Definitions of fit and misfit in Northern Europe : insights from a cross-national research collaboration

This paper addresses the well-established definitional issues in the organisational fit and misfit literatures. In particular, it reflects upon the poorly defined nature of the terms &lsquo;fit&rsquo; and &lsquo;misfit&rsquo; and the way they are used by researchers across languages and national borders. During a scholarly visit of the second author to the first author&rsquo;s laboratory, it quickly became apparent that their understanding of the two terms was subtly different. These differences are discussed and implications developed. The paper ends with suggestions for how these differences might be systematically studied.<br /

The Food App is Watching You: The Relationship between Daily Algorithmic Control and Meaningful Work and the Role of Job Crafting

App work disrupted our traditional understanding of work as it introduced new technologies, such as algorithmic control. Based on the job characteristics theory, we put forward an important drawback of algorithmic control and a practice that might mitigate it. We test whether algorithmic control obstructs experiences of meaningful work through a lack of motivating job characteristics and the buffering role of bottom-up work design (i.e. job crafting). We conduct a daily diary study among 51 Belgian food app workers and test within-person relationships. Results show that on days that app workers experience high algorithmic control, they perceive their work as less meaningful than on days with little algorithmic control. Although daily motivating job characteristics could not explain this negative relationship, we found job crafting to enable app workers in attaining motivating job characteristics and meaningful work. Thereby we emphasize the importance of both top-down and bottom-up work design in a strive for meaningful work

Matching values—the key to success? From fit with the job to fit with the organisation

editorial reviewed(Her)ken je dit gevoel? Je hebt een aantrekkelijke job met voldoende autonomie en een mooi loon, je doet je werk goed, en je beschikt over de capaciteiten om een mooie carrière uit te bouwen binnen je organisatie. Maar toch lijkt er iets niet te kloppen... Je voelt je niet echt deel van het bedrijf. Je lijkt niet te denken zoals de anderen en voelt de dingen anders aan. Het lijkt wel alsof je niet thuis hoort in je organisatie. Wij hebben dit gevoel bij momenten zelf ervaren, maar vooral regelmatig herkend bij collega’s, vrienden en kennissen. Het loopt niet, er wringt iets. Je gaat met minder energie naar het werk en haalt minder voldoening uit wat je doet. Je komt in een situatie terecht waarbij je persoonlijke waarden onvoldoende in lijn liggen met het waardensysteem en de cultuur van je werkomgeving. We werken steeds meer en er wordt veel van ons verwacht, maar ook wij zijn gaandeweg steeds meer gaan verwachten van ons werk. We streven ernaar ons leven zo zinvol mogelijk in te vullen: we willen erbij horen, ons thuis voelen, echt iets betekenen – ook op het werk. Deze thematiek boeit ons al lang en maakt de hoofdfocus uit van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek binnen ons onderzoeksteam. Onze onderzoeksinteresse en expertise concentreren zich voornamelijk op de beleving van ‘fit’ (het gevoel te passen binnen de werkomgeving) en ‘misfit’ (het gevoel dat de puzzel niet klopt), en de manier waarop deze percepties ontstaan en evolueren door de tijd heen. Daarnaast bestuderen we eveneens het samenspel tussen deze verschillende soorten van fit (afstemming met de job, de leidinggevende en de organisatie als geheel) en tussen fit op het werk en fit buiten het werk

Understanding dynamic change in perceptions of person–environment fit:An exploration of competing theoretical perspectives

The longstanding assumption in person–environment (PE) fit research is that perceived fit embodies the subjectively experienced match between personal and environmental attributes and hence triggers affect and behavior (i.e., normal causation perspective). This argument is however increasingly debated, with some scholars suggesting that the causal flow may also run from affect and behavior to perceived fit (i.e., reverse causation perspective), and others even arguing that perceptions of PE fit are not substantially different from how people feel and think about their environment (i.e., synchronous relationship perspective). In this research, we propose that these three competing perspectives correspond with different assumptions on how PE fit perceptions dynamically change over time (i.e., by means of comparative reasoning, logical deduction, or heuristic thinking). We empirically validate these three competing perspectives by teasing out the causal ordering of the within-person relationships between perceptions of fit and workplace affect and performance. In two separate diary studies, one with weekly (N = 153) and one with daily (N = 77) repeated measures, support was found for the synchronous relationship perspective with heuristic thinking as the plausible underlying process. This research contributes to the PE fit literature by providing new insight into the dynamic nature of perceived fit

Identifying nurses' rewards: a qualitative categorization study in Belgium

BACKGROUND: Rewards are important in attracting, motivating and retaining the most qualified employees, and nurses are no exception to this rule. This makes the establishment of an efficient reward system for nurses a true challenge for every hospital manager. A reward does not necessarily have a financial connotation: non-financial rewards may matter too, or may even be more important. Therefore, the present study examines nurses' reward perceptions, in order to identify potential reward options. METHODS: To answer the research question "What do nurses consider a reward and how can these rewards be categorized?", 20 in-depth semi-structured interviews with nurses were conducted and analysed using discourse and content analyses. In addition, the respondents received a list of 34 rewards (derived from the literature) and were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived each of them to be rewarding. RESULTS: Discourse analysis revealed three major reward categories: financial, non-financial and psychological, each containing different subcategories. In general, nurses more often mentioned financial rewards spontaneously in the interview, compared to non-financial and psychological rewards. The questionnaire results did not, however, indicate a significant difference in the rewarding potential of these three categories. Both the qualitative and quantitative data revealed that a number of psychological and non-financial rewards were important for nurses in addition to their monthly pay and other remunerations. In particular, appreciation for their work by others, compliments from others, presents from others and contact with patients were highly valued. Moreover, some demographical variables influenced the reward perceptions. Younger and less experienced nurses considered promotion possibilities as more rewarding than the older and more senior ones. The latter valued job security and working for a hospital with a good reputation higher than their younger and more junior colleagues. CONCLUSION: When trying to establish an efficient reward system for nurses, hospital managers should not concentrate on the financial reward possibilities alone. They also ought to consider non-financial and psychological rewards (in combination with financial rewards), since nurses value these as well and they may lead to a more personalized reward system

Manifesto for the future of work and organizational psychology

This manifesto presents 10 recommendations for a sustainable future for the field of Work and Organizational Psychology. The manifesto is the result of an emerging movement around the Future of WOP (seewww.futureofwop.com), which aims to bring together WOP-scholars committed to actively contribute to building a better future for our field. Our recommendations are intended to support both individuals and collectives to become actively engaged in co-creating the future of WOP together with us. Therefore, this manifesto is openand never“finished.”It should continuously evolve, based on an ongoing debate around our professional values and behavior. This manifesto is meant, first of all, for ourselves as an academic community. Furthermore, it is also important for managers, decision makers, and other stakeholders and interested parties,such as students, governments and organizations, as we envision what the future of WOP could look like, and it is only through our collective efforts that we will be able to realize a sustainable future for all of us

Interview met Rein De Cooman: Hij past niet helemaal in het functieprofiel, maar heeft wél lef

status: publishe

Interview met Rein de Cooman: Rekruteerder, een beroep apart

status: publishe

Interview met Rein De Cooman: Rekruteren nu en later: ‘Opnieuw tijd maken voor diepe gesprekken’

status: publishe

Overeenstemming in waarden als sleutel tot succes: van fit met de job naar fit met de organisatie

status: publishe