4.3 Article

Challenged by Great Expectations? Examining Cross-Level Moderations and Curvilinearity in the Public Sector Job Demands-Resources Model

期刊

REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 319-337

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19884102

关键词

job demands-resources; vitality; performance; multilevel; curvilinearity

资金

  1. Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF) [BOF.STA.2015.0032.01-BOF15/STA/049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study extends the job demands-resources model in the public sector by examining the relationships between individual-level expected contributions and performance, mediated by vitality. It also explores the nonlinear effects of expected contributions and the moderating role of team-level developmental rewards on this mediation. The results suggest that a psychological perspective can be valuable for enhancing work engagement and creating healthy work environments in public administration.
This article extends the job demands-resources model in the public sector by including (a) cross-level (moderation) effects of job demands and resources, (b) positive and nonlinear effects of job demands, and (c) vitality as a key work engagement concept. Data on expected contributions and developmental rewards in public university colleges (n = 65 teams and n = 219 employees) reveals that individual-level higher expected contributions are associated with higher performance, mediated by vitality. This mediation is stronger in the presence of more team-level developmental rewards, suggesting a cross-level moderated mediation. We find indications for curvilinear effects of expected contributions. Contrary to expectations, these effects do not show inverted U shapes, but rather exponential relations. Our results contribute to bringing in a psychological perspective in public administration and suggest that public leaders could apply the job demands-resources model as a practical tool and vitality as a metric to create healthy and effective work environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据