Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology最新文献

Drawing on interpersonal sensemaking theory, we propose a model to examine the effect of supervisory family support (SFS) on employees' knowledge sharing with coworkers and organizational citizenship behaviours (OCB). Using a time-lagged design with data from 55 employee teams and their direct supervisors, we found that SFS was indirectly and positively related to employee OCB (but not knowledge sharing) through psychological need satisfaction and felt trust by the supervisor. We also found that SFS excess (a focal employee has higher levels of SFS relative to teammates) was associated with a higher level of psychological need satisfaction perceived by the focal employee than SFS deficiency (a focal employee has lower levels of SFS relative to teammates). These effects were indirectly and positively related to employee OCB via psychological need satisfaction and felt trust by the supervisor.

Perfectionism is often considered important for performance because it promotes extraordinary levels of motivation and engagement. However, existing research is inconclusive regarding the relationship between perfectionism and work performance, with some studies finding a positive correlation and others a negative correlation. This study attempted to reconcile these mixed findings by using meta-analysis to test whether: (a) perfectionism is correlated with hours worked and (b) perfectionism is correlated with work performance. Analyses are based on 28 samples, 77 effect sizes, and a total of 9560 participants across all included studies (57.62% female; M_age = 35.26). Results showed that perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns are positively correlated with the number of hours worked. However, only perfectionistic strivings had a positive relationship with performance at work. The total unique effects of strivings and concerns revealed that perfectionism was positively correlated with both hours worked and performance. Results are discussed in terms of their theoretical and applied implications.

We engage with the arguments presented by Woods and Patterson (2023) [Woods, S. A., & Patterson, F. (2023). A critical review of the use of cognitive ability testing for selection into graduate and higher professional occupations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97, 253–272.], regarding the use of cognitive ability tests in employee selection and academic admissions. We examine assumptions about cognitive ability test validity, fairness and bias and address arguments against the use of cognitive ability tests in five ways. First, we highlight that Woods and Patterson's (2023) propositions overly depend on a single study by Sackett et al. (2022) Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068.], which has faced significant criticisms. Second, we point out that a test with adverse impact can be used if it is job-related and an unbiased predictor of performance. Third, we question the alleged ‘higher’ objectivity and fairness of alternative non-cognitive selection procedures. Fourth, we critique overgeneralizations of findings from employment contexts to educational settings and challenge the atheoretical basis of rejecting cognitive ability tests in complex work settings. Fifth, we point out that recent calls for reducing the role of cognitive ability testing in selection do not consider the side effects and costs of those presumed alternatives. We advocate for responsible cognitive ability testing by combining it with valid non-cognitive predictors to balance validity and adverse impact, using validated tests by trained professionals, ensuring cultural relevance and effectively communicating test processes.

Employees increasingly use information and communication technologies (i.e., ICTs) to work during nonwork time (e.g., responding to e-mails, taking calls), even when not contractually required. Despite potential work-related benefits, voluntary work-related ICT use can affect employees' recovery and well-being. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory and self-regulation, we argue that engaging in voluntary ICT use during workday evenings is a work-related resource investment, requiring self-regulatory resources. Consequently, employees lack such resources to regulate their attention away from work, thus experiencing reduced psychological detachment. This, in turn, can impede employees' ability to engage in mood repair regarding affective well-being at bedtime and the following morning. We propose that employees can alleviate this process through substituting and replacing self-regulatory resources by having control over their evening and good sleep quality, respectively. Conducting a daily diary study over five consecutive workdays and following mornings with 187 participants, we found negative indirect effects of voluntary ICT use on affective well-being the following morning, via reduced psychological detachment. Feeling in control during nonwork time and sleep quality mitigated these effects. Our study contributes to the conceptual understanding of voluntary ICT use and how this behaviour can be managed more actively by individuals.

Drawing on a multilevel framework of factors fostering meaningful work and the extant Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) literature, we examine the interactions of a sense of calling (an individual-level variable) with contextual factors at the organizational level (i.e. CSR) and job level (i.e. job autonomy and CSR embedded in work). In Study 1, we propose and test a multilevel model on 758 employees in 18 organizations, finding that a sense of calling, interacting with organizational CSR and job autonomy, is positively related to meaningful work. In Study 2, we conduct a scenario-based experiment with 261 participants, finding that the three-way interaction between a sense of calling, CSR at the organizational level and CSR in work is positively related to meaningful work. These results provide important theoretical and practical implications for further studying the interactions of individual-, job- and organizational-level sources of meaningful work and, specifically, unpacking the role of CSR.

Employees' inclusion at work often constitutes a key leadership objective. Indeed, inclusive leadership has garnered considerable attention from research and practice, with differing interpretations persisting in the debate. An influential stream of research claims to ground its understanding of inclusive leadership in optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT), which states that people strive to fulfil two countervailing needs (i.e., assimilation and differentiation). Closer examination, however, reveals inaccuracies in applying ODT to inclusive leadership, leading to an incomplete set of proposed inclusive leader behaviours. To address these issues, we critically examine inclusive leadership's definition and theoretical foundation and propose a multi-level framework informed by the extended version of ODT (EODT). More specifically, we detail how three complementary sets of inclusive leader behaviours can foster an employee's integrated sense of inclusion by addressing the employee's needs for assimilation and differentiation at three levels of self (i.e., individual, relational, and collective). We argue that before engaging in these behaviours, a leader must reflect on their employee's, their own, and other team members' minority/majority status to effectively adapt their actions. We discuss future research implications of this multi-level perspective on an employee's self for broader team/social justice considerations and end with practical implications.

To date, research on neurodivergent experiences of selection and assessment (S&A) has been limited, focusing on barriers and employer perspectives, rather than the perceptions and experiences of neurodivergent individuals. Drawing on signalling theory and the diversity climate literature, this research seeks to explore how neurodivergent individuals' experiences during S&A shape their perceptions of an organization's diversity climate and organizational attractiveness. Semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis were used to elicit a range of signals perceived by applicants with different neurodivergent neurotypes during S&A to form diversity climate perceptions. These included process accessibility, employer representative interactions, particularly when disclosing their neurodivergence, and an organization's commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). However, limited perceived job opportunities often compel them to pursue positions despite negative inclusivity signals. This suggests that prioritizing an inclusive organizational climate becomes a privilege afforded to those with more employment options, highlighting the systemic exclusion that still faces neurodivergent candidates in organisations today.

Task idiosyncratic deals (I-deals) exemplify an employer and employee co-creating job design approach. However, past literature has predominantly relied on social exchange mechanisms to explain their impact on employee behaviour, which may be insufficient in capturing the critical job-related mechanisms underlying the effects of task I-deals. We draw on person–environment (PE) fit theory to propose that demand–ability (DA) fit can enrich our understanding of the effect of task I-deals on employee behaviour. To test this mechanism, we conducted two studies. One was a field survey collected from 468 employees and 107 supervisors across three time points. The other was a pre-registered scenario-based online experiment involving 400 full-time employees. Through these two studies, we found that task I-deals were positively related to job performance and voice behaviour, and DA fit mediated these positive relationships. In addition, task interdependence enhanced the positive effect of task I-deals on DA fit. The overall moderated mediation model was also significant. These findings highlight the importance of task I-deals as an alternative approach to job design beyond top-down and bottom-up job design approaches and underscore PE fit as a novel theoretical perspective for understanding the impact of task I-deals.

In leadership studies, explicit, straightforward communication has traditionally been advocated and perceived as an effective style for leading teams and organizations. Contrary to this prevailing notion, the present paper integrates the social information processing theory with the motivated information processing in groups (MIP-G) model to elucidate the conditions and mechanisms under which leader indirect communication can be beneficial, especially in facilitating team reflexivity and subsequent team performance. We employed a three-wave, multi-source survey encompassing 87 work teams, consisting of 676 members and their corresponding 87 leaders in a large high-tech company. The results show that when leaders adopt a subtle, indirect communication style, teams with stronger team member exchange (TMX) are more inclined to engage in deeper team reflexivity, which subsequently enhances both team task and creative performance. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our research, along with its limitations.

While research on illegitimate tasks has predominantly highlighted their detrimental effects on employees, emerging studies suggest these tasks may also have temporary, complex impacts on non-work domains —though empirical evidence remains limited. Integrating cognitive theories of rumination and the dynamic self-regulation perspective, our study develops and tests a novel model that delineates employees' rumination and subsequent coping behaviours in response to daily illegitimate tasks. We propose that illegitimate tasks experienced during the workday trigger after-work affect-focused rumination, leading to increased cyberloafing the following day. Conversely, these tasks may also evoke after-work problem-solving pondering, fostering next-day task crafting. We identify state resilience as a key moderator, explaining why the same employee may respond differently to illegitimate tasks. Using data collected thrice daily from 235 employees over five consecutive days (daily reports = 912), our findings reveal that state resilience buffers the positive link between daily illegitimate tasks and next-day cyberloafing via affect-focused rumination while amplifying the positive effect on next-day task crafting via problem-solving pondering. Our study advances understanding of the dual cognitive and behavioural pathways through which illegitimate tasks influence employees and offers practical insights for organizations aiming to mitigate the risks of these tasks while unlocking their adaptive potential.