Divergence between employer and employee understandings of passion: Theory and implications for future research

IF 3.1 Q2 MANAGEMENT Research in Organizational Behavior Pub Date : 2022-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.riob.2022.100167
Jon M. Jachimowicz, Hannah Weisman
{"title":"Divergence between employer and employee understandings of passion: Theory and implications for future research","authors":"Jon M. Jachimowicz,&nbsp;Hannah Weisman","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2022.100167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is an increasingly prevalent expectation in contemporary society that employees be passionate for their work. Here, we suggest that employers and employees can have different understandings of passion that potentially conflict. More specifically, we argue that although employers may often be well-intentioned, their emphasis on employee passion may at times amount to normative control and reflect a <em>means to attain valued work outcomes</em>. In contrast, employees may primarily view their pursuit of passion as an opportunity to self-actualize, and thereby, view passion as <em>an end in itself</em>. We propose that when employees notice that these two understandings of passion diverge, they experience uncertainty in adjudicating which understanding of passion—their own or their employer’s—to privilege. Critically, employees may feel responsible for and subsequently seek ways to reduce this uncertainty, and doing so places added demands that impedes employees’ ability to perform. We discuss why employers may not necessarily recognize how their understanding of passion can create challenges for employees, and examine the difficulties employers face in attempting to resolve the tensions employees experience. Subsequently, we develop an agenda for future research that highlights how individual, organizational, and cultural differences may lead to variation in divergent understandings of passion, and the critical role managers could play in helping address employees’ uncertainty.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"42 ","pages":"Article 100167"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308522000132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

There is an increasingly prevalent expectation in contemporary society that employees be passionate for their work. Here, we suggest that employers and employees can have different understandings of passion that potentially conflict. More specifically, we argue that although employers may often be well-intentioned, their emphasis on employee passion may at times amount to normative control and reflect a means to attain valued work outcomes. In contrast, employees may primarily view their pursuit of passion as an opportunity to self-actualize, and thereby, view passion as an end in itself. We propose that when employees notice that these two understandings of passion diverge, they experience uncertainty in adjudicating which understanding of passion—their own or their employer’s—to privilege. Critically, employees may feel responsible for and subsequently seek ways to reduce this uncertainty, and doing so places added demands that impedes employees’ ability to perform. We discuss why employers may not necessarily recognize how their understanding of passion can create challenges for employees, and examine the difficulties employers face in attempting to resolve the tensions employees experience. Subsequently, we develop an agenda for future research that highlights how individual, organizational, and cultural differences may lead to variation in divergent understandings of passion, and the critical role managers could play in helping address employees’ uncertainty.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
雇主与雇员对激情理解的分歧:理论与未来研究的启示
在当代社会,人们越来越普遍地期望员工对他们的工作充满热情。在这里,我们认为雇主和雇员可能对激情有不同的理解,这可能会产生冲突。更具体地说,我们认为,尽管雇主可能往往是出于善意,但他们对员工激情的强调有时可能相当于规范控制,并反映了一种获得有价值工作成果的手段。相比之下,员工可能主要将追求激情视为自我实现的机会,因此,将激情本身视为目的。我们提出,当员工注意到这两种对激情的理解不同时,他们在判断哪种对激情的理解——他们自己的还是他们的雇主的——更有特权时,会感到不确定。关键的是,员工可能会觉得自己有责任,并随后寻求减少这种不确定性的方法,而这样做会增加阻碍员工表现能力的需求。我们讨论了为什么雇主可能不一定认识到他们对激情的理解如何给员工带来挑战,并研究了雇主在试图解决员工经历的紧张关系时所面临的困难。随后,我们为未来的研究制定了一个议程,强调个人、组织和文化差异如何导致对激情的不同理解的变化,以及管理者在帮助解决员工的不确定性方面可以发挥的关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Organizational Behavior
Research in Organizational Behavior Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Research in Organizational Behavior publishes commissioned papers only, spanning several levels of analysis, and ranging from studies of individuals to groups to organizations and their environments. The topics encompassed are likewise diverse, covering issues from individual emotion and cognition to social movements and networks. Cutting across this diversity, however, is a rather consistent quality of presentation. Being both thorough and thoughtful, Research in Organizational Behavior is commissioned pieces provide substantial contributions to research on organizations. Many have received rewards for their level of scholarship and many have become classics in the field of organizational research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Creativity as privilege Does diversity influence innovation and economic growth? It depends on spatial scale Leading for human sustainability: An extension of Restricted Employee Sustainability Theory Are experts overconfident?: An interdisciplinary review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1