Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Gorgievski et all planning and success
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Gorgievski et all planning and success

134
views

Published on

Presented at the 15th European Congress of Work and Organisational psychology (EAWOP), May 25-28, 2011, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Presented at the 15th European Congress of Work and Organisational psychology (EAWOP), May 25-28, 2011, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
134
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Positive Work and Organisational Psychology
  • Transcript

    • 1. A Cross-cultural investigation of the role of planning in the gain spiral of resources, work engagement and entrepreneurial success
      Marjan Gorgievski, Ph.D., Erasmus University Rotterdam
      DominikaDej, Ph.D. , Technical University Dresden
      Ute Stephan, Ph.D. , University of Sheffield 15th International Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands, May 25th-28th, 2011
    • 2. Gain spiral of Resources, Engagement and Entrepreneurial Performance
      Basedon The JD-R model, e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007
      Job Demands
      Job Performance
      • In role performance
      • 3. Ex role performance
      • 4. Creativity
      Business outcomes
      • Financialturnover
      Job resources
      Autonomy
      Social support
      Motivation
      Workengagement
      Personal resources
      Broadtraits
      Specifictraits
      Humancapital
    • 5. EmpiricalEvidence
      Ample evidence for a positive gain spiral of personal and job resources and work engagement (overview: Salanova, Schaufeli, Xanthopoulou & Bakker, 2010)
      Ampleevidencefor the positive relationship between work engagement and performance, also for entrepreneurs (Overview: Gorgievski, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2010)
    • 6. Top-down
      Complete Planning
      Localized
      CriticalPoint
      Proactive
      Opportunistic
      Reactive
      Reactive
      Predicting Entrepreneurial performance
      No planning
      Planning
      Individual-level planning or self-management styles play a central role; Giessen-Amsterdam-Model, Rauch & Frese, 2001, 2007;Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007)
      • Informal, everyday activity
      • 7. Proces planning
      • 8. Personal difference variable (habituation), but it can be changed easier than a trait
    • EmpiricalEvidenceconcerning Planning
      Evidencefor a positiverelationshipbetweencriticalpoint / complete planning and entrepreneurial performance (Frese et al., 2000, 2002, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007; Rauch et al., 2000; Stephan et al., 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2000)
      Evidencefor a negativerelationshipbetweenreactivestrategies and entrepreneurial performance (Frese et al., 2000, 2002, 2007; Frese, 2007; Frese et al., 2007; Rauch et al., 2000; Stephan et al., 2006; Van Gelderen et al., 2000)
      Evidenceforcross-culturaldifferences in effectiveness of different planning styles(Stephan et al., 2006)
    • 9. Research Model
      Job resources
      Decisionlatitude
      Skillvariety
      Work engagement
      Planning
      Full planning
      Criticalpoint planning
      Subjective business success
      Personal resources
      Personalinnitiative
      Selfefficacy
    • 10. What the studyadds
      Evidence on the relationship between resources job resources, perdsonal resources and planning?
      Evidence on the relationship planning and work engagement?
      Evidence for a possible mediating effect of planning styles in the resources – performance, and resources – engagement relationship.
    • 11. Method
      N=150 business owners (response rate 29%)
      Germany N=62
      The Netherlands N = 40
      Poland N = 49
      Invited by telephone, face to face interviews
      Mean age 43.06 years (sd = 9.63)
      On average 12.11 years in business (sd = 7.12)
      76 % males
      30 % from entrepreneurialfamily
    • 12. Measurements
      Job Resources
      Skill discretion and Decision making latitude (JCQ; 8 items, alpha = .71)
      Personal resources
      Personal Initiative (Frese et al. 1996; 7 items, alpha = .79 )
      Self efficacy (Schwarzer und Jerusalem; 10 items, alpha = .84)
      Planning styles
      Critical point planning (Zempel, 2003; 5 items = .69)
      Complete planning (Zempel, 2003; 4 items, alpha = .77)
      work-engagement (UWES; 9 items, alpha = .92);
      entrepreneurs’ subjective firm business success (Stephan, Dej, Lukes & Richter, 2007; 7 items, alpha = .81);
    • 13. Correlations between study variables
      Upper diagonal: Germany/The Netherlands (N = 102)
      Lower diagonal, Poland (N=49)
    • 14. CriticalpointGermany / The Netherlands
      Job resources
      Decisionlatitude
      Skillvariety
      .80**
      Work engagement
      Planning
      Criticalpoint
      .82**
      .41**
      Subjective business success
      Personal resources
      Personalinnitiative
      Selfefficacy
      .60***
      N = 102; X2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000
    • 15. Full planning Germany / The Netherlands
      Job resources
      Decisionlatitude
      Skillvariety
      .75**
      Work engagement
      .23**
      .79**
      Planning
      Full planning
      Subjective business success
      Personal resources
      Personalinnitiative
      Selfefficacy
      .52**
      N = 102; X2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04
    • 16. CriticalpointPoland
      Job resources
      Decisionlatitude
      Skillvariety
      .28**
      Work engagement
      .36**
      Planning
      Criticalpoint
      .69**
      -.61*
      .46**
      Subjective business success
      Personal resources
      Personalinnitiative
      Selfefficacy
      .58***
      N = 49 ; X2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000
    • 17. Job resources
      Decisionlatitude
      Skillvariety
      Full planningPoland
      Work engagement
      .76**
      Planning
      Full planning
      .49**
      .54**
      Subjective business success
      Personal resources
      Personalinnitiative
      Selfefficacy
      .43***
      N = 49 ; X2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04
    • 18. Conclusions
      Major conclusion is there are important cross national differences.
      The data show little evidence for a mediating role of planning styles in the positive spiral of resources, well-being and performance in Germany and The Netherlands.
      However, in the Polish sample, both critical point and full planning related to more work engagement.
      Strangely, both planning styles and work engagement related negatively to subjective success . Robustness checks showed similar relations with objective indicators of business performance.
      Question is what moderator is at work ?
    • 19. Future research
      Collect more data, comparing developed and developing countries.
      Find meaningful moderator variables
      Conduct longitudinal studies to investigate causality.
      For example:
      Prior studies showed poor planning results in poor business performance. However, poor performance caused by environmental factors might stimulate planning, which increases performance (although it may still be poor) which in turn increases work engagement.