{"title":"向前看还是向后看?用时间透镜来区分对日常目标-绩效差异的适应性反应和适应性不良反应。","authors":"Yifan Song, Min-Hsuan Tu, Yanran Fang, Satish Krishnan","doi":"10.1037/apl0001137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The fast-changing work environment has created growing hindrances to employee daily goal pursuits and rendered it not uncommon for employees to leave work with unachieved daily work goals. The significant ramifications of unachieved goals on employee well-being and performance thus call for more research efforts to understand how employees respond to unsatisfactory goal progress (e.g., goal-performance discrepancy [GPD]). Interestingly, two paradoxical theoretical perspectives exist on this matter, with the self-regulation perspective suggesting an adaptive feedback loop (i.e., GPD on a given day eventually reduces next-day GPD), whereas the self-focused cognition perspective suggesting a maladaptive feedback loop (i.e., GPD on a given day eventually exacerbates next-day GPD). Taking a temporal lens to integrate these two perspectives, we conducted a daily diary study to map out the self-regulatory cognition mechanisms (i.e., anticipatory thinking) and self-focused cognition mechanisms (i.e., rumination) underlying the feedback loops, and identify employee temporal focus (future and past focuses) as critical cross-level boundary conditions to explain why some react to daily GPD adaptively, whereas others maladaptively. Based on 485 daily reports from 100 work professionals, we revealed that daily GPD at work resulted in reduced next-day GPD via increased after-work anticipatory thinking. Meanwhile, daily GPD also resulted in aggravated next-day GPD via increased after-work rumination. Moreover, employee future focus mitigated the maladaptive cycle, whereas employee past focus hindered the adaptive cycle. Our study thus provides important theoretical and empirical insights into employee goal-pursuit process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"99-114"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Looking forward or backward: A temporal lens to disentangle adaptive and maladaptive reactions to daily goal-performance discrepancy.\",\"authors\":\"Yifan Song, Min-Hsuan Tu, Yanran Fang, Satish Krishnan\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The fast-changing work environment has created growing hindrances to employee daily goal pursuits and rendered it not uncommon for employees to leave work with unachieved daily work goals. The significant ramifications of unachieved goals on employee well-being and performance thus call for more research efforts to understand how employees respond to unsatisfactory goal progress (e.g., goal-performance discrepancy [GPD]). Interestingly, two paradoxical theoretical perspectives exist on this matter, with the self-regulation perspective suggesting an adaptive feedback loop (i.e., GPD on a given day eventually reduces next-day GPD), whereas the self-focused cognition perspective suggesting a maladaptive feedback loop (i.e., GPD on a given day eventually exacerbates next-day GPD). Taking a temporal lens to integrate these two perspectives, we conducted a daily diary study to map out the self-regulatory cognition mechanisms (i.e., anticipatory thinking) and self-focused cognition mechanisms (i.e., rumination) underlying the feedback loops, and identify employee temporal focus (future and past focuses) as critical cross-level boundary conditions to explain why some react to daily GPD adaptively, whereas others maladaptively. Based on 485 daily reports from 100 work professionals, we revealed that daily GPD at work resulted in reduced next-day GPD via increased after-work anticipatory thinking. Meanwhile, daily GPD also resulted in aggravated next-day GPD via increased after-work rumination. Moreover, employee future focus mitigated the maladaptive cycle, whereas employee past focus hindered the adaptive cycle. Our study thus provides important theoretical and empirical insights into employee goal-pursuit process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"99-114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001137\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001137","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
瞬息万变的工作环境给员工的日常目标追求造成了越来越多的阻碍,员工带着未实现的日常工作目标离开工作岗位的情况也屡见不鲜。因此,未实现目标对员工福祉和绩效的重大影响要求我们开展更多的研究工作,以了解员工如何应对不尽人意的目标进展(如目标-绩效差异[GPD])。有趣的是,在这一问题上存在着两种自相矛盾的理论观点,自我调节观点认为是一种适应性反馈循环(即某一天的 GPD 最终会减少第二天的 GPD),而以自我为中心的认知观点则认为是一种不适应性反馈循环(即某一天的 GPD 最终会加剧第二天的 GPD)。我们采用时间透镜来整合这两种观点,并进行了一项每日日记研究,以绘制出反馈回路背后的自我调节认知机制(即预期思维)和自我关注认知机制(即反刍),并确定员工的时间关注点(未来和过去关注点)作为关键的跨层次边界条件,以解释为什么有些人对每日 GPD 做出适应性反应,而有些人则做出适应性不良反应。根据来自 100 名专业职场人士的 485 份每日报告,我们发现,工作中的每日 GPD 会通过增加下班后的预期思维减少第二天的 GPD。同时,每日工作中的GPD也会通过增加下班后的反刍而导致第二天的GPD加重。此外,员工对未来的关注缓解了适应不良循环,而对过去的关注则阻碍了适应循环。因此,我们的研究为员工的目标追求过程提供了重要的理论和实证见解。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
Looking forward or backward: A temporal lens to disentangle adaptive and maladaptive reactions to daily goal-performance discrepancy.
The fast-changing work environment has created growing hindrances to employee daily goal pursuits and rendered it not uncommon for employees to leave work with unachieved daily work goals. The significant ramifications of unachieved goals on employee well-being and performance thus call for more research efforts to understand how employees respond to unsatisfactory goal progress (e.g., goal-performance discrepancy [GPD]). Interestingly, two paradoxical theoretical perspectives exist on this matter, with the self-regulation perspective suggesting an adaptive feedback loop (i.e., GPD on a given day eventually reduces next-day GPD), whereas the self-focused cognition perspective suggesting a maladaptive feedback loop (i.e., GPD on a given day eventually exacerbates next-day GPD). Taking a temporal lens to integrate these two perspectives, we conducted a daily diary study to map out the self-regulatory cognition mechanisms (i.e., anticipatory thinking) and self-focused cognition mechanisms (i.e., rumination) underlying the feedback loops, and identify employee temporal focus (future and past focuses) as critical cross-level boundary conditions to explain why some react to daily GPD adaptively, whereas others maladaptively. Based on 485 daily reports from 100 work professionals, we revealed that daily GPD at work resulted in reduced next-day GPD via increased after-work anticipatory thinking. Meanwhile, daily GPD also resulted in aggravated next-day GPD via increased after-work rumination. Moreover, employee future focus mitigated the maladaptive cycle, whereas employee past focus hindered the adaptive cycle. Our study thus provides important theoretical and empirical insights into employee goal-pursuit process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including:
1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses).
2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research.
3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.