Zelfstudie 1a)AN EXPLANATORY MODEL FOR JOB INSECURITY AND INNOVATIVE

WORK BEHAVIOUR :INSIGHTS FROM SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND THREAT RIGIDITY THEORY

(Wendy Niesen, Hans de Witte, Adalgisa Battistelli)

Introduction

Two major organizational strategies since late ‘70’s (recesssion, technology...=> survival & competitiveness) : Downsizing & layoffs : increases job insecurity, ie. “the subjective perceived likelihood of

involuntary job loss.” = subjective work stressor => reduces organizational effectiveness Becoming more innovative by capitalize on the innovative abilities of àll employees => higher

need for initiave-takers, not afraid of risk...“Innovative Work Behaviour” (IWB) : “the intentional introduction and application, within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption designed to significantly benefit the individual, group, organization, or wider society”, and as such “a construct that captures al behaviours through which employees can contribute to the innovation process”.

Little is known about relationship between IWB and job insecurity. Below : a theory-driven model to better understand: The processes that explain the effects of job insecurity The nature and antecedents of IWBAims : Is there a relation between job insecurity and IWB ? Hypothesis based on (little) available research

: negative rel Gain insightin the processes that may account for this relationship : In this study by examination of

‘social exchange theory’ and ‘threat rigidity theory’ as underlying mechanisms (other possibility : latent deprivation model, ...)

The ModelComprehensive model, built on previous research on : Job insecurity (Bultena 1998, De Witte, 2005) Social exchang theory (Cropanzano& Mitchel 2005, Emerson 1976) Stress theory (Staw, 1981) Innovative work behaviour (Janssen 2000, West 2002)

Relationship between job insecurity and IWB

Quantitave job insecurity =“the perceived probability of job loss & the worries associated with this perception” : Is a stressor : “undesirable work demand that interferes with work achievement, and may twhart

personal growth & goal attainment” => Stress reactions, eg resistance to org change, exit behaviour, decrease in-role performance and organizational citizenship (Bultena, De Witte, West)

Empirical studies also suggest negative effects on employees’ IWB :o Play it safer and take less risks , more well-known routineso Shift priorities to more output centred focus (but when innovating, no output can be

assured with certainty)

Social Exchange theoryAn influential paradigm that is also valid iro exchanges at work, in an employee-employer relationship => an exchange requires a bidirectional transaction : “something is given and something else is expected in return”.Job insecurity can be seen as a violation by the employer of the LT obligation of providing stable cont employment. Research shows following impact : Iro ‘organizational citizenship : Possibly, job insecure employees might reduce workeffort and

commitment, and there decision on what to invest in the firm concerning efforts & behaviours. Iro iwb :

o Khazanchi & Masterson (2011) : developed first social exchange model of creativity. Focused on perceived organizational support & leader-member exchange.

o Jansen (2000) : explicitly links quality of social exchange relationship as determining innovative behaviour

o Scott & Bruce (1994) : direct relationship between quality of exch rel with supervisor and creativity.

Thus, an environment with positive social exchange, may facilitate innovative work behaviour.

Now, 2 more tangible measures of an unjust social exchange framework. Both are alike iro the idea of reciprocity of costs & gains and fit in the social exchange theory, ‘reciprocity deficit’ BUT different perspectives => complementary !

1. Breach of the psychological contract (inter-individual comparison, eg with employer, more relational approach)

A psychological contract = “an individual’s belief in mutual obligations between that person and another party, such as an employer”

Transactional psychological contract : ST agreement, limited involvement in eachothers lives & activities are specified, employee extert tasks in return for specific monetary reward

Relational psychological contract : open-ended, LT agreement, exchange of socio-emotional elements (ie loyalty vs security). Dominant in Western societies

Job insecurity => employees experience their psychological contract as violeted (De Witte, 2003). Based on psychological contract theory => Breach may be associated with decreased IWB : leads to less investment of the employee, as a way to no longer feed deprived :

Feldman & Lam (2010) : first to empirically test, and found negative effect indeed, interpreted as a form of negative reciprocation and considered a reaction to the breach of psychological contract.

De Witte (2006) : found relational psychological contract breach to explain associations between job insecurity and several outcome variables, BUT only valid for attitudes (eg job & life satisfactions, commitment,..) but not for behaviours (eg self-rated performance).

Here, we build on research of De Witte (2006) by hypothesizing that psychological contract breach can also be considered as mediator in the relationship between job insecurity and IWB.

2. Fairness in the balance in efforts & rewards (intra-individual comparison of eff & rew, more economic approach)ERI-model = Effort Reward Imbalance Fairness : states that the effort one exerts at work forms part of a socially organized exchange process to which society at large contributes in terms of rewards. Employees are preoccupied with being treated fairly : if they perceive an imbalance, behaviour and beliefs will be changed in order to restore fairness (Tsutsumi, 2004!) => Leads us to conclude that job insecurity is a possible antecedent of effort-reward imbalance !

This cognitive & behavioral reduction of efforts and/or maximize rewards is in line with : ‘cognitive theory of emotion’ (Lazarus, 1991) Expectancy theory of motivation (Schönpflug & Batman, 1989)Empirical evidence confirmed the influenc eof ERI on IWB : De Jong & Den Hartog (2007) : found positive relation between rewards & IWB. Tsutsumi (2004 ) : ERI is stressful leading to sustained stress reactions, inhibiting IWB (see

further) Jansen (2000) : investigated role of ER-fairness in relationship between job demands and IWB.

Found that employees are motivated for IWB if they perceive their efforts as being fairly rewarded, and behave less innovatively if perception of under-rewarded in order to prevent further exploitation. (attributes moderating role to ERI, others assign explanatory role)

Conclusion : perceptions of effort-reward fairness seem to influence the extent to which an employee responds innovatively to a demanding work situation.

Before : focus on employees decreased intention for innovative behavior as response to job insecurity (restore perceived imbalance in social exchange)Now : impact of job insecurity on employees’ cognitive rigidity, impeding IWB.

Threat rigidity theorySays that “A perceived threat leads to rigid forms of behaviour. Based on this, hypotes that strain from job insecurity : has harmful impact on how employees process information impacts the control they excert over their own behaviour (decreasing IWB)

1. The threat of job loss

Rigid behaviour : “persistence or perseverance in an induced method of problem solution that is possibly no longer the best way to solve the presented problem or to reduce the threat”. Focus on

perception of “an environmental event that has impending negative or harmful consequences for the entity”. (Lazarus, 1966). Here :

1) limited to individual’s response2) rigid response is not always negative : depending on magnitude of change, can be functional or

dysfunctinonal.

Two mechanisms iro threat causing rigid behaviour :

‘Reduction in information processing’ : Information processing as mediating mechanism

“The tendency when exposed to externally sourced stress to access only a subset of information or engage in what has been called in the psychological literature premature closure” (muurlink 2012)=> reduction of info processing in 2 ways:

1) increased reliance upon internal hypotheses and prior expectatoins (premature closing, ie before considering all available options)

2) restricted attention : towards dominant or central cues and away from peripheral cues= “Tunneling hypothesis” : Kohn (1954) : perceptual relationhips are influenced by strong emotions, increased focus on the

threat and reduction of focus on non-threat related,peripheral information or tasks Easterbrook (1959) : empirical support for decrease of perceptual field by stress an affects the

scan that one makes of his surrounding => as arousal increases, ability to focus on peripheral cues erodes.

Empirical support iro many stressors and tasks, both in labo and in real-world.

Since job insecurity is a threat => expect similar effects. Indeed : Cascio (2003) : associations with increased risk-adverse thinking Carnevale (1998) : decreased cognitive flexibilityThus, employee will be more attentive to threat-related info and less to job execution => self-regulatory activities such as monitoring their level of job insecurity, eg keeping up wiht the rumours. Also worrries over the future an possible unemployment => negative relation between job insecurity and task-related attention was ofound (Probst, 2001).

As IWB often result from work-related problems or incongruities, attention to work-related aspects is crucial :

Will not perceive these May experience problems gathering info from multiple sources and recognize new connections-

ideas (Probst)

‘Constriction in control’ : Limited cognitive self-direction as mediating mechanism

Staw (181) : when a treat occurs, employees may experience “constriction in control’ which corresponds to ‘the tendency of individuals to emit dominant, well-learned or habituated responsed in threat situations’ and an increased drive. We will adapt this mechanism in 2 ways :

1) Due to confusion over the concept of control in job insecurity research, we will use synonym ‘limitiation in cognitive self-direction.

2) We will follow Zajonc (1965) instead of Staw : increased drive and emitting dominant responses do not happen simultaneously, but the first causes the latter and the latter is just a manifestation of limited cognitive self-direction :stressors => arousal => increased drive => dominant inflexible responses (biological, eg heart rate)

DUS : When experiencing job insecurity, dominant response consists of behaviours related to emotion

focused coping such as withdrawal and intentions to quit. Why ? Insecurity is perceived as uncontrollable & unpredictable => problem-focused coping perceived as useless. IWB contrasts with withdrawal, as it demands extra effort & engagement => IWB is unlikely to follow from job insecurity, due to increased arousal.

Increased tendency to dominant responses and IWB is not dominant response..

Research directions

Three directions proposed for future research, to improve technical knowledge : 1) a) testing whether there is a relationship between job insecurity and IWB

b) if this relationship can be explained by threat rigidity theory, unjust exchange or bothc) investigating the causality of the relationship by testing the proposed model

2) investigating the validity of these relationships when employees suffer from insecuirty rgd valued aspects of the job (qualitative job insecurity) as opposed to quantitative job insecurity

3) contributing to the debate about whether sub-dimensions of IWB such as idea-generation, idea implementation are influenced by different antecedents.

1) This chapter assumes negative relation, but little attention has been paid to these topics. Based on threat rigidity theory, and dominant responses,searching for new solutions to problems may be a dominant resonse and as such increased under threat ? may be supported by perception tha t IWB is positively related to job and image outcome ? Then IWB could be instrumental in decreasing perception of job insecurity ? Need for longitudinal studies !Implications for practice : reduce insecure feelings by organizational communication ? or stimulate IWB by expecting it from all (since it would increase job security) ? Gurantee sufficien tlevel of rewards to insecure employees ?

2) Both frameworks seem applicable to the qualitative component as well.

Zelfstudie 1b)QUALITATIVE & QANTITATIVE JOB INSECURITY AND IDEA

GENERATION :A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT PERSPECTIVE

(Wendy Niesen, Hans de Witte ea)

Introduction

Increase in restructuring and bankruptcies : Have increased “the subjective perceived likelihood of involuntary job loss” :

Quantitative job insecurity : anticipation of job loss as such Qualitative job insecurity : ‘perceived threats of impaired quality in the employment

relationship, such as deterioration of working conditions, lack of career opportunities, decreasing salary development’

Both are stressors (see other article)

Societal and industrial changes : Have increased the need for innovation (Europe 2020) iro productivity & growth, changing market

environments. Innovation can be displayed by all organisational members, thru a wide range of behaviours,

labelled as innovative work behaviour (IWB) : “the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organisation of ideas, processes or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organisation or wider society”.

Two phases (West, 2002) : 1. Idea generation : “the production of new and useful ideas by an individual or a small group

of individuals working together”. ~the creativity stage, but more than creativity : not only new ideas but also apply existing systems to new situations.

2. Idea implementation (not in this article.) Research will concentrates on supervisor’ innovation behavior, because :

1. Expected, frequently confronted with new sit, autonomy => part of their job requirements2. Generally believe that IWB will lead to succesful performance (since expected from

employer)

This study will add on relation between job insecurity and idea generation in 4 ways : Will tap into a new category of possible correlates of job insecurity, ie idea generation, and in

broad perspective : consequences of today’s insecure economic climate on employee’s idea generation

Offer insights in link with qualitative job insecurity (not much research yet) Test relative importance of both types of stressors (opinions differ concerning strength) Attempt to explain thse relationships by including psychological contract breach

1. Quantitative job insecurity & idea generation Stituated between employment and unemployment, uncertainty causing strain and stress reactions

=> stressor Withdrawal from the job is common coping stratgy. Can manifest itself in different ways :

o Decreased efforto Increased intention to leaveo Higher resistance to change

As idea generation is behaviour “for the purpose of improvement” iro workproblems and directed to the organisation, lowering it can be iterpreted as manifestion of employee withdrawal.

Hypothesis 1a : Quantitative job insecurity is negatively related to idea generation.

2. Qualitative job insecurity & idea generation Not to be underestimated ! Studies found neg relationship with intentions to quit, commitment,

trust, satifsaction and well-being => stressful nature but largely “ignored” so far. Since stressor, can also trigger withdrawal resoponse. Eg. Hellegren (1999) : pos rel with

intention to leave org

Hypothesis 1b : Qualtitative job insecurity is negatively related to idea generation.

3. Comparing both types of job insecurity

Three views iro relative strength contradict : 1. Both are equally detrimental (De witte)2. Strength depends on outcome investigated (Hellgren)3. Quantitative job insecurity is most detrimental for all outcomes (Greenhalgh)

Empirical evidence in favor of 1. But scarce and limited to well-being and health-related behavior (cannot be extrapolated to behavioral outcomes !). Based on framework of Greenhalg & Jahoda, we expect quantitative Job insecurity to be more detrimental concerning behavioral outcomes (losing the job perceived as more threatening since entails also the loss of important functions !)

Hypothesis 1c : the relationship between quantitative job insecurity and idea generation will be stronger than that between qualitative job insecurity and idea generation.

4. Job insecurity, psychological contract breach and idea generation

Psychological contract : “a set of beliefs regarding what employees are to give and receive with respect to their employer” (Roehling, 1997). Job security is included as promise (Westen). A breach occurs when one party perceives another to have broken their promise.”Both types of job insecurity might cause psychological contract breach, but no reserach yet about relation with qualitative variant ! Prior research found effects of psychological contract breach on organizational commitment,

citizenship behavior and turnover intentions (Zhao, 2007). Innovation studies reported that leader-member relationship and trust (Lee, 2009) are both

positively related to innovative behavior. Positive relation between psychological contract fulfillment and IBW has been observed (both

white & blue collar !) Longitudinal study (Feldman, 2010) shows causal relation between breach and generation of ideas

related tosaving money, cutting costs etc. Since prior studies demonstrate that breach functions as mediater in the relation between quantitative job insecurity and employees’ job attitudes, well-being & performance :

Hypothesis 2a : Psychological contract breach mediates the relationship between between quantitative job insecurity and idea generation

Hypothesis 2b : Psychological contract breach mediates the relationship between between qualititative job insecurity and idea generation

METHOD

1) Sample & procedures

Online NL/FR questionnaire in large BE company in service industry, with agencies spread over country (over last decade, several restructurings).

Questionnaires tested in Jan 2012 before sending out. 29.500 employees received enveloppe with link to online questionnaire. 54% completed it. Only data from supervisors are used here (see theory) :

o 1.426 of wich 61.6 % male and 38.4% womano 66% 35-54 years, 20% over 55 years, rest 25-34o 3% no highschool degree, 76% degree, 20% higher education or universityo 54% longer than 10 years, 5,5% less than 5 years => High level of task related knowledge !o 85% full-time, 60% dutch-speaking.

2) Measures (7-point Likert scale !)

Qualitative job insecurity : 3 items eg. ‘I feel insecure about future work conditions’ Quantitative : 3 items from Job insecurity scale (Dewitte), idem scale, eg‘chances are, I will soon

lose my job’ Idea generation : 4 items from IWB scale (De Jong) iro idea gen component, eg. I gen original

solutions for problems’ Psychological contract breach : 4 items on scale of Robinson (2000) : to which extent has employer

fulfilled promises made during recruitment, eg ‘I have not received everything promised to me in exchange for my contributions’

Control variables : Many socio-demographic variables relate to job insecurity, idea generation or IWB => controlled for 7 variables : Gender Age : Intervals used with 34-44 as reference group. Younger employees had stronger turnover

intentions (suggests more withdrawal) and more innovation oriented. Level of education : higly educated are more innovative => those having a high school degree

taken as reference group for intervals. Blue-collar ofthen lower educated, suffering from more job insecurity

Organisational tenure : since previous jobs in same organisation might give useful insights for idea generation in current job => intervals with 5-10 years as reference group. Employees with longer tenure were less likely to withdraw from work.

Job tenure : reflects task-related knowledge. 1-5 years as reference group. Fulltime employment : full-time employees have more time to be innovative at work. Language

3) Analyses

Performed with SPSS and a macro of Preacher & Hayes (2004) Hierarchical regression analyses used to investigate relationship between both types of insecurity

and idea generatin Relative weight analysis to test relative importance of both types Regression analyses a bootstrapping to test indirect relatoinship between job insecurity & idea

generation.PAG 15 : details kennen ???

RESULTS

Descriptive statisticsTable 1 : Means, standard deviations and correlations of used scales. Mean of qual job ins quite high, mean of quant relatively low => indicates supervisors feel more

insecure about changes in their job than losing it. Both types neg related to idea generation

Both types pos related with psychological contract breach (=> neg related to generation of new ideas)

Quantitative job insecurity showed strongest relation with psychological contract breach, but correlations of both kinds of job insecurity with idea generation were same size !

Hypothesis 1 : Job insecurity & idea generation 1a confirmed bu regression analysis : significantly negative relation 1b confirmed by hierarchical regression analysis 1c proportional contribution almost identical and 95% confidence interval is adjacent to zero =>

both have independent,equally strong relationship with idea generation. REJECTED

Hypothesis 2 : The mediating role of psychological contract breach Hierarchical regression analysis indicates significant direct relationship between breach and idea

generation, after controlling for both types of job insecurity. Moreover, relation between both types and idea generation becomes non-signifcant after including

psychological contract breach => suggesting full mediation Bootstrap analysis (5000 resamples) of Preacher & Hayes further supported this conclusion. =>

confirmed

DISCUSSION

Practical implications & theoretical relevance : Contributes to EU vision about importance of innovation for economic growth Responds to gap in literature iro associatoin between job insecurity and idea generation (aim

1,2,3) Explored mediational role of psychological contract breach in this relationship (aim 4)

Rgd hypothesis 1 : overall support. Interstingly, both types play a role, both can be viewed as stressors that influence employee functioning ! both equally negative consequences !

Rgd hypothesis 2 : findings reinforce view that psychological contract breach is important to explain association between job security and idea generation. Research needed to invesigate othe rprocesses (eg decreased sense of control)

Adds to literature : while most studies investigate antecedents that promote IWB, this study investigate an

antecedent that was expected to hinder a specific part of this behaviour. Investigated demographic variables associated with idea generation (no significant effet of

gender or level of eduction, in contrast with other studies !!)

Limitations : 1) Only self-reported cross-sectional data => common method bias AND lack of causal inferences

o Iro method bias : emphasized that study was anonymous and voluntary, and no wrong or right answers Maybe next studies could focus more on objective measure of ide gagneeration (instead of empl point of view)

o Iro causal inferences : we categorized job insecurity as an antecedent of idea generation and not vice versa. A reversed relationship may also exist in which engaging in IWB causes employees to feel more secure => need for longitudinal studies.

2) Low response rate (54%) : representativeness ? we could not compare with overall organisational compositions. Moreover, only supervisors taken into account.

3) Used scales were shortened versions of original scales BUT all were sufficiently consistant with Cronbach’s alpha’s ranging from .70 to .90

4) Focus on first component of IWB => future research..

CONCLUSION & PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study answered call of West (2002) to focus separately on different dimensions of IWB

Practical implications for organisations : To stimulate idea generation => maintain job security of their workforce Perception that promises are kept => especially in the light of restructurings & change !

Zelfstudie 1c) :PESTEN OP HET WERK (Notelaers, Baillien, De Witte )

InleidingMomenteel in de belangstelling : veranderde arbeidswetgeving, maatschappelijk debat

Wat is pesten op het werk ? Consensus in Europa over definitie : “een sociale interactie waarin een WN aanhoudend (min 6

maanden) en herhaaldelijk (min wekelijks) doelwit is van negatief sociaal gedrag (bijv. roddelen, achterhouden van info, sociale isolatie)”. Vormen ernstige bron van stress (stressor !) indien vaak en consistend herhaald (Zapf, 1999)

Gaat om een escalerend proces met 4 fasen : 1) Voornamelijk indirect, discreet, subtiel negatief gedrag (zelfs doelwit zelf kan het moeilijk

duiden)2) Negatief gedrag wordt direct : doelwit w openlijk aangevallen, vernederd of sociaal

geisoleerd (echte pesterijen beginnen)3) Doelwit kan zich steeds moeilijker verdedigen : steeds meer uit sociale contacten geweerd,

raakt sociaal geisoleerd en kan niet meer ontsnappen aan slachtofferrol (stigmatisering)4) Sociale isolatie zet door en voortdurend negatief bejegend. Kans dat doelwit (vaak met

stilzwijgende toestemming leiding) w verbannen vd werkplek (uitstoting), via vrijwillig of gedwongen ontslag of LT ziekte.

Het meten van pesten op het werk‘Subjectief’ : zelfpercceptie, één algemene vraag of de mate warin men zichzelf als slachtoffer beschouwt. Meest gehanteerd ! Voordelen : kort, hoge begripsvaliditeit (en hoge constructvaliditeit als voorafgegaan door

definitie) Nadelen : niet alle respondenten lezen definitie, geen inzicht in aard negatieve gedrag,

vertekening door bijv. schaamte, niet willen erkennen, geen goede meetbetrouwbaarheid (slechts één vraag)

‘Objectief’ : lijst met negatieve sociale gedragingen aanbieden en respondent geeft aan in welke mate doelwit was. Methode in opmars, steeds nieuwe vragenlijsten w ontwikkeld ! NL/BE : “Short Negative Acts questionnaire(SNAQ). Voordelen : info over aard en frequentie gedrag, niet respondent maar onderzoeker bepaalt wie

slachtoffer is (via operationele of statistisch criteria) => beperkt emotionele en cognitieve vertekeningne. Sterke inhoudsvaliditeit

Nadeel : zelfperceptie slachtoffer zelf blijft buiten beeld, bemoeilijkt ocnstructvaliditeit

Beide methodes brengen complementaire werkelijkheid aanbod (zie versch validiteiten) => combineren !!!

SNAQ : In BE ontwikkeld ter meer gebalanceerde meting van pesten, verkorte versie van NAQ. Nu in vele EU landen gebruikt. Hoge betrouwbaarheid, goede inhouds-construct- en predicatieve validiteit. BE-refdb omvatte eind 2011 ongeveer 20.000 observaties. Via latente klassenanalyse kunnen met SNAQ groepen w onderscheiden die verschillen in mate en aard van gerapporteerd gedrag.

Pesten op het werk in kaart gebracht

Nielsen (2010) : meta-analyse toont aan dat prevalentiecijfers afh zijn van de meetmethode, steekproef en tijdspanne die de meting omvat en van criterium om slachtofferschap van pesten te bepalen :

Vergroting tijdsspanne => hogere prevalenties Representatieve steekproeven => lagere prevalenties Zelfperceptie (1-4%) <=> Objectieve meeting (8-15%) In subjectieve benadering : “minstens wekelijks” en “soms” w gebruikt als criterium <=> in

objectieve : één-act criterium (wie minstens wekelijks één act rapporteren). Daarna werd 2,3,4-act criterium voorgesteld maar zelden opgevolgd…reduceert bovendien pesten tot “alles of niets” fenomeen

Recent onderzoek : toepassing van “latenteklassenclusterbenadering” : indeling in 6 groepen, obv antwoordpatroon bij objectieve meting. Benadering werd aanv toegepast op gegevens vd NAQ bij een steekproef van BE werknemers. Deze groepen suggeren escalerend proces :

1) Groep 1 : ‘niet gepesten’ (35%) : nooit blootgesteld aan negatief gedrag2) Groep 2 : ‘beperkte werkgerelateerde kritiek’ (28%) : beperkt blootstelling aan

werkgelateerdneg gedrag3) Groep 3 : ‘beperkt negatief bejegenden’ (16,5%) : zelden blootgegesteld aan negatief

gedrag, behalve sociale uitsluiting4) Groep 4 : ‘soms gepesten’ (9%) : af en toe blootgesteld aan (alle types van) negatief gedrag

(persoonlijk, werkgerelateerd en sociale isolatie)5) Groep 5 : ‘werkgerelateerd gepesten’ (8%) : frequent blootgesteld aan werkgerelateerd

neg gedrag, maar slechts in beperkte mate aan persoonlijk negatief gedrag6) Groep 6 : ‘slachtoffers’ (3,5%) : frequent doelwit van alle typoes negatief gedrag (pers,

werk, soc isol)

Gevolgen van pesten op het werk

Gevolgen voor slachtoffers

Cross-sectionele studies : Sterke correlatie met algemene en meer specifieke gezondheidsklachten (rugproblemen,

maagontstekingen, chronische ziekten) (Einarsen, 2011) Cortisolniveau in speeksel toont aan dat ’s ochtends minder energie hebben dan niet-geesten, zelfs

identiek nvieau als mensen die lijden aan PTSS of chronische vermoeidheid (Hansen, 2006) Samenhang met psychosomatische klachten en algemene stressymptomen : meer mietkeeren,

hogere herfstelbehoefte, lagere slaapkwaliteit (Notelaars, 2011), meer kans op burnout, meer zelfmoordgedachten.

Longitudinale studies : Onderbouwen dit en tonen aan dat pesten deze klachten veroorzaakt, en niet andersom Na 6 maanden pesten => lagere toewijding (component bevlogenheid). Na 1 jaar => lagere

arbeidstevredenheid Langdurig gepest => stijging van 60% in hart- en vaatziekten In het verleden slachtoffer geweest => daarna 2x meer kans op depressie dan wie nooit gepest

was Na 1 jaar nog steeds symptomen als gewichtsstoename, eetluststoornissen, migraine, spierpijnen

Gevolgen voor getuigen Rapporteren meer stress en mentale spanning, lagere arbeidstevredenheid (Hubert, 2001) Exp studie : situatie herinneren waarbij men slachtoffer of getuige was v pesten => gerapporteerd

stressniveau bij slachtoffers en getuigen identiek ! Idem hartslag => verhoogde emotionele opwinding bij terugvinden

Steekproef gemeentewerkers : getuigen namen 2x zoveel slaap- en kalmeermiddelen als andere collega’s.

Rapporteren ook significant lagere algemene gezondheid dan collega’s die nooit slachtoffer/getuige waren.

Gevolgen voor de organisatie Negatief verband tss pesterijen en organisatiebetrokkenheid (Hubert, 2001) en organiz citizenship

(Bowling, 2006) Verhoging contraproductief werkgedrag (Bowling) en hogere verloopintentien (Einarsen, 2011) Negatief effect op werkefficiëntie en prestatie (Einarsen) KOSTEN :

o Inschakelen bemiddelaars, spenderen werkuren aan oplossing (directe kost)o Schade reputatie (indirecte kost)o Bijv. Fins ziekenhuis : pesterijen goed voor 2% ziekteverzuim of jaarlijks 150.000€

(Einarsen, 2011)

Antecedenten van pesten op het werk

Individuele antecedentenVnl cross-sectionele studies : persoonlijkheidskenmerken die pers ‘kwetsbaarheid’ impliceren belangrijk (Vartia 2003) :

verlegen karakter, overgevoeligheid, achterdocht, symptomen van angst en depressie, beperkte soc vaard (Zaph)

mbt Big Five perskenmerken : vnl relatie met neuroticisme (ie geringe emotionele stabiliteit) (Einarsen 2011). Minder eenduidig voor andere vier kenmerken.

Wellicht niet in elke situatie zelfde rol voor persoonlijkheidskenmerken : belangrijker bij lage intensiteit van negatief gedrag dan hoge (Nielsen, 2008) Subgroepen die getypeerd w door telkens andere specifieke perskenmerken (Glaso, 2009)Er moet dus meer zijn dan enkel persoonlijkheid : Pesterijen hangen ook samen met inefficiënte copingmechanismen (Einarsen, 2011), Met vermijdende conflicthanteringsstijl (Zapf, 1999) Afwijken van andere collega’s

Werkgerelateerde antecedentenWerkomgevingshypothese (Leymann, 1993) : “Pesten op het werk heeft vooral te maken met stressvol, conflictueus en slecht georganiseerd werk, en minder met individuele persoonlijkheidskenmerken”. Meeste studies beschouwen werkomgeving dus als “trigger” en identificeren antecedenten op 3 niveaus : Op niveau vd functie (werkkenmerken) : rolconflicten, werkdruk, baanonzekerheid (cross-

sectioneel, Notelaers, 2011). Longitudinaal bevestigd voor werkdruk (Baillien, 20011). Werkkenmerken die pesten tegengaan zijn autonomie, vaardigheidsbenutting, rolduidelijkheid en feedback. Longitudinaal bevestigd voor autonomie.

Kenmerken vh team : veel minder onderzoek. Ps verband met competitie tss collega’s, met taakgerichte /autocratische of laissez-faire leiderschapsstijl, met hoeveelheid conflicten binnen team, zeker indien in team forcerende conflicthanteringsstijl toepast. Pesten tegengaan : sociale steun van collega’s of leidinggevende, probleemoplossende conflichthanteringsstilj, ethisch leiderschap

Kenmerken vd organisatie : organisatieveranderingen (indirect), hierarchische of parallelle structuur, gebrekkige top-down communicatie. Pesten tegengaan : antipestbeleid.

Verklaringen“Driewegsverklaringmodel” (Baillien, 2001) : Drie processen verbinden deze antecedenten met pesten op het werk :

Op het niveau vd functie : de diverse antecedenten zorgen voor ‘STRAINS’ : putten uit, maken dat zich moeilijk kan verdedigen (‘general strain theory, Hunduja 2007). Distantieert zich mogelijk ook vh werk (‘sociaal interactionisme’, Felson, 1993) => steeds minder

investeren door niet meer te presteren dan verwacht, zoch sociaal isoleren. Andere collega’s merken gedrag op en ontwikkelen neg attitude tav collega => pesten uit

ongenoegen of wraak

Bekende Stressmodellen (job demand-control model, job demands-resources model) succesvol toegepast op pesten op werk !

Op het team niveau : de diverse antecedenten zorgen voor CONFLICTEN : bijv. halsstarrig bij punt blijven = op escalerende manier met conflict omgaan = >kans op

escalatie conflict en uitloop in pesten vergroot (Pesterijen als geescaleerd conflict, Zapf 2001) Dual concern theory toegepast om verschillende conflicthanteringsstijlen te onderozken : de

escalerende stijl ‘forceren’ (focus op eigen noden en niet op zorgen andere partij) resulteerde in méér pesten op het werk. De de-escalerende stijl ‘probleem oplossen’ (gevoelig voor beide) ging gepaard met minder pesten.

Op organisiatie niveau : de diverse antecedenten worden AANGEMOEDIGD, TOEGELATEN, UITGELOKT : Bijv. sterk competitieve cultuur, roddelcultuur, gebrek aan antipestbeleid, klimaat waarin weinig

aandacht is voor respectvolle sociale relaties.

Preventie van pesten op het werk“Preventietaxonomie voor pesten op het werk (Murphy, 2004) = Drie types van preventie … Primair : (ontstaan van ) pesten trachten te voorkomen Secundair : situatie zo goed mogelijk oplossen en escalatie voorkomen Tertiair : negatieve gevolgen vh incident reduceren

…. Die men op 5 niveaus kan toepassen :

De samenleving : wetgevingVooral in EU laatste jaren, goed voor primaire preventie, maar bijv. in Zweden te vroeg ingevoerd (2010, nog geen my draagvlak). Effectieve wetten veriesen ook voorzieningen en infrastructuur : bijv. toezicht arbeidsinspectie, bevoegdheden rechtbank (gevoel van straffeloosheid indien niet afgedwongen, in de regel weinig veroordelingen....).

De organisatie : anti-pestbeleidHelder overzicht van formele en informele stappen, correcte begeleiding voorzien in sec en tert prev. Niet gewoon kopieren van andere organisaties !! structuur om klachten te behandelen, bijv vertrouwenspersoon, training in conflicthantering, aanbieden leiderschapsstrainingen....

De groep : groepsanalyseBijv. interdependentie, gebrekkige groepscohesie kunnen voor spanningen en conflciten zorgen over taken en bevoegdheden. Om dit niveau te monitoren werd RATOG ontwikkeld (Bailien, 2008). Helpt onderzoekers om knelpunten in een team in kaart tebrengen en kan gebruikt w om groep te trainen hoe positief en productief met elkaar om te gaanRisico-Analyse Tool voor Ongewenst gedrag (op het werk) (RATOG) Meet antecedenten van pesten op het werk en geeft aan of ze veilig/problematisch/zeer

problematisch zijn. Ontwikkeld in 2 fasen :

o Vragenlijststudie bij 5000 Wns in 20 vlaamse organisaties => belangrijkste werkgerel antecedenten bepalen op 3 niveaus (zie boven) => 6 antecedenten :

Werk : rolconflict & baanonzekerheid Team : weinig sociale steun & veel conflicten Org : weinig mensgerichte organisatiecultuur & lage procedurale rechtvaardigheid

o Berekend vanaf welk afkappunt de antecedenten sterk/zeer sterk voorspellend karakter voor pesten krijgen, en zoVoor alle 6 antecedenten staafdiagram met 3 kleuren

W afgenomen in groep en voor ieder vd antecedenten weergegeven in vgl met referentiescore. Obv resultaten kan men ook afleiden welke componenten nodigzullen zijn i nbeleid !

De functie : taakontwerpLeymann (1993) : baseerde zich op Karasek’s JD-C model voor (her)ontwerp van taken ter preventie van pesten. Eerst vragenlijstonderzoek met risico-analyse, dan rapportering en bespreekbaar maken van risicofactoren. Bijv. In UK : ontwikkeling BRAT (bullying risk assessment tool) Bijv. In Denemarken : obv vragenlijstonderzoek interventies op maat vd organisatie.

Maar evaluatiestudies lieten weinig effect zien (soms zelfs tegengesteld) => nog veel werk aan de winkel mbt dit preventieniveau !!!

De medewerker : klachtenbehandelingCel die meeste aandacht krijgt: tertiaire preventie op individueel niveau..Rehabilitatie is mogelijk, na 1 jaar cognitieve gedragstherapie sterke vooruitgang voor 2/3 slachtoffers (Zapf)

Besluit en toekomst

De meeste studies naar antecedenten van pesten zijn cross-sectioneel, causale uitspraken w daardoor bemoeilijkt. Bijv. de relatie tss persoonlijkheidskenmerken en pesten : ook mogelijk is dat hun perskenmerken w aangeatst door pesten ?Longitudinale studies bevestigen voorlopig dat pesten w veroorzaakt door werkstress.Preventieonderzoek staat nog in de kinderschoenen : weinig maatregelen werden al op effectiviteit onderzocht.

Zelfstudie 1d) : A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE BULLYING :

TOWARDS A THREE WAY MODEL (Baillien, De Witte, De Cuyper)

Introduction

Other studies : remain explorative and do not analyse how factors cause bullying : various explanatory hypotheses

which urge theoretical and empirical integrations. Solely focus on victims <-> methodological difficulties to investigate perpetrators => no

explanation how one becomes perpetrator versus victim

Aim of this paper : develop a model of the development of bullying at the workplace, based on : antecedents identified in earlier research analytic induction of qualitative data of 87 real –life bullying cases)

Development of workplace bullying : Review of the literature

Definitie: zie ander artikel. Distinguish from general conflict : victim is forced into inferior position, perpetrator does not

intend to stop !

Antecedents victims Individual characteristics, indicators of weakness : shyness, symptoms of anxiety and depression,

neuroticism. Victims tend to be :

1. Submissive & non-controversial, conflict-avoiding2. Conscientious, traditional, dependable3. Quiet, reserved and opt for quiet & familiar surroundings4. Anxious, sensitive, difficulties in coping with stressfull situations

BUT empirical evidence shows differences in DEGREE, and the existence of a general ‘victim personality’ has been questioned (Zapf, Einarsen, 2003)

Antecedents perpetrators Wide range : ‘the abrasive personality’, ‘the authoritarian personality’, ‘the etty tyrant’ (Ashforth,

1994) Low score on perspective taking <-> high score on social dominance orientation (Parkins, 2006) Ireland, study 30 victims : all blame the dificult personality of the P (Seigne, 1998), sometimes

linked to P’s transfer to a superior position. Many argue that charateristics of the P overlap with factors relevant to work group (eg negative

climate) and the V (eg anxiety), as these may in turn provoke aggressive behaviour (Einarsen, 1994).

Studies iro work-related antecedents, linked 3 dimensions : 1. Job characteristics : eg role conflict, low autonomy, high workload, job ambiguity, job

insecurity, lack of skill utilization, monotonous tasks, forced cooperation, lack of goal clarity

2. Team level : lack of social support from colleagues, task-oriented, autocratic & laissez-faire leadership styles

3. Organization level : goal-oriented organisations, task-oriented leadership styles, formal power relationships & directive communication (less bullying reported in organisations with supportive climate), lack of anti-bullying policy, poor communication, organisational change.

Explaining the relationship between antecedents and workplace bullying Some argue that antecedents encourage bullying thru development of stress and strain by

antecedents : o Venting negative emotions on others, trigger search for scapegoats, reduce frustration thry

projection (Hoel&Salin, 2003)o Work-related stress can make employees distance themselves from perceived cause : may

violate expectatoins and norms, can encourage negative reactons : P is responding to V’s norm violatoin (idem)

Others argue that antecedents contribute to interpersonal conflict (Zapf,2001) : o Escalation model : if not solved, can lean to neg behaviour, can escalate in bullying. A

conflict is initially content-oriented but may over time become personal. In that phase, conflict management and relationship between employees involved is crucial (otherwise escalation into destructive behaviour) !

None of the proposed explanations account for the entire development process => this study of inductive case analyses will result in coherent model that can inspire future research.

MethodQualitative case study design (with in-depth analysis) was chosen, because : Provides opportunities for generating new theory and models Allows different realities of who is to blame : our focus on ‘reflective practitioners’ may at least

partially counter possible attribution errors : victims may not have a good understanding of their own cntribution..

Data collection & data analyses Analytic induction : “in-depth examination of cases to empirically establish the causes of, or

process behind, a specific phonomenon, here : workplace bullying.” Analysis performed in 2 steps :

1. Acutal case analyses : semi-structured interviews2. Integration of the cases analyses into a global scheme/model.

Step 1 : Performed by interviewees as reflective practitioners and coordinated by interviewer following the stages of analytic induction (Hammersley, 1989) :

1. IE and IR briefly discussed definition of bullying2. IE developed hypothetical explanation of the bullyin3. IE asked to describe recent (max 2 years) incident within the organization. By reflection &

discussing about the IE’s experience : he/she examined gradual development towards V and/or P. => facilitated by checklist with antecedents from literature, used as guideline to describe the process => case analyses conducted by ‘key informants’.

Step 2 : 1. Case analyses outlined in separate schemes, composed by the IR and reflection of

development as described by IE2. all schemes concerning same case combined into ‘case plan’ with different paths/sub

processes 3. all ‘case schemes’ conbined into a ‘global model’ reflecting step-by-step development

towards bullying.Sample 19 BE organizations (flanders), with more than 100 employees ; Recruited based on sectors

Flanders (NACE-codes): 4 manufacturing, 6 service sector, 9 non-profit secor Various key-informants (prevention workers, HR managers, union representatives). Most had

detailed knowlegde, 126 interviews took place (anonimity guaranteed) : Of 126 interviewees :

o 69% had knowledge of case (30% union reps, 18% confidence role, 13% HR managers, 8% prevention workers, 6% social workers), resulting in 87 interviews. Since PW and SW do not exist in all organisations => replaced by employees who frequently come in contact with cases (25%, eg medical doctors, managers,..). 51% female, 49% male.

o 31% had no knowledge => asked alternative questions, out of scope of this study 87 interviews : 32 uniqe cases (described by only one interviewee in the org) and 24 multiple

elaborated cases.

Results

Case examples ( selected from most elaborated cases – see table2)

Case 1 : Kelly feels bullied by Supervisor George (3 interviewees) G supervises one employee, feels frustrated about K’s capacities => results in active behaviour

interfering with K’s work and changes their work relationship (eg keeping back info) K attributies G’s behaviour to difficulties outside work, decides not to get involved. But when

negative work climate results in increased job dissatisfaction => decides to raise concern Conflict arises, G blames K to not respect him as supervisor Afterwards, K no longer motivated => poor performance => seems to justify G’s behaviour K turns to union as victim of workplace bullying.

Case 2 : The bullying dpt (4 interviewees) Tim recruited on dpt Z and introduced to colleagues. T is pleased with their interest in non-work

related issues (his hobbies, family status) and notes that making jokes is very important, feels accepted being object of these jokes.

Jokes become more personal (eg about sexual preference), soil his keyboard => T goes to HR manager and asks to be transferred to other dpt due to bullying

HR manager contacts prevention worker => seems not to be first case, and all similar : collect private information and then ridiculize. Bullying stops when they find another victim. BUT first time somebody asks transfer (most victims were happy when a new target appeared, and just took part in bullying as one of the perpetrators !!!!)

A three-way model of workplace bullying

Inductive case analyses suggest workplace bullying results from 3 tracks or pathways within a global model : Intrapersonal frustrations (“strains”) Interpersonal conflict Explicit or implicit stimulation thru team-and organizational characteristics (intra-group aspect)

Individual and work-related antecedents may influence these tracks by : Causing frustration, conflict or direct encouragement of bullying Affecting coping

Track 1 : The intrapersonal level : Workplace bullying as a result of frustrations (strains) and coping Confirmed by 68 IE’s Eg low job satisfaction, unhappy about recent org changes, sleepless nights,… Effective coping (eg discussing problem from start, being optimistic & focus on future

improvements) reduces chances of become V/P. <->Ineffective coping (eg ruminating, persistent complaining, stubbornly convinced that situation is unchangeable) resulted in workplace bullying.

o Active ineffective coping : (eg projecting on someone else) => becomes P (see case 1)o Passive ineffective coping (employee distances himself) => violation of norms => opens

door for Victimization (see case 1 : Kelly’s wait-&-see attitude, she did not immediately consider herself a victim)

Track 2 : the interpersonal level : Workplace bullying as a result of interpersonal conflict and how employee manages them (conflict management) Discussed with 79 IE’s Conflicts arising from work-related problems, personal issues between employees, or combination

o If de-escalating conflict management (eg listening, compromizing) : process towards becoming P/V stopped

o If escalating conflict management (eg forcing solution) : increased change of bullying. Here, level of (formal or informal) power was crucial : Powerful employees become P, powerless employees become V (see case 1)

Closely related to track 1 (perceiving someone as cause of frustration can create interpersonal conflicts AND most conflicts arouse frustrations & strain) => 21 of 87 IE’s explained their case by both.

Track 3 : the intragroup level : Workplace bullying as a consequence of aspects within the team or the organization which directly stimulate bulling Referred to by 8 IE’s Factors related to how people interact in team or org : eg ‘culture of gossip’, could suggest that

bullying is allowed, as it is not punished. (see case 2)

AntecedentsStudy also revealed potential role of individual & work-related antecedents within the global model :

Individual level : 11 V- characteristics were linked (eg weak, intolerant, history of victimization, unassertive) and 9 P-linked (eg intolerant, verly strict)

Work-related level : numerous aspects !(eg high workload-job ambiguity- insecurity, complexity, low autonomy)

Team- or organizational level : 3 clusters : 1. Task vs Employee oriented focus : good balance reflects in antecedents like supportive

culture, people- and task oriented leadership styles.2. Negative vs Too informal atmosphere : eg high nr of conflicts, lack of clear bounderies

between work-related & private issue. Balance reflects in cosy atmosphere, and strong organizational commitment

3. Power relationships & hierarchy : antecedents with too little (eglaissez-faire) vs too much (eg many hierarchy levels). Balance reflects in flexible hierarchy, focus on autonomous teams.

If balance on these 3 clusters, will prevent deployment of workplace bullying. Individual as well as work-related characteristics may affect the tracks of the global model towards bullying in 2 ways :

1) They form the basis for frustrations, conflict and direct encouragement of bullying2) They influence the employee’s coping with frustations and conflict.

The characteristics cause frustration (‘stress’) or conflict, or directly stimulate bullying : Characteristics of both individual, job, team/org seem to be STRESSORS that can lead to FRUSTRATIONS :Eg in case 1 : prevention worker highlighted stereotypical thinking of G & high workload, union member highlighted job ambiguity, informal initial relationship : K close friend of his wifeBy contrast : characteristics of the team and the org that directly encourage bullying (ie path 3) do not belong to the organizational and team dimensions => illlustrated by union rep in case2, mentioned size of the org : it is easy here to develop an own gorup culture…

The characteristics influence coping and conflict management :2 IE’s linked K’s passive attitude and escalating conflict mangmeng. HR manager : she had a temp contract, wanted to prove herself, maybe encouraged her into passive attitude.In case 1 : staff member of social service attributed K’s passive reaction to a reckless policy against bullyingn, with the manager holding the only position of ‘confidence person’.

Conclusion & discussion

The model 44 IE’s related the case to more than one path of the global model Model was replicated in a F/U study among 47 small & medium-sized organisations. Findings

suggest that our model could be generalized.

The 3-way model and earlier research & theory

Fits in earlier theoretical frameworks on individual level : Bullying may be caused by active-inefficient coping with frustration => aligns with Berkowitz’s

(1989) ‘Revised Frustration Agression Theory’ (claims that stressful work env can lead to aggression towars others thru negative affects )

Bullying may result from passive-inefficient coping with frustrations => fits in ‘Social Interactionism’ (Felson, 1993) (states that stress increases probability of violating work-rleated expectations and social norms, which can then trigger bullying => Hoel : bullying can be seen as response to norm-violating behaviour)

Both theories advance opposite predictions about becoming a victim or perpetrator : RVAT : frustration may result in becoming P SI : strains may stimulate victimizationBut not mutually exclusive, rather complementary ! (see first track of the process !)

Fits in earlier theoretical frameworks on level of interpersonal conflict : Leymann (1996) : four-stage bullying model, based on 800 case studies :

1. ‘critical incident’, mostly escalated conflict2. Weak party is stigmatized in role as looser or victim, prejudices develop, increase bullying

behaviour3. In many cases, management tends to adopt prejudices, which further reinforces victim’s

role4. Victim leaves org due to sicknesss, absence, dismissal or turnover

Considers stage 2 to 4 as bullying, resulting from unresolved conflict in stage 1. Einarsen (1994) : considers powerlessness as explicit aspect of victimization : bullying differs from

usual conflict because victim is forced into an inferior, relatively powerless position.

Fits in earlier theoretical frameworks on level of team or organisation : Archer (1999) : empirical findings in paramilitary setting in UK, bullying was ‘institutionalized’ as

a means to ‘teach’ newcomers values & norms. This aspect has not received much attention in literature.

ADDS to literature : Enables to evaluate the relative importance of the different tracks. Iro of number of IE’s, frustrations & interpersonal conflicts seem to reflect main causes. In line with Einarsen : Distinguished ‘predatory bullying’ (venting frustrations on coworker) and

‘dispute-related bullying’ (conflict-based).But this study : elaborated on these concepts ! Predatory bullying seems to contain 2 subprocesses : active-inefficient coping and passive-

inefficient coping Higlichts reciprocal relation between predatory & dispute-related bullying : frustrations may

result in interpersonal conflicts, but interpersonal conflict can lead to frustrations thru the accumulatoin of neg feelings due to these confl.

Three-fold Implication for future researchLinks coping in bullying research with more general coping literature : Eg. ‘exit-voice-loyalty-neglect’ framework. Some obvious links need to investigated : frustration

(track 1) results in bullying when inefficient coping. EVLN-model gives 4 reactions of employees to work dissatisfaction obased on 2 unrelated dimensions : constructive vs deconstructive coping, and active vs passive coping.

The presented global model allows interpreting this EVLN in terms of the escalation of frustration into bullying :

o Voice (discuss problems) = active problem-solvingo Loyalty (wait for improvement and support org) : coping in ps way will stop development

into bulyingo Neglect : refers to Social interactionism and results in victimization (distance)o Exit (leaving job or work): scapegoating, refers to RFAM, which causes offending.

The threeway model highlights that the process of becoming V/P shows substantial overlap with fight or flight dynamics See 2 paths in track one : when threat is overwhelming, flight is more probable.

Step-by-step overview of the process => better understanding model suggests that antecedents identified in previous studies cannot always be considered as

true antecedents. Eg ‘lack of efficient coping styles’ (Einarsen) and ‘tendency towards avoiding conflict management styles’ (zapf) should be interpreted in terms of moderators : they do not ‘trigger’ as such, but determine if and how the antecedent (eg workload) can lead to becoming a victim or perpetrator of bullying.

Strenghts & limitations combining different perspectives, of key informaints : could reduce attribution errors of the victim

=> fairly objective & more complete analysis of the bullying process.BUT their views reamin subjective and retrospecitve interpretation of behaviour. Do not always know

all details as observors. Key infromants may be subject to other attribution errors, such as organizations reponsability,

blaming victim and perpetrator => future research might combine their perceptions with those of all parties involved (victim, perpetr)

No distinction was made between different P’s (colleaguaes, superiors, subordinates…) but may be relevant : different forms of bullying may emphasize different tracks within the model .Future studies may also formulate specific hypotheses concerning the components of and links between the different tracks of the model and investigate whether or nog quantitative data support them. To further complete this 3way model, future research may also explore which factors (eg indiv, workunit, job) influence the different tracks within the model.