges and buffer the impact of transition hindrances. Hypotheses were tested with 173 employees who recently made an internal transition. We found support for the positive impact of vertical transition magnitude and the negative impact of increased work–life conflict on motivation and retention through an impact on basic needs satisfaction. In addition, social support was found to boost the former path. No other moderation effects were found. Implications of the results are discussed.

Using a multi-wave, multi-level design, this study unravels the impact of subjective (dis)similarities in teams on team effectiveness. Based on optimal distinctiveness theory and the social inclusion model, we assume combined effects of individual and shared perceptions of supplementary and complementary person–team fit on affective and performance-based outcomes. Furthermore, at the team level, we expect this relationship to be mediated by team cohesion. In a sample of 121 participants (across 30 teams), we found that teams in which members share perceptions of high supplementary as well as high complementary fit outperform those in which they do not. In addition, members of such teams report higher levels of team satisfaction and viability. Both of these occur through positive effects on the cohesion within the team. Thereby, our results support the central tenet of the social inclusion model. At the individual level, this enhancing effect of the interaction was not supported, providing additional evidence for considering perceived person–team fit as a collective construct.

This contribution examines differences in four motivation-related concepts between employees in not-for-profit and for-profit sector service organizations. Using regression analyses, 630 knowledge workers, employed in either the not-for-profit or the for-profit sector, were compared. The majority of the hypotheses were supported by the data. Even after the impact of gender, age, seniority, contract type, and task characteristics were controlled for, employees from both sectors differed significantly. Not-for-profit workers valued more social service, perceived a better person—organization fit, and were more motivated by identified and integrated regulation. Their for-profit counterparts valued more advancement and were more motivated by external regulation. These conclusions account for a broad range of activities within the service industry because a wide variety of organizations were included in the study.

AbstractDetecting agency problems is an important task when assessing the effectiveness of a nonprofit organization's governance. A first step is to examine the objectives of principals and agents and determine whether there is a systematic difference between them. Using a discrete choice experiment, we identify the objectives of board chairpersons (principals) and headmasters (agents) of Flemish nonprofit schools. We find systematic differences between the two groups. Of the seven possible objectives set out in the experiment, six are relevant for both headmasters and board chairpersons. For four of these, the preferences of both groups differ significantly. Whereas ideological values play an important role for both the board and the headmaster, they are significantly more important for the board. Both parties dislike having a large number of pupils, and the disutility is larger for the board. With respect to job satisfaction and pupil satisfaction, we find the opposite: while the board is prepared to give up pupil and job satisfaction in favor of the other objectives, these two objectives score very high on the priority list of the headmasters.