The Journal of applied psychology
-
Although there are thousands of studies investigating work and job design, existing measures are incomplete. In an effort to address this gap, the authors reviewed the work design literature, identified and integrated previously described work characteristics, and developed a measure to tap those work characteristics. The resultant Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) was validated with 540 incumbents holding 243 distinct jobs and demonstrated excellent reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. ⋯ Finally, the results showed that social support incrementally predicted satisfaction beyond motivational work characteristics but was not related to increased training and compensation requirements. These results provide new insight into how to avoid the trade-offs commonly observed in work design research. Taken together, the WDQ appears to hold promise as a general measure of work characteristics that can be used by scholars and practitioners to conduct basic research on the nature of work or to design and redesign jobs in organizations.
-
The authors respond to C. K. W. ⋯ They maintain that De Dreu misinterprets their definitions and the psychological processes they addressed and thus raises a number of issues that are not relevant to their model. Meglino and Korsgaard's model focuses on the distinction between rational self-interest and other orientation, whereas the approach taken by De Dreu focuses on the distinction between rational self-interest and collective rationality. In this response, the authors clarify this distinction, address discrepancies between these two approaches, consider the effect of goals and rationality on other orientated behavior, and suggest directions for future research.
-
Two longitudinal studies investigated the issue of match between job stressors and job resources in the prediction of job-related strain. On the basis of the triple-match principle (TMP), it was hypothesized that resources are most likely to moderate the relation between stressors and strains if resources, stressors, and strains all match. Resources are less likely to moderate the relation between stressors and strains if (a) only resources and stressors match, (b) only resources and strains match, or (c) only stressors and strains match. ⋯ The TMP was tested among 280 and 267 health care workers in 2 longitudinal surveys. The likelihood of finding moderating effects was linearly related to the degree of match, with 33.3% of all tested interactions becoming significant when there was a triple match, 16.7% when there was a double match, and 0.0% when there was no match. Findings were most consistent if there was an emotional match or a physical match.
-
Recent reviews of the training literature have advocated directly manipulating self-efficacy in an attempt to improve the motivation of trainees. However, self-regulation theories conceive of motivation as a function of various goal processes, and assert that the effect of self-efficacy should depend on the process involved. ⋯ To examine this issue, 63 undergraduate students completed a series of questionnaires measuring self-efficacy and motivation before 5 class exams. Self-efficacy was negatively related to motivation and exam performance at the within-person level of analysis, despite a significant positive relation with performance at the between-persons level.
-
This research used resource allocation theory to generate predictions regarding dynamic relationships between self-efficacy and task performance from 2 levels of analysis and specificity. Participants were given multiple trials of practice on an air traffic control task. Measures of task-specific self-efficacy and performance were taken at repeated intervals. ⋯ On the other hand, average levels of task-specific self-efficacy were positively related to performance at the between-persons level and mediated the effect of general self-efficacy. The key findings from this research relate to dynamic effects--these results show that self-efficacy effects can change over time, but it depends on the level of analysis and specificity at which self-efficacy is conceptualized. These novel findings emphasize the importance of conceptualizing self-efficacy within a multilevel and multispecificity framework and make a significant contribution to understanding the way this construct relates to task performance.