Examining the Role of Planning Styles in Entrepreneurial Performance Across Cultures
•Download as PPT, PDF•
0 likes•365 views
Presented at the 15th International Conference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Maastricht, The Netherlands, May 25th-28th, 2011
![Gain spiral of Resources, Engagement and Entrepreneurial Performance Based on The JD-R model, e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007 Job resources Autonomy Social support Personal resources Broad traits Specific traits Human capital Job Demands Motivation Work engagement ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Examining the Role of Planning Styles in Entrepreneurial Performance Across Cultures
Similar to Examining the Role of Planning Styles in Entrepreneurial Performance Across Cultures (20)
More from INPERE
More from INPERE (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Examining the Role of Planning Styles in Entrepreneurial Performance Across Cultures
- 1. Marjan Gorgievski, Ph.D., Erasmus University Rotterdam Dominika Dej, 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 25 th -28th, 2011
- 6. Research Model Job resources Decision latitude Skill variety Personal resources Personal innitiative Self efficacy Planning Full planning Critical point planning Work engagement Subjective business success
- 10. Correlations between study variables Upper diagonal: Germany/The Netherlands (N = 102) Lower diagonal, Poland (N=49) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Job resources - .50*** .18 .16 .48*** .20+ 2. Personal resources .63*** - .54* .18 .44*** .44*** 3. Critical point planning .37+ .19 - .14 .17 4. Full planning .35 .15 - .18 .06 5. Work engagement .44* .22 .42* .73** - .17+ 6. Subjective success .26 .40* -.35* -.31 -.18 -
- 11. N = 102; X 2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000 .80** Job resources Decision latitude Skill variety Personal resources Personal innitiative Self efficacy Planning Critical point Work engagement Subjective business success .41** .60*** .82**
- 12. N = 102; X 2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04 Job resources Decision latitude Skill variety Personal resources Personal innitiative Self efficacy Planning Full planning Work engagement Subjective business success .79** .75** .52** .23**
- 13. Critical point Poland .28** Job resources Decision latitude Skill variety Personal resources Personal innitiative Self efficacy Planning Critical point Work engagement Subjective business success .46** .36** -.61* .58*** .69** N = 49 ; X 2 = 36.66, df = 38, TLI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .000
- 14. Full planning Poland N = 49 ; X 2 = 46.34, df = 38, TLI = .93, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04 .49** Job resources Decision latitude Skill variety Personal resources Personal innitiative Self efficacy Planning Full planning Work engagement Subjective business success .76** .43*** .54**
- 15. 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 ?
Editor's Notes
- Positive Work and Organisational Psychology