بررسی نقش التزام کارکنان در روابط بین تعدّی نظارتی و خودکارآمدی نوآورانه آنان

مدیریت بهره‌وری

مقاله 6، دوره 10، 2(37)تابستان، شهریور 1395، صفحه 107-126   

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

رحمت اله مرزوقی^{* 1}؛ الهام حیدری²

¹دانشیار دانشگاه شیراز، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی

²دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

هدف این پژوهش بررسی نقش التزام کارکنان در روابط بین تعدّی نظارتی و خودکارآمدی نوآورانه آنان است. روش پژوهش توصیفی و از نوع همبستگی با استفاده از مدل معادلات ساختاری می باشد. نمونه تحقیق شامل 214 نفر از کارکنان شرکت برق منطقه ای استان فارس است که با استفاده از روش نمونه گیری تصادفی، انتخاب شده اند. ابزارهای این پژوهش شامل مقیاس های تعدّی نظارتی (تیپر، 2000)، التزام کارکنان (اسکافی و همکاران، 2006) و خودکارآمدی نوآورانه کارکنان (تایرنی و فارمر، 2002؛ درنر، 2012) بود که از روایی و پایایی خوبی برخوردار بودند. یافته ها نشان داد که تعدّی نظارتی تأثیر منفی و معناداری بر میزان التزام کارکنان دارد. به علاوه التزام کارکنان تاثیر مثبت و معناداری بر احساس خودکارآمدی نوآورانه می گذارد و سهم واسطه گری نیز در روابط بین تعدّی نظارتی و خودکارآمدی نوآورانه کارکنان تأثیر دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تعدّی نظارتی؛ التزام کارکنان؛ خودکارآمدی نوآورانه

مراجع

 

-    Shakeri, F., Mehrjardi, M., Dehnavi, H., Kavandi, R. (2011), “Investigating the relationship between organizational climate and innovation in the process”, Manage production and operations, V 2, N 1, 29-46.

-    Mosleh, A., Yari, A. (2014), “The Effect of Organizational Intelligence on Technological Innovation in Knowledge Based Enterprises”, Management Studies (Improvement and Evolution), V 22, N 73, 63-94.

-    Azoury. A., Daoub. L., Sleiaty. F. (2013), Employee engagement in family and non-family firms. International Strategic Management Review, 1: 11- 29.

-    Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Taris, T.W. (2008), Work engagement: an emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22 (3): 187–200.

-    Bedarkar. M., Pandita. D. (2014), A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133: 106 – 115.

-    Breevaart K., Bakker. A., Demerouti. E.(2014), Daily self-management and employee work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84: 31–38.

-    Dörner. N. (2012), Innovative Work Behavior: The Roles of Employee Expectations and Effects on Job Performance. University of St.Gallen.

-    Ganter. A., Hecker. A.(2014), Configurational paths to organizational innovation: qualitative comparative analyses of antecedents and contingencies. Journal of Business Research, 67 (6): 1285-1292.

-    Gill. R. (2014), Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.012.

-    Gomes. C., Curral. L., Caetano. A. (2015), THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF WORK ENGAGEMENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-LEADERSHIP AND INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation Management(ijim).19(1):1- 18

-    Gruman . J. A., Saks. A. M. (2011), Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21: 123–136.

-    Harris. K. J., Marett. K., Harris. R. B. (2013), An investigation of the impact of abusive supervision on technology end-users. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (6): 2480- 2489.

-    He. H., Zhu. W., Zheng. X. (2014), Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality. J Bus Ethics, 122:681–695.

-    Imran. R., Haque. M. A. U. (2011), Mediating Effect of Organizational Climate between Transformational Leadership and Innovative Work Behaviour. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 26 (2): 183-199.

-    Innanen. H., Tolvanen. A., Salmela-Aro. K. (2014), Burnout, work engagement and workaholism among highly educated employees: Profiles, antecedents and outcomes. Burnout Research, 1: 38–49.

-    Jamshed Khan. M., Aslam. N., Riaz. M. N. (2012), Leadership Styles as Predictors of Innovative Work Behavior. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9 (2): 17- 22.

-    Jong. J. P. J. D., Hartog. D. N. D. (2008), Innovative Work Behavior: Measurement and Val idation. University of Amsterdam

-    Karanges. E., Johnston. K., Beatson. A., Lings. I.(2015), The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41: 129–131.

-    Karatepe, O.M. (2013), High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance:The mediation of work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32:132–140.

-    Karatepe, O.M., Keshavarz, S., & Nejati, S. (2010), Do core self-evaluations mediate the effect of coworker support on work engagement? A study of hotel employees in Iran. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17, 62–71.

-    Karatepe, O.M., Olugbade. O. A. (2009), The effects of job and personal resources on hotel employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28: 504–512.

-    Keating. L. A., Heslin. P. A. (2015), The potential role of mindsets in unleashing employee Engagement. Human Resource Management Review,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.008

-    Kennedy. E., Daim. T. U. (2010), A strategy to assist management in workforce engagement and employee retention in the high tech engineering environment.Evaluation and Program Planning,33: 468–476.

-    Latib. L. A., Bolong. J., Ghazali. A. H. A. (2014), Facebook Usage and Functionality as the Predictive Factors in Contributing Towards Employee Engagement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155: 289- 294.

-    Leong. C. T., Rasli. A.(2014), The Relationship between innovative work behavior onwork role performances: An empirical study.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,129: 592-600

-    Lian. H., Brown. D., Ferris. D. L., Liang. L. H., Keeping. L. M., Morrison. R. (2014), Abusive Supervision and Retaliation: A Self-control Framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (1): 116- 139.

-    Lian. H., L. F., B. D. J. (2012), does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader- member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Decision Process, 117: 41-52.

-    Linjuan. R. M. (2012), CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation, and employee Engagement. Public Relations Review, 38: 171-173.

-    Mackey. J. D., Frieder. R. E., Perrewe. P. L., Gallagher. V. C., Brymer. R. A.(2015), Empowered Employees as Social Deviants: The Role of Abusive Supervision, J Bus Psychol, 30:149-162.

-    Medvedeva. T. A.(2012), Developing an Innovative Style of Thinking and Innovative Behavior. Syst Pract Action Res, 25: 261-272.

-    Meglich. P. A., Eesley. D. T. (2011), A “Bully” in its Own China Shop: Risk Factors for Abusive Supervision in Small Firms. International Journal of Business and Social Science,2(19):11- 22

-    Menguc. B., Auh. S., Fisher. M., Haddad. A.(2013), To be engaged or not to be engaged: The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of Business Research, 63: 2163- 2170.

-    Park. J., Gursoy. D. (2012), Generation effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31: 1195– 1202.

-    Peretz. H. V., Binyamin. G., Carmeli. A.(2011), Subjective relational experiences and employee innovative behaviors in the workpla. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78: 290–304.

-    Poon. J. M. L. (2011), Effects of Abusive Supervision and Coworker Support on Work Engagement. International Conference on Economics, Business and Management IPEDR, 22: 65-70.

-    Qian. J., Wang. H., Han. Z. R., Wang. H.(2015), Mental health risks among nurses under abusive supervision: the moderating roles of job role ambiguity and patients’ lack of reciprocity. Int J Ment Health Syst, 9: 22- 27.

-    Romero. I., Román. J. A. M. (2012), Self-employment and innovation. Exploring the determinants of innovative behavior in small businesses. Research Policy, 41: 178– 189.

-    Scheuer. M. (2013), linking abusive supervision to engagement and burnout: An application of the differentiated job demands-resource model. NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY.

-    Shoss. M. K., Restubog. S. L. D. (2013), Blaming the Organization for Abusive Supervision: The Roles of Perceived Organizational Support and Supervisor’s Organizational Embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (1): 158- 168.

-    Schaufeli. W. B., Bakker. A. B. Salanova. M.(2006), The measurement of work engagement with a short questionair: a cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66 (4): 701- 716.

-    Teeper. B. J, Moss. S. E., Duffy. M. K. (2011), PREDICTORS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION: SUPERVISOR PERCEPTIONS OF DEEP-LEVEL DISSIMILARITY, RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT, AND SUBORDINATE PERFORMANCE, 54 (2): 270- 294.

-    Tepper, B.(2000), Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190.

-    Tepper, B. J. (2007), Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 33: 261–289.

-    Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), Creative Self-Efficacy: Its Potential Antecedents and Relationship to Creative Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6), 1137-1148.

-    WANG. D. S., HSIEH. C. C. (2013), THE EFFECT OF AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE TRUST AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT. SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 41(4), 613-624.

-    Yeh. C. M. (2013), TOURISM INVOLVEMENT, WORK ENGAGEMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FRONTLINE HOTEL EMPLOYEES. Annals of Tourism Research, 42: 214- 239.