Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (35)
- Contribution to a Periodical (8)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (44)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (44)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (4)
- leadership (3)
- social identification (3)
- Disadvantages (2)
- Social identity (2)
- Telecommuting (2)
- Telework (2)
- Voluntariness (2)
- anxiety (2)
- burnout (2)
Institute
- Psychologie und Sportwissenschaften (20)
- Psychologie (15)
- Präsidium (9)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Biochemie und Chemie (1)
- Biowissenschaften (1)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (1)
- Exzellenzcluster Makromolekulare Komplexe (1)
- Sonderforschungsbereiche / Forschungskollegs (1)
Previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of psychological interventions to foster resilience. However, little is known about whether the cultural context in which resilience interventions are implemented affects their efficacy on mental health. Studies performed in Western (k = 175) and Eastern countries (k = 46) regarding different aspects of interventions (setting, mode of delivery, target population, underlying theoretical approach, duration, control group design) and their efficacy on resilience, anxiety, depressive symptoms, quality of life, perceived stress, and social support were compared. Interventions in Eastern countries were longer in duration and tended to be more often conducted in group settings with a focus on family caregivers. We found evidence for larger effect sizes of resilience interventions in Eastern countries for improving resilience (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28 to 0.67; p < 0.0001; 43 studies; 6248 participants; I2 = 97.4%). Intercultural differences should receive more attention in resilience intervention research. Future studies could directly compare interventions in different cultural contexts to explain possible underlying causes for differences in their efficacy on mental health outcomes.
Innovation is considered essential for today's organizations to survive and thrive. Researchers have also stressed the importance of leadership as a driver of followers' innovative work behavior (FIB). Yet, despite a large amount of research, three areas remain understudied: (a) The relative importance of different forms of leadership for FIB; (b) the mechanisms through which leadership impacts FIB; and (c) the degree to which relationships between leadership and FIB are generalizable across cultures. To address these lacunae, we propose an integrated model connecting four types of positive leadership behaviors, two types of identification (as mediating variables), and FIB. We tested our model in a global data set comprising responses of N = 7,225 participants from 23 countries, grouped into nine cultural clusters. Our results indicate that perceived LMX quality was the strongest relative predictor of FIB. Furthermore, the relationships between both perceived LMX quality and identity leadership with FIB were mediated by social identification. The indirect effect of LMX on FIB via social identification was stable across clusters, whereas the indirect effects of the other forms of leadership on FIB via social identification were stronger in countries high versus low on collectivism. Power distance did not influence the relations.
The present research investigates if and how a more digitally centered communication between supervisors and employees satisfies employees’ needs regarding the communication with their supervisors and influences employees’ attitudes toward the supervisor and the job. In a cross-sectional online study, 261 employees rated their supervisors’ actual and ideal use of different communication channels (i.e., telephone, face-to-face, email) regarding quality and quantity. Employees’ job satisfaction and their perceptions of their supervisors’ effectiveness and team identification were measured as dependent variables. Employees perceived face-to-face communication to be of higher quality than telephone and email communication, and they indicated a preference for more face-to-face communication with their supervisors than they actually had. Moreover, the perceived quality of communication, especially via face-to-face, was strongly and positively related to the dependent variables. These results provide insights into potential problems of increasing e-leadership in organizations. We conclude with recommendations to reduce these problems.
Haben Vorurteile einen Sinn? In der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen vermutlich schon, um Freund und Feind unterscheiden zu können. Aber in der heutigen globalen, wenn auch komplexeren Welt ist es wichtig zu wissen, warum Vorurteile entstehen und welche Gruppenprozesse dahinterstecken. Die Sozialpsychologie kann seit den 1950er Jahren auf eine Vielzahl von Experimenten verweisen – mit spannenden Ergebnissen. Eines lautet: Je mehr Kontakt Menschen aus unterschiedlichen Gruppen miteinander haben, desto geringer sind auch die Vorurteile.
According to a survey by the Institute for Management and Economic Research (manager seminars, September 2018), 41% or almost half of those respondents over 60, considered it unlikely that they would be affected by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the workplace. On the other hand, younger respondents more realistically estimated that significant AI-related changes would occur in their workplace within the next five years, not only in production and data analysis, but also in customer service and office practices across the board. ...
Deutschland ist ein Einwanderungsland – wie wirkt sich das Zusammenleben von Menschen unterschiedlicher Herkunft im Alltag und am Arbeitsplatz aus? Muss es unweigerlich zu Konflikten kommen, oder welche Voraussetzungen sind notwendig, um diese Vielfalt positiv zu nutzen? Wer dies ergründen will, muss sich mit Gruppenkonflikten und sozialer Identität, die der Einzelne in der Gruppe erlebt, intensiv beschäftigen. Der Frankfurter Sozialpsychologe Prof. Dr. Rolf van Dick und seine Kollegen haben ein Modell entwickelt, das vorhersagt, wann die Heterogenität einer Gruppe eher positive und wann eher negative Effekte erzeugt.
Do leaders who build a sense of shared social identity in their teams thereby protect them from the adverse effects of workplace stress? This is a question that the present paper explores by testing the hypothesis that identity leadership contributes to stronger team identification among employees and, through this, is associated with reduced burnout. We tested this model with unique datasets from the Global Identity Leadership Development (GILD) project with participants from all inhabited continents. We compared two datasets from 2016/2017 (n = 5290; 20 countries) and 2020/2021 (n = 7294; 28 countries) and found very similar levels of identity leadership, team identification and burnout across the five years. An inspection of the 2020/2021 data at the onset of and later in the COVID-19 pandemic showed stable identity leadership levels and slightly higher levels of both burnout and team identification. Supporting our hypotheses, we found almost identical indirect effects (2016/2017, b = −0.132; 2020/2021, b = −0.133) across the five-year span in both datasets. Using a subset of n = 111 German participants surveyed over two waves, we found the indirect effect confirmed over time with identity leadership (at T1) predicting team identification and, in turn, burnout, three months later. Finally, we explored whether there could be a “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect for identity leadership. Speaking against this, we found a u-shaped quadratic effect whereby ratings of identity leadership at the upper end of the distribution were related to even stronger team identification and a stronger indirect effect on reduced burnout.