summary_eng (1136700), страница 2
Текст из файла (страница 2)
The framework of the research involved designing the Russian-language versionsof the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) and the in-group identificationscale based of the multi-component model of in-group identification (Leach et al.,2008) as well as proving their good psychometric properties.The theoretical significance of the research consists in systematizing andgeneralizing the existing theoretical notions and empirical data on positive andnegative aspects of the employee’s psychological attachment to the organization.Combined with the outcomes of the current research, they serve as a theoretical andempirical proof of the thesis on the non-linear character of the relationship betweenattitudes and behavior related to work and the overall ‘too-much-of-a-good-thingeffect’ as applied to organizational identification.
Taking into account the existing ofempirical proof of this effect in other fields of social and organizational psychology,there are reasons to consider it as a relatively universal phenomenon. The presence ofthis effect in the realm of the organizational identification allows to formulate thethesis on the existence of the optimum level in the organizational identification.When it is reached, the positive aspect of identification is enhanced to the maximum,while going beyond it increases the risk of the emergence of negative consequencesboth for the employee and the organization.8The practical relevance of the research lies in expanding the notion oforganizational identification as a phenomenon having both positive and negativefeatures, in providing better understanding of its ‘dark side’ and its underlyingmechanisms. These findings may support the management in preventing potentiallynegative consequences of excessive identification.
Stress, fatigue and burnout bringhigh costs for both the employee, who suffers from these factors and thus decreasesproductivity, the employer, whose efficiency is also reduced because of loweremployee efficiency, absenteeism and turnout, and the society as a whole as it bearsthe costs related to the elimination of negative consequences and rehabilitation.Therefore, understanding potential reasons for reducing employee well-being andtheir prevention have an important practical value at the individual, organizationaland societal levels.The research outcomes suggest that the interventions based on developing theidentification of the employee with the organization or its units, may have negativeconsequences that restrict employees’ efficiency. Identifying the optimal level of theorganizational identification and ways to support it, will allow to maximize itspositive effects.The research argues that:1.
the ‘organizational identification’ construct may be considered as a basis for theconceptualization of the employee attachment to the organization;2. organizational identification and workaholism are in non-linear relationship.Employees having a high level of organizational identification display a higherlevel of workaholism. Concurrently, employees having a medium- or low-levelorganizational identification display a medium-level workaholism;3. organizational identification has both positive and negative correlates.Organizational identification has an indirect (through workaholism) positive effecton job satisfaction and work engagement as well as an indirect (throughworkaholism) positive effect on emotional exhaustion and work-family conflict.9The research outcomes were presented and tested at the XVIII Conference ofthe European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP-2017)held in Dublin in 2017, at the Sociology and Society: Cooperation Under the CrisisConditions 2nd Congress of Ukraine’s Sociology Association held in Kharkov in2013, at the XVI Conference of the European Association of Work andOrganizational Psychology (EAWOP-2013) held in Munster in 2013, at the XVConference of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology(EAWOP-2011) held in Maastricht in 2011, Psychology of Individuality III AllRussian Scientific Conference held in Moscow in 2010 and at the seminar of theSchool of Psychology of the Higher School of Economics National ResearchUniversity, Moscow 2018.The research structure and scope.
The paper consists of the introduction, twochapters, conclusion, references (203 sources) and 6 appendices. It contains 139pages, 10 tables and 8 figures.RESEARCH MAIN CONTENTSChapter 1 entitled Organizational identification, well-being and workaholismconsiders the phenomenon of employee’s psychological attachment to theorganization and the peculiarities of the interrelation between this attachment and theemployee well-being.Paragraph 1.1 discusses two ways of conceptualizing the employee’spsychological attachment to the organization, the first one being through the‘organizational identification’ construct and the second one through ‘affectiveorganizational commitment’. These constructs are close yet independent ones, theyreflect different approaches to employee attachment to the organization. Thetheoretical analysis of the content of organizational identification and affectiveorganizational commitment constructs as well as that of previous research outcomes10has revealed that it is organizational identification that can be considered as a basicconstruct for conceptualization of the employee attachment to the organization.From the perspective of the social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) andthe self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), individuals tend to referthemselves and people around them to certain social categories (e.g.
gender, race,ethnicity, professional and religious groups, etc.) on the basis of their perception ofpersonal features and attributes. This categorization allows individuals to, first of all,structure their social settings and, secondly, to determine their own position in thisenvironment. One of the key concept of the theory is ‘social identity’ that H. Tajfeldefines as ‘part of individual’s self-concept arising from the realization of one’sbelonging to a social group (or groups) together with value and emotionalsignificance attached to this membership’ (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63).
Ashforth and Mael(1989) suggested considering organizational identification as a specific form of socialidentification. They define it as a ‘perception of oneness with or belongingness to anorganization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of theorganization(s) in which he or she is a member’ (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). Anemployee who identifies with an organization tends to support it and to contribute topursuing its goals and interests as well as to feel emotional attachment to it. Peoplemay identify with an organization because it matches their need in autonomy (theorganization provides the context for fulfilling one’s independent and self-organizingactivities) or because it allows to satisfy the need in relating to others and providesthe framework for increasing one’s self-esteem.Paragraph 1.2 provides the theoretical validation of the relationship betweenthe organizational identification and well-being.
Stemming from the social identitytheory approach, it can be argued that there is both positive and negative relationshipbetween organizational identification and well-being of employees. Researchers pointout several reasons why organizational identification affect the employee well-being(Haslam, 2001). Organizational identification helps to satisfy important needs, i.e. theneed in safety, in belonging, in supporting positive self-esteem and in lowering thelevel of uncertainty. An individual self-categorization as a social group member has11significant consequences for well-being and undergoing stress (Branscombe, Schmitt,& Harvey, 1999; Gleibs et al., 2011; Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009;Jetten, Haslam, & Haslam, 2012; Sani, Herrera, Wakefield, Boroch, & Gulyas, 2012).The reasons for that lie in the transactional model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman,1984) that defines the reaction to stress as an interaction between the subjectiveevaluation of the event or the situation as stressful and the ability to cope with them.Firstly, the stronger a person categorizes oneself as a group member, the strongertheir evaluation of the stressors will depend on their in-group perception andidentifying with it (Gallagher, Meaney, & Muldoon, 2014; R.
M. Levine & Reicher,1996). Secondly, self-categorization is the basis for the process of actively handlingthis situation as when people act as group member, they are more likely to obtainsupport from other members and interpret it exclusively as group support in handlinga stressful situation or event (M. Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002; M.Levine, Prosser, Evans, & Reicher, 2005). These propositions find empirical proof inthe organizational context as well (Bizumic, Reynolds, Turner, Bromhead, &Subasic, 2009; Cruwys, South, Greenaway, & Haslam, 2015; Greenaway et al., 2015;Haslam, O’Brien, Jetten, Vormedal, & Penna, 2005; Shamir & Kark, 2004; van Dick& Haslam, 2012; van Dick & Wagner, 2002; van Zomeren, Leach, & Spears, 2012;Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, Wecking, & Moltzen, 2006).However, it cannot be stated that previous research provides only positiveevidence of the relationship between organizational identification and employee wellbeing.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
