Gorgievski et all planning and success

276 views

Published on

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
276
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Positive Work and Organisational Psychology
  • Gorgievski et all planning and success

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

    ×