jurnal psikologi industri dan organisasi

Original article

Scand J Work Environ Health 2007;33(1):37-44  Download:

Distinguishing between overtime work and long workhours among full-time and part-time workers

by Beckers DGJ, van der Linden D, Smulders PGW, Kompier MAJ, Taris TW, Van Yperen NW

Objectives This study aimed at disentangling the effects of overtime hours from those of long workhours. For part-time workers, overtime work is not intertwined with long workhours as it is for full-time workers. Therefore, part-time and full-time employees were compared with regard to the association between overtime and well-being (fatigue and work motivation). Such comparisons may also shed more light on the psychological meaning of overtime work for part-time and full-time workers.

Methods A survey study was conducted among a representative sample of Dutch employees (N=2419). An analysis of covariance was used to investigate whether the relationship between overtime and well-being differs between marginal part-time (8–20 contractual workhours), substantial part-time (21–34 hours), and full-time (≥35 hours) workers. Work characteristics (ie, job demands, decision latitude, and job variety), age, and gender were treated as covariates.

Results No significant relationship between overtime and fatigue was found for any of the contract-hour groups. For the part-time workers, overtime was not related to higher work motivation, whereas for full-time workers it was.

Conclusions It is important to distinguish between overtime and long workhours, given the differential overtime–motivation relationship among part-time and full-time workers. This finding suggests that part-time employees work overtime for reasons other than motivation or that working overtime does not enhance work motivation for this group of employees. Overtime work seems to have a different meaning for part-time and full-time workers.

Refers to the following texts of the Journal: 2003;29(3):171-188 2005;31(6):405-408 2003;29(1):1-4 2005;31(5):329-335

The following article refers to this text: 2008;34(3):213-223

Key terms fatigue; full-time worker; job characteristics; long workhours; overtime; part-time worker; work motivation

Print ISSN: 0355-3140 Electronic ISSN: 1795-990X Copyright © Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health




Transformational Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness in Recreational Sports/Fitness Programs

ISSN: 1543-9518

Submitted by: Chin-Hsien Hsu, Dr. Richard C. Bell and Kuei-Mei Cheng

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness in Recreational Sports/Fitness Programs

Leadership has drawn great attention from scholars in various fields in recent years. Yukl (1989) wrote that “the study of leadership has been an important and central part of the literature of management and organization behavior for several decades” (p. 251). Paton (1987), too, realized that leadership has become the most popular subject within the field of sports management. Weese (1994) furthermore advised that some 7,500 citations on leadership appear in Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership (1990). In an article on sports management and leadership, Sourcie (1994) noted that quite a few doctoral dissertations focus on “managerial leadership in sport organizations”. Earlier, Sourcie (1982) had estimated that nearly 25 studies on leadership were completed between 1969 and 1979, as reported in Dissertation Abstracts International, while the same source shows that 30 additional doctoral researchers employed leadership as the primary dependent variable of dissertation research between 1979 and 1989 (p. 6).

There is great controversy over the definition of leadership and thus over approaches to studying leadership (Yukl, 1989). The present authors, however, focus exclusively on the transactional-transformational leadership model and the relationship between transformational leadership and organization effectiveness. The paper looks first at definitions of transactional and transformational leadership and the components of transformational leadership. It then reviews discussions of the transactional-transformational leadership model, particularly the differences between and relationships shared by the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership. In addition, it describes the four elements of transformational leadership.

The paper also investigates existing studies of organizational effectiveness and looks at scholars’ varying approaches to organizational effectiveness. Following this, it discusses the relationships between transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness. Finally, through a review of related literature from the field of recreational sports and fitness programs, the authors examine relationships between transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness.



The Transactional-Transformational Leadership Model

Working from Burns’s earlier efforts (1978), Bass (1985) elaborated the transactional-transformational model. As Yukl (1989) wrote, Bass offered a more thoroughly detailed theory of transformational leadership that further differentiated transformational from transactional leadership. Bass viewed transformational leadership from the perspective of leaders’ influence on subordinates. Influenced by transformational leaders, subordinates become motivated to surpass original expectations (Yukl, 1989). Bass argued that transactional leadership and transformational leadership are “distinct dimensions rather than opposite ends of one continuum” (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996) Or, as Yukl (1989) and Weese (1994) wrote, while transactional leadership and transformational leadership are closely related parts of leadership, they remain distinct.

In addition, Bass viewed transformational leadership as an augmentation and extension of transactional leadership. In his understanding, “[A]ll leaders are transactional, to some extent, exchanging rewards for performance, but some leaders are also transformational, going beyond simple leader-subordinate exchange relations” (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996, p. 294). Studies by other researchers support Bass’s argument both empirically and theoretically, according to Doherty and Danylchuk (1996).

In his discussion of transformational leadership among the coaches of sports teams, Armstrong (2001) laid out four main characteristics of transformational leadership: (a) ethical behavior, (b) shared vision and shared goals, (c) performance improvement through charismatic leadership, and (d) leadership by example (p. 44–45). Armstrong’s framework is a simplified version of the components of transformational leadership provided by Bass (1985), who identified those as intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, inspirational leadership, and idealized influence (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Weese, 1994). Intellectual stimulation refers to a leader’s capability to stimulate followers to become curious and creative about thinking and problem solving (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Weese, 1994). Individual consideration describes the relationship between leader and follower in terms of two dimensions, developmental orientation and individual orientation (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996). A developmental orientation exists when leaders “assign tasks that will enhance an individual’s potential, abilities, and motivation” (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996, p. 295). An individual orientation exists when a leader stresses “mutual understanding and familiarity via one-on-one relations and two-way communication” (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996, p. 295).

Inspirational leadership refers to the transformational leader’s inspiration and encouragement of subordinates, which creates emotional attachment to the leader and greater identification with his or her vision for organizational goals (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Weese, 1994). The final element is idealized influence, which is closely related to charisma (Weese, 1994). Doherty and Danylchuk (1996) view idealized influence as “the behavioral counterpart to charisma” (p. 295), with the leader’s traits promoting commitment among followers in order to tap their full potential (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Weese, 1994).

Employee empowerment: high-performance companies link business objectives to people practices

Journal of Property Management, May-June, 2003 by Lawrence J. Krema

Everyone in commercial real estate knows the key to maximizing occupancy and profitability is offering prime locations with clean space and amenities at a competitive price. But with rising vacancies, rents trending downward and customers demanding more than ever, is this really enough to ensure success?

Probably not. Beyond the fundamentals, competitive advantage lies squarely in our ability to attract, develop and retain top employee talent. After all, at the end of the day, ours is a service business, dependent upon building longterm relationships with our customers.

In today’s highly competitive marketplace, HR professionals and property managers must ensure their companies’ “people practices” are designed to give employees the skills, tools and motivation to win everyday. Property managers must be able to anticipate and respond to the changing needs of customers in a very difficult and competitive marketplace. Moreover, highly trained, motivated and responsive customer service representatives, security professionals and property management teams are critical to exceeding customers’ expectations and maintaining a company’s competitive edge.

In order for these “people practices” to be successful, they must be developed in full alignment with the organixation’s overall business objectives. Yet, many companies overlook this vital connection. According to a recent survey of HR executives by the Saratoga Institute, only 55 percent felt they did even an adequate job of linking compensation and benefits to their companies’ strategies.













Kelompok : Kesih Sugandi Pratiwi                12509657

Oktinta Putri

Yolla Nur Adzani               12509278

Windy Novita Sari              15509654










Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: