Gorgievski et all planning and success

  • 127 views
Uploaded 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

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
127
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
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.