4.3 Article

The management paradox: Self-rated employability and organizational commitment and performance

期刊

PERSONNEL REVIEW
卷 40, 期 1-2, 页码 152-172

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/00483481111106057

关键词

Organizational behaviour; Organizational performance; Human resource strategies; Skills; Competitive advantage; Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - This paper aims to investigate associations between self-rated employability (SRE) and affective organizational commitment and performance to probe the so-called management paradox, namely the idea that SIZE relates to performance, but also to reduced commitment. SRE concerns the workers' perception about all available (quantitative SRE) or instead better (qualitative SRE) job opportunities on the internal (internal SRE) and/or the external (external SRE) labour market. This leads to four types of SRE: internal quantitative SRE; internal qualitative SRE; external quantitative SRE; and external qualitative SRE. Design/methodology/approach - Analyses were based on a sample of 551 workers from nine organizations: a large Belgian organization providing human resource services, and eight schools. Hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling, accounting also for sector differences. Findings - Internal quantitative SRE associated positively with affective organizational commitment - directly as well as indirectly - through internal qualitative SRE. External quantitative SRE associated negatively with affective organizational commitment through external qualitative SRE. However, a direct and positive relationship was established between external quantitative SRE and affective organizational commitment. Finally, affective organizational commitment associated positively with performance. Originality/value - This study is among the first to empirically test and prove false the management paradox. Another strength is that this study advanced SRE as a multi-dimensional construct.

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