上海博亚体育网是一家老字号代写网站,专业提供代写硕士毕业博亚体育服务。

挑战性压力源对组织承诺的企业管理影响研究--工作旺盛感的中介作用

发布时间:2019-08-29 09:36 博亚体育编辑:vicky 价格: 所属栏目:企业管理 关键词: 企业管理博亚体育挑战性压力源组织承诺

本文是一篇企业管理博亚体育, 本文通过强调在参与增强个人和专业能力而不是消耗资源的活动时保留重要资源的重要性,扩展了资源保护理论的理论贡献。结果显示工作场所中压力源与发展中压

本文是一篇企业管理博亚体育,?本文通过强调在参与增强个人和专业能力而不是消耗资源的活动时保留重要资源的重要性,扩展了资源保护理论的理论贡献。结果显示工作场所中压力源与发展中压力源之间存在正相关关系,这导致了解组织内自我决定的个人认为压力挑战不是挑战,而是可以帮助他们在工作场所繁荣的机会。此外,结果表明,当员工获得他们认为对自我发展和职业成长至关重要的知识和活力时,组织承诺是高的。

Chapter 1: Overview of the research

1.1. ?Introduction
Talent ?management, ?recruitment ?management, ?supply ?change ?management, ?marketing management and human resource management all have something in common. Not the fact that they ?all serve ?an ?important ?function ?in management ?and ?success ?of ?an ?organization, ?but ?the workforce ?or ?employees ?that ?are ?employed ?in ?each ?of ?these divisions ?serve ?a ?significant ?and meaningful role in the organization and frankly speaking without these people the organization word ?crumble ?and ?seize ?to ?exist. ?Employees ?have ?a ?significant ?role ?in ?every ?organization, ?one that cannot be ignored and has been researched for years because of the effect and contribution that their talent, creativity, commitment and dedication has on organization success.
The ?ever-changing ?business ?environment ?has ?birthed ?turbulence ?in ?workplaces ?that ?can only ?be ?survived ?by ?those who ?are ?psychologically ?fit ?for ?the ?fight. ?Highly ?demanding, ?highly stressful, burnout, high productivity, too much learning are some of the responses employees use to explain their day at work. Everyone joins an organization with the aim of excelling in their job and tasks and are partially ready for the intensity and demands of the job as informed during the interview or induction process. Once on board they get to discover the challenges, stressors and pressure that ?come ?with being ?part ?of ?the ?organization. ?Challenge ?stressors ?are ?also ?deemed ?as good stressor that employees experience which allows them ?to introspect and ask why they are partaking in the particular task, who will benefit the most from this task, how this task will affect them ?and ?their ?future ?goal ?and ?lastly, ?what ?exactly ?do ?they ?get ?from ?this ?task. ?Indicating that individual’s hard work and dedication is usually at the ether if the task at hand is beneficial for accomplishing both personal and organizational goals. If not, an individual usually does the bear minimum. ?
.........................

1.2Research question
Challenge ?stressors ?encompasses ?of ?multitudes ?of ?stressors ?that ?individuals ?encounter within an organization, stressors such as workover load, team ambiguity, employee nonsupport, unstructured work plan, lack of support etc. ?The above stated according to authors can be used to ?evaluate ?challenge ?stressors ?encountered ?by ?employees ?in ?the organization. These ?challenge stressors are experienced differently by individuals depending on their personality, achievements, experience, ?personal ?goals ?and ?psychological ?well-being ?which ?are ?intertwined ?with ?the organization goals, mission and vision. Hence, this level of understanding between an employee and ?their ?work ?environment ?can ?breed ?committed employees, ?while ?the ?opposite ?can ?be ?true. Those ?whose ?personal ?goals ?are ?not ?linked ?to ?the ?organizations ?vision or ?goals ?do ?the ?bear minimum ?and ?do ?not ?commit ?to ?the ?organization ?beyond ?a ?level ?higher ?than ?what ?is expected, which ?decreases ?their ?performance ?and ?engagement, ?and ?ultimately ?their ?commitment ?and ?the organizations turnover.
This notion leads to the following research questions:
1. ?Can challenging stressors influence employee’s organizational commitment?
2. ?How will challenging stressors influence organizational commitment?
........................

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 ?Organizational Commitment
Commitment ?is ?a ?word ?used ?to ?explain ?an ?individual’s ?loyalty, ?trust ?and ?affection ?in ?a relationship, friendship, organization and close environment. ?According to (Mowday et al. 1982) organizational ?commitment ?is ?a ?strong confidence in ?an ?organization’s ?values ?and ?goals, ?a preparedness ?to ?apply ?extensive ?effort ?on ?behalf ?of ?an ?organization ?and ?a desire ?to maintain membership ?in ?the ?organization. ?In ?addition, ?(Meyer ?& ?Allen’s, ?1997) ?defines ?organizational commitment ?as ?a ?psychological ?state ?that ?symbolizes ?the ?employee’s ?relationship ?with ?an organization ?and ?its influence ?on ?their ?decision ?to ?extend ?and ?continue ?membership ?in ?the organization. ?Furthermore, ?(Klein, ?Molloy, Cooper, ?2009) ?expresses ?that ?organizational commitment ?is ?an ?individual ?intentional ?attachment ?to ?an ?organization. Meaning ?organization commitment is an act and process that occurs when an individual resonates with an organization and sees ?beneficial ?value ?in ?being ?part ?of ?the ?organization. ?In ?summarizing ?organizational commitment ?(Martin, ?2007) states ?that ?organizational ?commitment ?has ?the ?following characteristics:
1.(identification) Identifying with the values, goals and mission of an organization,
2.(loyalty) A keen desire to maintain and retain investment within an organization,
3. (involvement) A preparedness ?to ?work extra hard in ?order to ?achieve the organization goals and objectives.
All ?of ?the ?above ?stated ?have ?a ?positive ?attribute ?towards ?organizational ?commitment ?but commitment ?can ?have ?a positive ?or ?negative ?effect ?on ?the ?organization. ?Its ?negative ?impact is seen ?in ?low ?organizational ?commitment ?(under commitment) ?and ?positive ?in ?high ?commitment known ?as ?over ?commitment ?(Cohan, ?2003). ?Employees ?who ?are unproductive, ?loaf around ?at work and continuously exhibit tendencies of under-committed are perceived to have low levels of commitment. Under commitment is characterized by persistent procrastination, fear of failure, fear ?of ?success ?and no ?persistent ?achievement ?(Cohan, ?2003). ?While, ?over ?commitment ?is characterized ?by ?high ?energy ?levels, ?job ?and occupational ?burnout, ?pressure ?to succeed and uncontrollable patterns at work.
..........................

2.2 Challenge Stressors
2.2.1 Concept
Individual nonsupport, ?job ambiguity, ?autonomy, job stress, personality and job overload are a few driving forces when an employee leaves an organization. Can these also be the reason why employees remain within an organization? Could these factors have the potential to assist in achieving personal ?goals and organizational ?goals, is employee stress bad ?or ?good for personal and organizational growth and development? Stress consist of two forms eustress known as good stress ?and distress ?known ?as ?bad ?stress ?(Selye, ?1956). ?However, ?stress ?on ?job-related ?level ?can result ?in ?exhaustion, ?sickness, and ?high ?turnover ?(Hakanen, ?Bakker, ?& ?Schaufeli, ?2006). ?In addition, ?(Kyriacou, ?2001) ?found ?that ?continued ?stress had ?negative ?behavioral, ?physical ?and mental ?effects ?on ?employees ?and ?can ?have ?a ?negative ?effect ?on ?organization turnover ?and commitment. The above mentioned indicates that stress has a negative influence on an individual and the activities they must partake in thus challenging their personality, working style and level of organizational commitment. According to occupational stress literature, stress has two factor models namely challenge stressors and hindrance stressors (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling and Boudreau, 2000). According to ?(McCualey ?et al., 1994) challenge stressors have positive work results that can be linked to organizational needs such as work overload, time pressure, job scope?and increased responsibility. In support (Cavanaugh et al., 2000) states, challenge stressors refer to workplace aspects that are demanding such as job complexity and ambiguity which have the potential to positively influence organization success (e.g., job satisfaction, job performance and creativity) ?( ?Le Pine, ?Podsakoff, ?& ?Le Pine, ?2005). ?While, ?hindrance ?stressors ?is connected ?and aligned ?with ?negative ?work ?outcome ?which ?include ?job ?uncertainty, ?workplace ?politics, bureaucracy and job ?anxieties ?(McCauley ?et ?al., ?1994). ?The ?above ?indicates ?the ?positive ?and negative relation of stressors on employees.