Journal of Organizational Behavior最新文献

The unfolding model of voluntary turnover established that there is no “one size fits all” turnover experience. Anecdotal evidence suggests that voluntary turnover experiences can be painful, yet the role of social pain (as distinct from dissatisfaction) in turnover and subsequent job selection has not yet received much scholarly attention. In Study 1, we re-analyze 13 detailed case histories of employees who had recently quit one organization and entered another. Using a cluster analysis of the terms they used when describing their reasons for leaving and when describing what attracted them to their new roles, we find that experiencing social pain in the prior role affected the things people prioritized when selecting a new role. Furthermore, sentiment analysis revealed that higher social pain was linked with lower positive sentiment (hope, excitement, joy, etc.) during the job search process. Study 2 creates a self-report measure of social pain, and Study 3 quantitatively reaffirms the relationship between social pain and subsequent affect. This set of studies provides initial evidence that social pain is different from the attitudinal constructs that have been traditionally incorporated into voluntary turnover models (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, embeddedness) and that social pain may have implications for turnover, retention, and employees' post-turnover destinations.

In this article, we attempt to explain why diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs have become so widespread and central to organizations today. We propose that organizations have responded to powerful societal forces that emphasize the importance of diversity. Because achieving diversity is often difficult, organizations often emphasize the symbolic aspects of diversity, including mission statements on diversity and the creation of units to promote the organization's DEI reputation. This emphasis on diversity symbolism has led to some unintended and negative consequences. A major consequence is that organizations become vulnerable to the charge that they are engaging in “window dressing.” This charge can lead organizations to respond by setting even more difficult-to-achieve goals. We cite illustrative examples in which stakeholders have called on organizations to actually achieve diversity, prompting a new round of diversity-related goal-setting sometimes accompanied by legally questionable human resource procedures (e.g., preferential hiring). Another negative consequence of diversity symbolism is that it incentivizes a focus on surface rather than deep dimensions of diversity. This displacement of deep by surface level diversity may cause organization to forgo the advantages potentially afforded by the former relative to the latter. We suggest that the tradeoffs inherent in DEI warrant caution and realism in program implementation.

In the current paper, we discuss the positive impact of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in our workplaces, including the historical movements that led to their inception as well as the reactions that have resulted in forms of resistance and backlash. Although there may be risks inherent in engaging in social justice work within organizations, we summarize the large body of empirical work documenting the immense benefits of choosing to do so. We argue that the promise of DEI initiatives is evidenced in the research-based findings demonstrating the effectiveness of those initiatives that have emerged over time (e.g., including both representation and inclusion focused initiatives). The progress made by several DEI initiatives that are still being fully explored is discussed, and we maintain their effectiveness within certain contexts provided the use of current empirical evidence. We conclude by suggesting the evolving science behind DEI initiatives is exactly what we would expect when responsibly employing the scientific method and, that by reviewing the data, it is clear that the long-term benefits provided by DEI initiatives far outweigh any short-term risks.

Work recovery reflects the replenishment of personal resources depleted by working, which has implications for employee health and wellness. However, work scheduling factors have received very limited attention in the recovery literature, despite that recovery is a dynamic process widely recognized to be influenced by contextual factors that define and influence the work role. After first conducting a narrative review of whether and how work scheduling factors are accounted for in existing theories of work recovery, we conduct a systematic review of existing work recovery research to identify any past empirical consideration of work scheduling factors in the recovery research base. We then harness the results of this systematic review to develop a taxonomy of work scheduling and related contextual factors that may be relevant to the process of recovery from work. We discuss the theoretical, practical, and methodological implications that emerged from our narrative and systematic reviews, providing guidance for how this newly developed taxonomy can be applied to understanding the implications of scheduling dynamics for work recovery across a range of different work contexts.