Person-organization fit in the employee selection process: an instructive framework for practitioners and implications for human resource development (HRD)

Includes bibliographical references.Leaders in modern organizations seem recently concerned with workforce turnover and strategies for hiring and selecting employees who have a low risk of early departure. The concept of screening employees for "fit" with the organization as a key strategy for reducing turnover is well documented. However, communication of the research findings to practitioners is limited. Additionally, the role of Human Resource Development (HRD) in developing people and preparing the organization to implement P-O fit strategies remains relatively understudied. To contribute to the P-O fit literature and HRD, this article performs an integrative literature review on P-O fit with a specific focus on organizational selection processes. An integrated process model for using P-O fit in the organizational selection process is presented

Meaning at work

Includes bibliographical references.The search for meaning is a human activity that has transcended centuries of human civilization. As applied disciplines that investigate the development of organizations and the humans who comprise them, organization development (OD) and human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners have engaged in a steady stream of research and theorizing related to what "meaning" or "meaningfulness" in work is, how it develops, and most prominently in the literature, how it is operationalized. This paper seeks to add to the understanding of the concept of the meaningfulness of work through engaging in a critical analysis of the historical and theoretical assumptions of the meaningfulness of work and how these assumptions developed over time. In addition, through the interpretation of the reviewed theory, this paper will discuss the implications for future research on the meaning of work

Endogenous VEGF Is Required for Visual Function: Evidence for a Survival Role on Müller Cells and Photoreceptors

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is well known for its role in normal and pathologic neovascularization. However, a growing body of evidence indicates that VEGF also acts on non-vascular cells, both developmentally as well as in the adult. In light of the widespread use of systemic and intraocular anti-VEGF therapies for the treatment of angiogenesis associated with tumor growth and wet macular degeneration, systematic investigation of the role of VEGF in the adult retina is critical.Using immunohistochemistry and Lac-Z reporter mouse lines, we report that VEGF is produced by various cells in the adult mouse retina and that VEGFR2, the primary signaling receptor, is also widely expressed, with strong expression by Müller cells and photoreceptors. Systemic neutralization of VEGF was accomplished in mice by adenoviral expression of sFlt1. After 14 days of VEGF neutralization, there was no effect on the inner and outer retina vasculature, but a significant increase in apoptosis of cells in the inner and outer nuclear layers. By four weeks, the increase in neural cell death was associated with reduced thickness of the inner and outer nuclear layers and a decline in retinal function as measured by electroretinograms. siRNA-based suppression of VEGF expression in a Müller cell line in vitro supports the existence of an autocrine role for VEGF in Müller cell survival. Similarly, the addition of exogenous VEGF to freshly isolated photoreceptor cells and outer-nuclear-layer explants demonstrated VEGF to be highly neuroprotective.These results indicate an important role for endogenous VEGF in the maintenance and function of adult retina neuronal cells and indicate that anti-VEGF therapies should be administered with caution

The Lived Experience of Meaningful Work in a Stigmatized Occupation: A Descriptive Phenomenological Inquiry

Experiencing work as meaningful has been linked to positive personal and organizational outcomes, such as increased engagement, job satisfaction, motivation, positive work behaviors, performance, and an overall sense of well-being (e.g. Lysova, Allan, Dik, Duffy, & Steger, 2019; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). However, while research seeking to explain the numerous factors that contribute to and result from the experience of meaningful work has proliferated, empirical studies directly investigating the lived experience of meaningful work in diverse occupational contexts are limited. Moreover, the lived experience of meaningless work and its relationship to the experience of meaningful work is not well understood. For workers in stigmatized occupations – jobs relegated by society as physically, socially, or morally undesirable due to the nature of the work – theorists have proposed numerous unique barriers to the experience of meaningfulness, thereby putting these workers at an increased risk for negative outcomes, including disengagement, lower commitment, and low satisfaction (e.g. Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Blustein, 2011). At the same time, direct inquiry into the lived experience of meaningful work in stigmatized occupations remains sparse. Hence, the purpose of this study was to better understand this experience. This was accomplished using a qualitative approach enacted through a descriptive phenomenological method to uncover what the experience of meaningful work was like for a group of university custodians. Drawing from emerging research (e.g. Bailey & Madden, 2017; Mitra & Buzzanell, 2017), the experience of meaningful work was assumed in this study to be tensional and necessarily linked to the phenomena of meaningless work and meaning-making in work. Consequently, these phenomena were also explored and related to the experience of meaningful work. The descriptive phenomenological analysis resulted in the identification of common elements of the experiences of meaningful work, meaningless work, and meaning-making in work among university custodians. Meaningful work was experienced by each custodian and was characterized by enacting a learned positive approach to work, having and experiencing pride in the work, maintaining meaningfulness, experiencing ongoing external validation of the self and work, enacting kinds of ongoing self-validation, helping others, and developing positive and personal relationships. However, meaningless work was also experienced by each custodian and was characterized by experiencing degradation by others, losing a sense of self at work, experiencing threats to the craft of cleaning, doing repetitive and purposeless tasks, and having kinds of negative experiences with supervisors and management. The experiences of both meaningful work and meaningless work emerged as interwoven meanings in work and were experienced as temporary, volatile, and fluid phenomena. This study adds to the body of meaningful work research and theory by clarifying how the construct of meaningful work is lived through in a stigmatized occupational context, and by exploring the phenomena of meaningless work and meaning-making in work and their relationship to the experience of meaningful work. Moreover, the study offers practitioners an understanding and awareness of the elements that may foster the experience of meaningfulness for workers in stigmatized occupations

Relationships Among Leadership Practices and Employees’ Experiences of Meaningful Work

The conceptualization of meaningful work as both positive and necessary for human thriving has inspired a steady stream of theory-building and empirical inquiry, seeking to both explain what meaningful work is and identify its antecedents and positive individual and organizational consequences (e.g., Chalofsky, 2003; Lysova et al., 2019; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010; Schnell, Höge, & Pollet, 2013; Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012; Wrzesniewski, 2003). However, while the understanding of factors that contribute to and result from the experience of meaningful work burgeons, knowledge of how people come to experience meaningful work in everyday work-life, and what that experience is like, remains limited (Bailey & Madden, 2019; Lips-Wiersma, Souter, & Wright, 2014; Mitra & Buzzanell, 2017). The consensus among meaningful work theorists agrees that leadership practices are key influencers on the process of experiencing meaningfulness (i.e., Frémeaux & Pavageau, 2020; Lysova et al., 2019). Several dimensions have been generally theorized as leadership practices that positively influence meaningful work, including moral correctness, values-based hiring practices, investment in learning and development, value-bounded autonomy, recognition, positive relationships, and purpose (e.g., Adams & Myles, 2020; Frémeaux & Pavageau, 2020; Isaksen, 2000; Morin 2008; Lips-Wiersma & Morris 2009). However, limited empirical inquiry into the nature of how these theorized practices affect meaningfulness and other associated positive outcomes exists. To better understand how leadership practices influence the experience of meaningfulness, we used exploratory factor analysis to build a 36-item Meaningful Leadership Scale (MLS) that captures the extent to which organizational leaders (from the perspective of employees) vary when it comes to theorized leadership practices of acting with integrity (Integrity), encouraging employees’ personal development (Potential), talking about why the work matters for society (Impact), talking about values during the hiring and onboarding process (Beginnings), fostering a connection with personal lives (Connection), and trusting workers with values-bounded autonomy (Freedom). Research Questions: 1. Do the leadership practices of acting with integrity, talking to employees about personal development, talking about why the work matters for society, talking about values during the hiring and onboarding process, fostering a connection with employees’ personal lives, and trusting workers with values-bounded autonomy positively correlate with the experience of meaningfulness in work? 2. How do MLS subscales (perceived leadership practices) and total scores predict unique variance in the experience of meaningfulness in work? 3. Do MLS subscales and total scores positively correlate with work variables mattering, intrinsic work motivation, job satisfaction, and employee perceptions of standards for environmental, social, and governance standards, and negatively correlate to withdrawal intentions and extrinsic work motivations? 4. How do the above relationships vary across demographic variables