summary_eng (Связь между организационной идентификацией и благополучием работника роль трудоголизма как медиатора)

National Research University Higher School of EconomicsAndrey LovakovRelationship between Organizational Identification and EmployeeWell-Being: Workaholism as a MediatorSummary of the PhD HSE thesisAcademic Supervisor:Sergey LipatovPhDMoscow 2018This research has been carried out at the School of Psychology at the NationalResearch University Higher School of Economics.Publications:Lovakov, A. V. (2017).

Negative Effects of Organizational Identification of theWorker: Role of the Workaholism. Sotsial'naia psikhologiia i obshchestvo [SocialPsychology and Society], 8(2), 51–66. http://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2017080204 (inRussian)Lovakov, A. V. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Russian version of theDutchWorkAddictionScale(DUWAS).Organizacionnaâpsihologiâ[Organizational Psychology], 6(3), 22–37.

(in Russian)Lovakov, A., Agadullina, E. R., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Psychometricproperties of the Russian version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9).PsychologyinRussia:StateoftheArt,10(1),145–162.http://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2017.0111Lovakov, A. V, Agadullina, E. R., & Osin, E. N. (2015). A Hierarchical(Multicomponent) Model of In-Group Identification: Examining in Russian Samples.Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18(e32), 1–12.http://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.37Agadullina, E.

R., & Lovakov, A. V. (2013). Measurement Model of In-groupIdentification: Validation in Russian Samples. Psychology. Journal of Higher Schoolof Economics, 10(4), 143–157. (in Russian)Lovakov, A. V. (2012). Workaholism: definition, measures, predictors andconsequences. Organizacionnaâ psihologiâ [Organizational Psychology], 2(4), 28–42. (in Russian)Lovakov, A. V., & Lipatov, S. A.

(2011). Organizational Identification andPersonnel Commitment: Similarity and Difference. Psychology. Journal of HigherSchool of Economics, 8(2), 69–80. (in Russian)2INTRODUCTIONResearch problem: Тoday work is one of the crucial spheres of human life. Aperson is usually engaged in work in the framework of an organization that acts as anemployer. Numerous research has indicated that there usually arises a certainpsychological bond reflected in the attachment that employees feel more or lessintensely towards the organization they work for (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998;Harris, Hirschfeld, Feild, & Mossholder, 1993; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Thispsychological bond is most frequently studied with the help of the organizationalidentification construct (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Ashforth & Mael,1989).

Extensive empirical research works proved the opinion shared by manypsychologists that organizational identification is a positive attitude favorable forboth the organization and the employee (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Lee, Park, & Koo,2015; Riketta, 2002, 2005; Riketta & van Dick, 2005; Steffens, Haslam, Schuh,Jetten, & van Dick, 2017; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). Moreover, the stronger it ismanifested, the better. However, this mostly positive view on the organizationalidentification is one-sided, and recently it has been questioned. Early theoreticalpapers emphasized that strong attachment to the organization may entail negativeconsequences for both the organization and the employer (Dukerich, Kramer, &McLean Parks, 1998; Randall, 1987).

Some works also feature empirical proof of thenegative consequences of psychological bonds, in particular, studies of therelationship between employees’ organizational identification and their well-beingdraw controversial conclusions.This controversy in outcomes may be explained by two reasons. Firstly, therelationship between the organizational identification and its consequences may benon-linear. The increase in the level of identification may be related to the increase ofpositive consequences to a certain limit.

When the latter has been achieved, therelationship may disappear or even turn negative. This hypothesis has been proved bythe some research that have determined the curvilinear relationship of the affectiveorganizational commitment, a construct similar to that of organizational identification3(see van Dyk, 2006; Ловаков & Липатов, 2011)) to job satisfaction and turnover(Somers, 1999), as well as with burnout and performance (Morin, Vandenberghe,Turmel, Madore, & Maiano, 2013). It was also revealed that job involvement isanother construct close in meaning to identification and commitment (Riketta & vanDick, 2009) and it proved to have curvilinear relationship with anxiety (Addae &Wang, 2006).Secondly, the relationship between organizational identification and eitherpositive or negative consequences may be mediated by variables rather than direct,with the former either reducing it to zero or changing its value from positive tonegative (Ashforth et al., 2008).

Recent research has demonstrated that the employeeattachment to the organization may entail both positive and negative consequencesthat are mostly revealed in case of a great extent of attachment. These includeincreased burnout, work-family conflict, reduced job and life satisfaction and overallemployee well-being (Avanzi, van Dick, Fraccaroli, & Sarchielli, 2012; Avanzi,Zaniboni, Balducci, & Fraccaroli, 2014; Li, Fan, & Zhao, 2015; Morin et al., 2013;Randall, 1987; Siegrist et al., 2004). Workaholism may be among the variables thatmediate the employee organizational attachment and well-being. Merging theemployee’s own goals, achievements and successes with those of the organizationthat arises in case of a great or excessive attachment to the organization may enhancethe role of the organization and work in the life of the employee.

The employee mayaspire to increase their contribution to the functioning of the organization, which istypical of workaholics.However, there has been little research into these mechanism. The studies focuson specific samples, thus one must be cautious when transferring their outcomes toother organizations, jobs or employee categories. Therefore, today there is no reliableor sustainable proof of negative consequences of employee identification with theorganization or the mechanisms of their formation.The research object is organizational identification as a characteristic of theemployee organizational attachment.4The research subject is the relationship between the employee organizationalidentification and well-being.The research aims to reveal the peculiarities of the relationship between theemployee organizational identification and well-being and to determine the role ofworkaholism in this relationship.Research hypotheses:Hypothesis 1: The relationship between organizational identification and theemployee well-being is non-linear.Specific hypotheses:1а.

The relationship between organizational identification and job satisfaction is nonlinear.1b. The relationship between organizational identification and emotional exhaustionis non-linear.1c. The relationship between organizational identification and work-family conflict isnon-linear.1d. The relationship between organizational identification and work engagement isnon-linear.Hypothesis 2: Organizational identification has an indirect negative effect on theemployee well-being mediated by workaholism that is in the reverse to the directpositive effect: the high-level employee organizational identification leads toincreased workaholism, which, in turn, is conjugated to the decrease in the employeewell-being.Specific hypotheses:2а.

Organizational identification is in non-linear relationship with workaholism: therelationship is absent at the low and medium level of organizationalidentification, but if the level of organizational identification is high, therelationship between them becomes positive.52b.

There is an indirect negative effect organizational identification has on jobsatisfaction. It is mediated by workaholism that is in the reverse to the directpositive effect.2c. There is an indirect negative effect that organizational identification has on workengagement mediated by workaholism that is in the reverse to the direct positiveeffect.2d. There is an indirect positive effect that organizational identification has onemotional exhaustion mediated by workaholism that is in the reverse to thedirect negative effect.2e.

There is an indirect negative effect that organizational identification has on workfamily conflict mediated by workaholism that is in the reverse to the directnegative effect.The theoretical framework of the research includes the social identity theory(Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1987) and the self-categorization theory(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), as well as their applications tothe organizational context (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam,2001; Hogg, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000); the overall workaholism model thatconceives it as an outcome of joint impact of personality traits, socio-culturalexperience (e.g. social learning, culturally-determined competences and competition)and behavior reinforcement (e.g.

a corporate incentive scheme) (Lovakov, 2012; Ng,Sorensen, & Feldman, 2007); the notions of workaholism as a tendency to workexcessively and compulsively (Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, 2009).Method. The empirical data have been obtained through questionnaires thatincluded several scales: to measure organizational identification the research employed the Russianlanguage version of the in-group identification scale (Agadullina & Lovakov,2013; Lovakov, Agadullina, & Osin, 2015). It is built on the basis of the6hierarchical multi-component model of in-group identification (Leach et al.,2008); to measure workaholism the research employed the Russian-language version(Lovakov, 2016) of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) (Schaufeli et al.,2009) that assesses workaholism through working excessively and compulsively; to measure job satisfaction the research employed the Russian-language version ofThe Brief Index of Affective Job Satisfaction (Thompson & Phua, 2012); to measure emotional exhaustion, the research resorted to the scale available at theProfessional Burnout questionnaire (Vodopyanova & Starchenkova, 2009) that isthe Russian-language version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)questionnaire based on the three-component burnout model (Maslach & Jackson,1986); to measure work-family conflict, the two statements were used: 1) ‘my workneeds interfere with my private and family life’, 2) ‘my family or spouse/partnerneeds interfere with my work (Dallner et al., 2000). to measure work engagement, the research employed the Russian-languageversion (Kutuzova, 2006; Lovakov, Agadullina, & Schaufeli, 2017) of the UtrechtWork Engagement Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).Sample includes 1783 employees (516 (29%) men, 1213 (68%) women, and 54respondents who did not specify their gender) of a major Russian energy companyselling thermal and electric power in several Russian regions.

The participants wereinvited to take part in the survey via corporate mailshots. The average age ofrespondents is 36.36, (with a standard deviation at 9.55, 57 respondents did notspecify their age); the average work experience is 15.58, (with a standard deviation at9.99); the average work experience at the current employer is 6.90, (with a standarddeviation at 6.86). Most respondents (1341) hold non-managerial positions, 249 areline managers, 178 are mid-level managers and 15 are top executives.7The research novelty:1.

The paper extends the boundaries of the organizational identification concept. Incontrast to the wide-spread classical view on the organizational identification as asolely positive phenomenon, the work suggests considering it as having bothpositive and negative correlates.2. For the first time the Russian sample was used to empirically investigate not onlythe negative aspect of the organizational identification, but also the mechanism ofits functioning based on the non-linear relationship between organizationalidentification and workaholism as well as the role of workaholism as a mediator inthe relationship between organizational identification and employee well-being .3.