Work and Family- Are these two becoming antagonist poles?

dfgsModern day workplace is characterized by long working hours, shorter deadlines, higher competition, lesser holidays and leaves, frequent tours and job transfers. Similarly, family–work conflict (FWC) arises out of inter-role conflicts between family and work and results in lower life satisfaction and greater internal conflict within the family unit.

Conceptually, conflict between work and family is bi-directional. Studies differentiate between WFC and FWC. WFC occurs when experiences at work interfere with family life, such as asymmetrical or rigid work hours, work overload and other forms of job stress, interpersonal conflict at work, extensive travel, career transitions, unaccommodating supervisor or organization. FWC occurs when experiences in the family impede with work life such as presence of young kids, elder care responsibilities, interpersonal divergence within the family entity, uncooperative family members.

An article from the Global business Review highlights different forms of Conflicts: (a) time-based conflict, (b) strain-based conflict and (c) behaviour-based conflict. Time-based conflict occurs when the amount of time spent in one role takes away from the amount of time available for the other role. Work-related time conflict is typically based on the number of hours that an individual spends at work, inclusive of the time spent in commuting, over time and shift work. Family-related time conflict involves the amount of time spent with family or dealing with family members detracting from time that could be spent at work . Strain-based conflict occurs when the strain (or stressors) experienced in one role, makes it difficult to effectively and efficiently perform the other role. Work-related strain is related to strenuous events at work, resulting in fatigue or depression, role ambiguity etc. Family-based strain conflict primarily occurs when spousal career and family expectations are not in congruence. Each of these three forms of WFC has two directions: (a) conflict due to work interfering with family and (b) conflict due to family interfering with work.

There are numerous negative outcomes associated with these conflicts: domestic violence, poor physical activity, poor eating habits, poor emotional health, excessive drinking, substance abuse among women, decreased marital satisfaction, decreased emotional well-being and neuroticism. Conflict between work and family is associated with increased occupational stress and burnout, intention to quit the organization, lower health and job performance, low job satisfaction and performance, high absenteeism rates, reduced career commitment, increased psychological distress, increased parental conflict and marital distress, increase in child behaviour problems and poor parenting styles and lower satisfaction with parenting.

The negative spillover of family and work into each other is an area of major concern and needs attention at both the ends, i.e, both by family and by associated colleagues of corporate world.

To need in detail about this issue, register here

Click here to read Work–family Conflict, Family–work Conflict and Intention to Leave the Organization: Evidences Across Five Industry Sectors in India for free from Global Business review

Make sure to sign up for e-alerts and be notified of all the latest research from Global Business review

The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers

Get the latest insight on what editors are looking for in your submitted manuscript! SAGE Publishing is proud to feature the latest editorial from Family Business Review, entitled, “The Mind-Set of Editors and Reviewers.” This editorial is co-authored by James J. Chrisman, Pramodita Sharma and Jess Chua, and is currently free to read for a limited time.

Below, please find an excerpt from the editorial, shedding light on the necessary steps an author must face when preparing a manuscript that stands out:

The formula for getting a manuscript published seems deceptively simple, with an emphasis on deceptively. For family business research, the four-step process starts with authors coming up with interesting research questions, that when addressed, will change scholarly understanding of the motivation, behavior, or performance of family firms. As elaborated in the editorial by Salvato and Aldrich (2012), while there are many sources of inspiration for generating interesting research questions, in professional fields like family business studies, researchers with closer linkages to practice and/or prior literature are better positioned to identify questions that lead to usable knowledge that is not only published but also well-read and cited (cf. Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). Objectives such as simply “getting published” may be more dominant in earlier career stages. Over time, however, most scholars hope to make a difference in the mind-sets of other researchers and ultimately practitioners (Vermeulen, 2007; Zahra & Sharma, 2004). But, this does not always happen.

Click here to read the full article. Don’t forget to sign up to receive email alerts so you never miss the latest research from Family Business Review!

How to Shift a Student’s Focus from Grades to Self-Discovery

[We’re pleased to welcome author Matthew Eriksen of Providence College. Eriksen recently published an article in the Journal of Management Education entitled “Shared-Purpose Process Implications and Possibilities for Student Learning, Development, and Self-Transformation,” co-authored by Kevin Cooper. Below, Eriksen outlines the inspiration for this study:]

Over my 20 year teaching career, I continuously have found myself disappointed with my students¹ initial level of commitment to, engagement in and responsibility for their learning and development as they entJME_72ppiRGB_powerpoint.jpger my course.  Just as Lencioni (2002) identifies a lack of commitment as one the five dysfunctions of a team, a low level of student commitment to a course has a significant negative impact on students¹ learning and educational experience, as well as on instructors¹ professional gratification (Jenster & Duncan, 1987). For many, it is as if education has become something that is happening to students rather than something that they actively and intentionally engage in to achieve some purpose beyond getting a good grade and course credit, preferably with a minimal amount of effort.

In our article, Kevin Cooper and I present a response to student disengagement in the form of a shared-purpose process. Although initially conceived to increase students¹ commitment to and engagement in their learning and development, as the shared-purpose process was employed it became apparent that it was also a form of experiential/case-in-point learning (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Linsky,2002) that is relevant to leadership, team and organizational development courses, as establishment of and commitment to a shared purpose and organizing context is important to becoming an effective team or organization.  In addition, once a shared purpose is established and committed to by students and teacher, it can provide a guiding framework through which to facilitate additional partnership and in-class experiential learning opportunities.

In contrast to other student-directed learning methodologies, the shared-purpose process takes into account the social, as well the cognitive, aspects of learning. In addition, it helps students proactively identify and develop strategies to address hindrances to their learning. Over the course of the semester, students¹ self-transformation is facilitated through their weekly engagement in self-reflection (Kolb, 1984; Schön, 1983), self-reflexivity (Cunliffe, 2004; Cunliffe & Easterby-Smith, 2004), peer coaching, and a cogenerative dialogue (Martin, 2006; Stith & Roth, 2006). Cogenerative dialogue allows students to learn from their classmates¹ experiences, as well as their own direct experience.

In addition to being successfully employed in undergraduate and MBA leadership and team courses, this shared purpose process has also be employed in teams and organizations to improve members¹ engagement, commitment and performance, and once the shared purpose has been established, it can be used as a structure to facilitate collaboration and productively work through conflict.

References:

Cunliffe, A.  (2004). “On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner.”Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407-426.
Cunliffe, A. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2004). “From reflection of practicalreflexivity: Experiential learning as lived experience.” In M. Reynolds and R. Vince (Eds.) Organizing Reflection, Ashgate: Aldershot, 30-46.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, Mass:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston, Mass, Harvard Business School Press.
Jenster, P. V. & Duncan, D. D. (1987).  “Creating a context of commitment:
Course agreements as a foundation.” Journal of Management Education, 11(3): 60-71.
Martin, S.  (2006). “Where practice and theory intersect in the chemistry classroom: using cogenerative dialogue to identify the critical point in science education.” Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1 (4), 693-720.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Schön, D.  (1983). The reflective practitioner.  London: Temple Smith.
Stith,I. & Roth, W-M. (2006). “Who gets to ask the questions: The ethics in/of cogenerative dialogue praxis.” [46 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:  Qualitative Social Research, 7(2).

Stay up-to-date with the latest research and sign up for email alerts today!

Read the November 2016 Issue of Journal of Management!

3340359442_b93f0f9aa9_o-1The November 2016 issue of Journal of Management is now available online, and can be accessed for the next 30 days! The November issue covers a variety of topics, including articles on organizational transparency, shared leadership-team performance relations, and the effects of autonomy on team performance.

Authors Anthony J. Nyberg, Jenna R. Pieper, and Charlie O. Trevor contributed the article “Pay-for-Performance’s Effect on Future Employee Performance: Integrating Psychological and Economic Principles Toward a Contingency Perspective,” which suggests that bonus pay may have a stronger effect on future performance than merit pay, among other findings about pay-for-performance. The abstract for the paper:

Although pay-for-performance’s potential effect on employee performance is a compelling issue, understanding this dynamic has been constrained by narrow approaches to pay-for-performance conceptualization, measurement, and surrounding conditions. In response, we take a more nuanced perspective by integrating fundamental principles of economics and psychology to identify and incorporate employee characteristics, job characteristics, pay system Current Issue Covercharacteristics, and pay system experience into a contingency model of the pay-for-performance–future performance relationship. We test the role that these four key contextual factors play in pay-for-performance effectiveness using 11,939 employees over a 5-year period. We find that merit and bonus pay, as well as their multiyear trends, are positively associated with future employee performance. Furthermore, our findings indicate that, contrary to what traditional economic perspectives would predict, bonus pay may have a stronger effect on future performance than merit pay. Our results also support a contingency approach to pay-for-performance’s impact on future employee performance, as we find that merit pay and bonus pay can substitute for each other and that the strength of pay-for-performance’s effect is a function of employee tenure, the pay-for-performance trend over time, and job type (presumably due to differences in the measurability of employee performance across jobs).

Another article from the issue, entitled “Social Media for Selection? Validity and Adverse Impact Potential of a Facebook-Based Assessment” from authors Chad H. Van Iddekinge, Stephen E. Lanivich, Philip L. Roth, and Elliott Junco delves into the hazards that arise when recruiters use social media platforms like Facebook to screen job applicants. The abstract for the paper:

Recent reports suggest that an increasing number of organizations are using information from social media platforms such as Facebook.com to screen job applicants. Unfortunately, empirical research concerning the potential implications of this practice is extremely limited. We address the use of social media for selection by examining how recruiter ratings of Facebook profiles fare with respect to two important criteria on which selection procedures are evaluated: criterion-related validity and subgroup differences (which can lead to adverse impact). We captured Facebook profiles of college students who were applying for full-time jobs, and recruiters from various organizations reviewed the profiles and provided evaluations. We then followed up with applicants in their new jobs. Recruiter ratings of applicants’ Facebook information were unrelated to supervisor ratings of job performance (rs = −.13 to –.04), turnover intentions (rs = −.05 to .00), and actual turnover (rs = −.01 to .01). In addition, Facebook ratings did not contribute to the prediction of these criteria beyond more traditional predictors, including cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and personality. Furthermore, there was evidence of subgroup difference in Facebook ratings that tended to favor female and White applicants. The overall results suggest that organizations should be very cautious about using social media information such as Facebook to assess job applicants.

You can read these articles and more from the November 2016 issue of Journal of Management, which is free for the next 30 days, by clicking here to view the issue’s table of contents! Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by Journal of Management? Click here to sign up for e-alerts to receive notifications for new issues and Online First articles!

*City image attributed to Mark Goebel (CC)

Developing a Food Involvement Scale to Study Food Tourism

4563690038_7e804749d1_z (1)In recent years, food tourism has seen a spike in popularity, but how can researchers better understand the impact of food involvement on food tourism? In the recent article, “Food Enthusiasts and Tourism: Exploring Food Involvement Dimension,” published in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Researchauthors Richard N. S. Robinson and Donald Getz set out to establish a food involvement scale. The abstract for the article:

Involvement is a much theorized construct in the consumer behavior literature, yet extant food involvement scales have not been developed for leisure- or tourism-based contexts. Adopting a phenomenological approach, this article reports a study with two primary aims: to develop a customized food involvement scale and to administer the instrument to a sample of self-declared “food enthusiasts” with analysis focusing on identifying the underlying constructs of food involvement. An exploratory factor analysis finds four dimensions of food involvement: Food-Related Identity, Food Quality, Social Bonding, and Food Current Issue CoverConsciousness. The four dimensions are validated by discriminant analysis between the food enthusiast sample and a general population sample and logistic regression reveals that identity is the most powerful predictor of being a food enthusiast. We demonstrate the utility of the four factors by operationalizing them as variables in tests of difference vis-à-vis demographic variables and conclude the study by summarizing the theoretical and tourism destination implications. This research addresses a need for theory-driven knowledge to inform the burgeoning special interest tourism of food tourism.

You can read “Food Enthusiasts and Tourism: Exploring Food Involvement Dimension” from Journal of Hospitality of Tourism Research free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Journal of Hospitality & Tourism ResearchClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Image attributed to Thomas Abbs (CC)

Taking a Closer Look at the Building Blocks of Psychological Contracts

GOM 39(6)_Covers.indd[We’re pleased to welcome Ultan P. Sherman of the University College Cork. Dr. Sherman recently collaborated with Michael J. Morley of the University of Limerick on their article “On the Formation of the Psychological Contract: A Schema Theory Perspective” from Group and Organization Management.]

When I registered as a Ph.D student many years ago, my supervisor at the time (and co-author on this paper) Prof. Michael Morley tasked me with reading five articles on the psychological contract. The very first article I read was by Denise Rousseau (2001). In her seminal paper she discussed the schematic principles of the psychological contract. Fourteen years after this paper was first published it still surprises me that the building blocks of the psychological contract has only received minor attention from researchers. Both Michael and I felt that revisiting the ‘psychology’ of the psychological contract would facilitate a deeper understanding of how the contract is created. It is funny to think that the very first article I read has significantly informed this paper.

Many of us will recall feelings of anxiety on our first day of work. Often this anxiety stems from the fear of the unknown. To allay this fear, new recruits often seek lots of information as a means of addressing the unanswered questions we hold about our new job (i.e. what is my team like?, do we work late into the evenings in this firm?, etc.). Our paper argues that the information gathered at the beginning of employment is used to make sense of a new job and it is from this process that a psychological contract emerges. Of course, a new recruit will seek out and interpret information differently depending on many different biases and individual motivations contained in their schema. The schema filters new information in light of past work experiences and individual motivations. Therefore, by understanding the elements of the schema and how it functions, we can gain a deeper insight into how the psychological contract is created.

We hope that this paper will guide future researchers along new lines of enquiry into how the psychological contract is created. We all have very unique and idiosyncratic work experiences that influence our perceptions of each subsequent employment. Exploring this ‘baggage’ will allow us to better predict behaviour in and around the employment relationship. Similarly, we encourage future researchers to more explicitly examine how information is used by new recruits at organisational entry. From a practical perspective, it is in the employers interest to know what sources of information are used, and not used, by new recruits at the beginning of their tenure with the firm.

You can read “On the Formation of the Psychological Contract: A Schema Theory Perspective” from Group and Organization Management for free by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest news and research from Group and Organization Management? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!


w_rms_blob_commonUltan P. Sherman is a lecturer in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at the School of Management and Marketing, University College Cork, Ireland. His primary research interests lie broadly in the relationship between work and psychology focusing on issues such as the psychological contract, knowledge circulation and the meaning of work.

MichaelMorley_10[1]Michael J. Morley is Professor of Management at the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland. His research interests encompass international, comparative and cross-cultural issues in human resource management which he investigates at micro, meso and macro levels.

How to Manage Salesforce Performance Measures? An Optimal Choice Between Behavior Versus Outcome Approaches

CBR_42_1_72ppiRGB_powerpoint[We’re pleased to welcome Pankaj M. Madhani of ICFAI Business School (IBS) in India. Dr. Madhani is the author of “Managing Salesforce Performance: Behavior Versus Outcome Measures” which appeared in the most recent issue of Compensation and Benefits Review.]

As selling is an unique and independent occupation, effective management of salespeople plays a critical role in realizing their full potential and hence contributes immensely to the success of sales organization. Sales organizations have two main approaches for managing the behavior of their salesforce, namely, behavior-based (monitoring) and outcome-based (incentives). A behavior system evaluates the salesforce in light of the selling process, while an outcome system evaluates the salesforce in light of results. This research identifies key characteristics of behavior- and outcome-based systems along with its benefits and drawbacks and suggests selection criteria for appropriate choice of behavior versus outcome measures.

Behavior measures attempt to control the process of selling as opposed to just the outcomes while outcome measures focus on getting the results and are essentially indifferent to how those results are obtained. The study explains this behavior with the help of agency theory and highlights the underlying logic of short-term behavior of salespeople when compensated with incentives. Research also provides performance matrices for measurement and evaluation of financial impact of behavior and outcome control. The behavior-based and outcome-based control systems are at the extremes, and many sales organizations function in the middle, balancing the two. Finally, the study provides a numerical illustration to design an optimal performance measurement scenario based on behavior- and outcome-based measures.

You can read “Managing Salesforce Performance: Behavior Versus Outcome Measures” for free by clicking here. Want to know about all the latest research from Compensation and Benefits Review? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!


857da02a30227a2416653fe028aa8c16Pankaj M. Madhani earned bachelor’s degrees in chemical engineering and law, a master’s degree in business administration from Northern Illinois University, a master’s degree in computer science from Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, and a PhD in strategic management from CEPT University. He has more than 28 years of corporate and academic experience in India and the United States. During his tenure in the corporate sector, he was recognized with the Outstanding Young Managers Award. He is now working as professor at ICFAI Business School (IBS) where he received the Best Teacher Award from the IBS Alumni Federation. He is also the recipient of the Best Mentor Award. He has published various management books and more than 240 book chapters and research articles in several refereed academic and practitioner journals such as World at Work Journal and The European Business Review. He is a frequent contributor to Compensation & Benefits Review and has published 15 articles on sales compensation. His main research interests include salesforce compensation, corporate governance, and business strategy.