De relatie tussen behoeften en wendbaarheid van medewerkers en de mediërende rol van de attitude ten aanzien van verandering | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Gedrag & Organisatie
  4. Volume 37, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 37, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0921-5077
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7235

Abstract

Samenvatting

Deze studie onderzocht het wendbaarheidsgedrag van werknemers tijdens een organisatieverandering en welke behoeften () maken dat zij dit gedrag proactief of adaptief vertonen. De relatie werd bestudeerd tussen basismotieven van werknemers, namelijk de behoefte aan macht, prestatie, verbondenheid en verandering, en hun wendbaarheidsgedrag. Honderd werknemers van een dienstverlenende organisatie in een gepland veranderproces beoordeelden zichzelf op wendbaarheid. Zij werden daarnaast ieder door drie directe collega’s op wendbaarheid beoordeeld. De zelf- en anderbeoordeelde wendbaarheid werden geïntegreerd in een oordeel. De behoefte aan macht, prestatie en verandering, maar niet de behoefte aan verbondenheid, bleken positief samen te hangen met proactieve wendbaarheid. Adaptieve wendbaarheid bleek met uitzondering van de behoefte aan macht, niet samen te hangen met deze behoeften. Voorts bleek het attitude-element ‘emoties over de verandering’ een belangrijke mediator tussen de behoeften aan macht en verandering en proactieve wendbaarheid. Deze resultaten geven aan dat een organisatie die oog wil hebben voor de adaptieve wendbaarheid van medewerkers, minder aandacht hoeft te schenken aan onderlinge verschillen in hun basismotieven, behalve aan de behoefte aan macht. Voor het bevorderen van de proactieve wendbaarheid van medewerkers is er wel aandacht nodig voor verschillen tussen medewerkers in hun basisbehoeften.

© Sandra Doeze Jager-van Vliet, Marise Born & Henk van der Molen
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.1.005.DOEZ
2024-03-01
2024-04-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J.Kuhl & J.Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alavi, S., Abd. Wahab, D., Muhamad, N., & Arbab Shirani, B. (2014). Organic structure and organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production Research, 52(21), 6273-6295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.919420
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). oriented-Construct biodata: Capturing changerelated and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(2), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00110
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Aron, A. R. (2011). From reactive to proactive and selective control: Developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biological Psychiatry, 69(12), e55-e68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.024
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Asari, M., Sohrabib, R., & Reshadic. M. (2014). A theoretical model of workforce agility based on behavioral science. 3rd International Conference on Behavioral Science 28th February 2014, Payame Noor University Tehran.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Asmuß, B. (2008). Performance appraisal interviews: Preference organization in assessment sequences. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 45(4), 408-429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608319382
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change?Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In M. B.Arthur, D. T.Hall, & B. S.Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of Career Theory (pp. 232-251). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 158-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.645
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613-636. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026739
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Braun, P. X., Gmachl, C. F., & Dweik, R. A. (2012). Bridging the collaborative gap: Realizing the clinical potential of breath analysis for disease diagnosis and monitoring-tutorial. IEEE Sensors Journal, 12(11), 3258-3270. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2012.2210403
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Braun, T. J., Hayes, B. C., DeMuth, R. L. F., & Taran, O. A. (2017). The development, validation, and practical application of an employee agility and resilience measure to facilitate organizational change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 703-723. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2017.79
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Breu, K., Christopher, J., Hemingway, M. S., & Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, 17(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960110132070
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Charbonnier-Voirin, A., & Roussel, P. (2012). Adaptive performance: A new scale to measure individual performance in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 29(3), 280-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.232
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chonko, L. B., & Jones, E. (2005). The need for speed: Agility selling. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25(4), 371-382. https://doi.org/jstor.org/stable/40472226
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 258-265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.258
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cubiks (1996). Personality and Preference Inventory. Cubiks.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cubiks (2014a). Overview of PAPI 3 factors and scales. Guilford.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Cubiks (2014b). Self and other rated agility: Factors and scales. Ongepubliceerd intern rapport.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cunningham, C. J., & De La Rosa, G. M. (2008). The interactive effects of proactive personality and work-family interference on well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(3), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.3.271
     [Google Scholar]
  23. De Vries, R. E., Wawoe, K. W., & Holtrop, D. (2016). What is engagement? Proactivity as the missing link in the HEXACO model of personality. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 178-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12150
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319-338. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Doeze Jager-van Vliet, S. B. (2017). Proactive and adaptive agility among employees: The relationship with personal and situational factors [Dissertatie, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam]. hdl.handle.net/1765/103260
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Doeze Jager-van Vliet, S. B., Born, M. Ph., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2019). Using a portfoliobased process to develop agility among employeesneeds and the five-factor model.. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(1), 39-60. https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/hrdq.21337
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Doeze Jager-van Vliet, S. B., Born, M. Ph., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2022). The relationship between organizational trust, resistance to change and adaptive and proactive employees’ agility in an unplanned and planned change context. Applied Psychology: an International Review, 71(2), 436-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12327
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dove, R., & Wills, D. (1996). Transforming faculty into an agile workforce. In L.Richlin (Ed.), To improve the Academy (Vol. 15, pp. 195-207). New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1996.tb00310.x
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. (2003). Dynamic organizations: Achieving marketplace and organizational agility with people. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Engeser, S., & Langens, T. (2010). Mapping explicit social motives of achievement, power, and affiliation onto the five-factor model of personality. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(4), 309-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00773.x
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Foster, J. L., Stone, T. H., Harms, P. D., & Jawahar, I. M. (2022). A multiperspectives approach to personality assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal, 74(4), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000184
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R., & Farr, J. V. (2009). Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 118(2), 410-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.12.009
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gawke, J. C., Gorgievski, M. J., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Employee intrapreneurship and work engagement: A latent change score approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 88-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.002
     [Google Scholar]
  35. George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual change in organizations. Human Relations, 54(4), 419-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701544002
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: A framework for research and development. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00222-9
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Gunasekaran, A. (2001). Agile manufacturing: The 21st century competitive strategy. Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, openness to experience, and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(4), 913-929. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00161-2
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Harvey, C. M., Koubek, R., & Chin, L. (1999). Toward a model of workforce agility. International Journal of Agile Manufacturing, 2(2), 203-218.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K., J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(1), 45-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Holbeche, L. S. (2018). Organisational effectiveness and agility. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 5(4), 302-313. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-07-2018-0044
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Hosein, Z.Z., & Yousefi, A. (2012). The role of emotional intelligence on workforce agility in the workplace. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(3), 48-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v4n3p48
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Jex, S. M., & Britt, T. W. (2008). Organizational Psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach (2nd Edition). John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E. & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Junker, T. L., Bakker, A. B., Derks, D., & Molenaar, D. (2023). Agile work practices: Measurement and mechanisms. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2096439
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kenny, D. A. (2020). Interpersonal perception: The foundation of social relationships (2nd Edition). Guilford.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. Guilford.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kenny, D. A., & West, T. V. (2010). Similarity and agreement in self- and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 196-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353414
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kicken, W., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merrienboer, J., & Slot, W. (2008). Design and evaluation of a development portfolio: How to improve students’ self-directed learning skills. Instructional Science, 37(5), 453-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-008-9058-5
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lench, H. C., Flores, S. A., & Bench, S. W. (2011). Discrete emotions predict changes in cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: A meta-analysis of experimental emotion elicitations. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 834-855. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024244
     [Google Scholar]
  51. McCann, J., Selsky, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Building agility, resilience and performance in turbulent environments. People & Strategy, 32(3), 44-51.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812-825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812
     [Google Scholar]
  53. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A., Senin, I. G., & Urbánek, T. (2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(2), 179-201. https://doi/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00056-4
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Metselaar, E. E. (1997). Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Dissertatie, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Metselaar, E. E., Walet, H. J., Cozijnsen, A. J., & de Padua, M. (1996). Sociale determinanten van innovatief gedrag. Gedrag & Organisatie, 9, 38-52.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Mooghali, A., Ghorbani, E., & Emami, M. (2016). The impact of HRM practices on agility of Kosar hospital staff in Shiraz. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 16, 2442-2457.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Muduli, A. (2013). Workforce agility: A Review of literature. The IUP Journal of Management Research, 12(3), 55-65. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2350029
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Muduli, A. (2016). Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: An empirical study. Management Research Review, 39(2), 1567-1586. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2015-0236
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305067.001.0001
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Nijssen, M., & Paauwe, J. (2012). HRM in turbulent times: How to achieve organizational agility?International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(16), 3315-3335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.689160
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Oreg, S. (2018). Resistance to change and performance: Toward a more even-handed view of dispositional resistance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 88-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317741867
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3707722
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Plonka, F. E. (1997). Developing a lean and agile work force. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 7(1), 11-20. https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6564(199724)7:1<11::AID-HFM2>3.0.CO;2-J
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.4.612
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Sanz, J., Gil, F., García-Vera, M. P., & Barrasa, Á. (2008). Needs and cognition behavior patterns at work and the big five: An assessment of the personality and preference Inventory-Normative (PAPI-N) from the perspective of the five-factor model. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00408.x
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Sherehiy, B. (2008). Relationships between agility strategy, work organization and workforce agility. ProQuest.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87(2), 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(1), 44-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Lens, W., & Andriessen, M. (2009). De Zelf-Determinatie Theorie: Kwalitatief goed motiveren op de werkvloer. Gedrag & Organisatie, 22(4), 316-353. https://doi.org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.5117/2009.022.004.002
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Van Oyen, M. P., Gel, E. G. S., & Hopp, W. J. (2001). Performance opportunity for workforce agility in collaborative and noncollaborative work systems. IIE Transactions, 33, 761-777. https://doi.org/10.1023.A;1010997816249
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management, 27(2), 213-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700205
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Wihler, A., Blickle, G., Ewen, C., Genau, H., Fritze, S., Völkl, L., Merkl, R, Missfeld, T. & Mützel, M. (2023). An integrative approach to more nuanced estimates of personality-job-performance relations. Applied Psychology: An International Review72(2), 588-624. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12391
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105(2), 230-250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.230
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Young, S. G., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2021). Using psychological science to support social distancing: Tradeoffs between affiliation and disease-avoidance motivations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(5), e12597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106892
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhang, Z., & Sharifi, H. (2000). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(4), 496-513. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010314818
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.1.005.DOEZ
Loading
De relatie tussen behoeften en wendbaarheid van medewerkers en de mediërende rol van de attitude ten aanzien van verandering
G&O 37, 78 (2024); https://doi.org/10.5117/GO2024.1.005.DOEZ
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.1.005.DOEZ
/content/journals/10.5117/GO2024.1.005.DOEZ
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): agility; employee needs; organizational change

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error