Machteld van den Heuvel

Does meaning-making help during organizational change? : development and validation of a new scale.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is first, to test the validity of a new scale measuring the construct of meaning‐making, defined as the ability to integrate challenging or ambiguous situations into a framework of personal meaning using conscious, value‐based reflection. Second, to explore whether meaning‐making is distinct from other personal resources (self‐efficacy, optimism, mastery, meaning in life), and coping (positive reinterpretation, acceptance). Third, to explore whether meaning‐making facilitates work engagement, willingness to change, and performance during organizational change.Design/methodology/approach – Cross‐sectional survey‐data were collected from 238 employees in a variety of both public and private organizations.Findings – Confirmatory factor analyses showed that meaning‐making can be distinguished from other personal resources, coping and meaning in life. Regression analyses showed that meaning‐making is positively related to in‐role performance and willingness to change, but no...

How psychological resources facilitate adaptation to organizational change

The purpose of this 1-year follow-up study among 580 police officers is to investigate whether identity-related resources are positively related to adaptive behaviour during times of organizational change. Combining the social identity perspective with resources theories, we hypothesized that leader–member exchange (LMX) and personal resources (meaning-making and organization-based self-esteem) are positively related over time. In addition, we hypothesized that resources captured before change implementation, show a positive relationship with adaptivity captured during change. Structural equation modelling analyses showed that LMX and personal resources were positively related. Further, all T1 resources were positively related to T2 adaptivity. The study emphasizes the importance of managing identity-related resources during turbulent times, in order to foster behavioural adaptation to change.

Weekly job crafting and leisure crafting: Implications for meaning‐making and work engagement

The present paper addresses two crafting strategies employees may display in different life domains in order to attain desired outcomes. On the one hand, job crafting is targeted at increasing social and structural job resources and challenging job demands. On the other hand, leisure crafting is the proactive pursuit of leisure activities targeted at goal setting, human connection, learning, and personal development. We hypothesized that job crafting relates positively to employee work engagement and meaning-making, especially when occupational role salience is high. Furthermore, we hypothesized that leisure crafting relates positively to meaning-making, especially when job crafting opportunities are low. Using a sample of 105 Dutch employees and a weekly survey with three measurements, we found support for most of our hypotheses. All job crafting dimensions related positively to work engagement when occupational role salience was high. Also, increasing structural resources related positively to meaning-making when occupational role salience was high. Leisure crafting related positively to meaning-making when job crafting opportunities were low. We discuss directions for future research on work and leisure, and suggest how employees and organizations may benefit by encouraging job and leisure crafting. Practitioner points Employees can proactively build their own work engagement using job crafting, especially when they view their work as a source of personal satisfaction and development. In workplaces where opportunities to craft are low, employees could focus on their leisure time as a source of meaning and self-reflection. Managers can empower and coach employees to proactively seek growth and self-fulfilment both at work and outside work, via job crafting and leisure crafting. Organizations and managers should encourage employees to flourish not only at work but also during leisure time, communicating that work and leisure are two life domains that can help and complement each other.

Religiousness in times of job insecurity: job demand or resource?

Purpose – Departing from the job demands resources model, the purpose of this paper is to investigate whether religion, defined as strength of religious faith, can be viewed as resource or as demand. More specifically, the authors addressed the question as to how job insecurity and religion interact in predicting burnout and change-oriented behavior. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted moderated structural equation modeling on survey data from a sample of 238 employees confronted with organizational change. Findings – Results were largely consistent with the “religion as a demand” hypothesis: religion exacerbated rather than buffered the negative effects of job insecurity, so that the adverse impact of job insecurity was stronger for highly religious employees than for employees with low levels of religiousness. Religious employees appear to experience more strain when faced with the possibility of job loss. Originality/value – The results of this study challenge and extend existing knowledge on the role of religion in coping with life stressors. The dominant view has been that religion is beneficial in coping with major stressors. The results of this study, however, suggest otherwise: religion had an exacerbating rather than a buffering effect on the relationship between job insecurity and outcomes.

The joint effects of promotion and prevention focus on performance, exhaustion and sickness absence among managers and non-managers

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the main and interaction effects of self-rated promotion and prevention regulatory focus on self-rated work performance, emotional exhaustion and sickness absence for managers and non-managers separately. The authors expected that promotion focus relates positively to performance and negatively to sickness absence, while prevention focus relates positively to exhaustion and sickness absence, both for managers and non-managers. Furthermore, the authors expected that promotion focus relates positively to performance but also to exhaustion and sickness absence when prevention focus is high, only for managers (i.e. a manager’s dual regulatory focus can be an effective but also exhausting leadership strategy). Design/methodology/approach: The authors tested the hypotheses via moderated regression analyses among two independent groups, managers (n=241) and non-managers (n=415). Findings: Promotion focus was positively related to managers’ and non-managers’ performance and negatively to non-managers’ sickness absence, while prevention focus did not have any main effects. As expected, managers’ promotion focus was positively related to managers’ sickness absence when managers’ prevention focus was high (i.e. dual regulatory focus). Furthermore, managers’ promotion focus negatively related to managers’ performance when managers’ prevention was high, failing to support the hypothesis. Practical implications: Promotion focus should be enhanced by organizations among leaders and employees. The authors also cautiously discuss the possibility of interventions comparing a promotion focus with dual-focus training. Originality/value: The authors contribute to the literature by examining the joint (rather than main) effects of promotion and prevention focus on work behavior and the authors address these links among managers and non-managers.