Capturing a More Complete View of Employees’ Lives Outside of Work: The Introduction and Development of New Interrole Conflict Constructs

This research introduces 4 new constructs that reflect interrole conflict (i.e., work‐to‐personal, personal‐to‐work, family‐to‐personal, and personal‐to‐family conflict) and provide a more complete view of the roles and responsibilities employees experience outside of work. An integration of interrole conflict literature and research on work and nonwork roles or domains highlights the importance of considering an individual's personal domain, which includes activities one pursues because of his or her own interests (e.g., friends, hobbies, community). Unfortunately, without conflict measures pertaining to this new role, researchers cannot clearly understand how roles other than family interfere with individuals’ work role including how interrole conflict impacts employees who do not have significant responsibilities in the family domain. Five phases of research across 4 separate samples were conducted in order to develop measures for the 4 new conflict constructs and to examine relationships with important work, family, life, and health outcomes. Findings from multisource data, including self‐rated, coworker‐rated, as well as single and nonsingle participants, show that the 4 new forms of interrole conflict have significant implications for employees and organizations.     

儒家的职业道德观

在儒家伦理思想中,职业道德是其重要内容之一,而在对儒家伦理思想的现代解读的成果中鲜有所及。孔子所提出的“敬事而信”、“行之以忠”等思想集中反映了儒家在职业道德方面的基本要求。今天,认真研究和吸取儒家职业道德思想中的积极因素,对于培养人们爱岗敬业、克尽职守的职业道德是十分必要的。     

The Contemporary Analyst at Work

This paper introduces a set of five papers reflecting a range of contemporary styles. Although diverse in their theoretical orientations, these papers all affirm a common set of basic technical virtues: versatility and flexibility; a sense of personal freedom within the discipline of the analytic frame; skepticism about authority and especially about authoritarian clinical stances; and the simultaneous cultivation of personal engagement and a pragmatic, helpful sensibility.     

为了更好地工作：工作恢复的内涵及实现机制

工作恢复是保障员工持续有效应对工作要求,支撑员工“更好地工作”的资源补充机制,也是近年来职业健康心理学研究中的一个热点主题。本文在澄清工作恢复概念的界定和梳理工作恢复影响因素的基础上,着重围绕工作恢复的实现机制进行了分析和探讨。最后,围绕工作恢复相关研究的现状及未来方向进行了总结和展望。     

为了更好地工作：工作恢复的内涵及实现机制

工作恢复是保障员工持续有效应对工作要求,支撑员工“更好地工作”的资源补充机制,也是近年来职业健康心理学研究中的一个热点主题。本文在澄清工作恢复概念的界定和梳理工作恢复影响因素的基础上,着重围绕工作恢复的实现机制进行了分析和探讨。最后,围绕工作恢复相关研究的现状及未来方向进行了总结和展望。     

Work, Well–being and Vocational Education: The Ethical Significance of Work and Preparation for Work

David Carr's account of the nature of professional work is described and examined. It is argued that Carr's criteria for distinguishing between professional and non–professional work are not adequate. The criteria are as follows: the professions' essential role in promoting human flourishing; their contestability; their direct concern for the well–being of clients; their provision of a high degree of autonomy for practitioners. They do not mark out a qualitative difference between professions and other occupations. Carr's notion of civic necessities applies to what he describes as non–professional as well as to professional work. The role of commercial considerations in the usefulness of some kinds of work is considered and a distinction is made between technical and occupational virtues. Carr treats professional virtues as occupational virtues without appreciating that nearly all occupations have both occupational and technical virtues. A significant part of the wouthwhileness of work is bound up with practice of the relevant occupational virtues.     

工作投入的短期波动

随着研究取向从静态到动态、从个体间到个体内部的转变, 工作投入的短期波动开始成为研究主流。针对国内尚未涉及工作投入波动研究的现状, 将引入状态性工作投入的概念, 并分析其波动的理论和构成来源。介绍了状态性工作投入的测量工具、日记研究和经验取样方法, 以及重复测量的多层线性模型。在分析现有工作投入波动理论、相关变量和边界条件的基础上, 构建了工作投入的研究框架, 总结了工作投入波动的形式。     

Introduction: The Meaning of Work

Abstract

The theme of this special issue is how cultural, societal, group, and individual factors shape what working has meant, means, and is going to mean in future societies. Concepts and empirical data from the Meaning of Working study (MOW, 1987), an eight-country comparison of work-related attitudes and values, and from complementary follow-up studies, serve as the “red thread” or empirical basis throughout the issue. The original MOW (1987) study and some of the follow-up studies reported in this issue are based on a heuristic model for the subjective meaning of work, which is briefly discussed in the first paper by Ruiz Quintanilla and Wilpert. However, as nearly all of the discussants point out, and Heller's paper tries to discuss specifically, there is still a lot of theoretical work to do. The studies reported in this issue provide some empirical data bases and point towards new and crucial questions that are raised by the results. On the other hand, this issue also wants to contribute to a focused discussion about alternative conceptions of the meaning of work and its central role in understanding the concept of work. Since the way we conceptualize a particular problem issue crucially determines the kind of answers and explanations we derive, as Brief points out in his discussant paper, a thorough and lively discussion about how we are to understand work (and “non-work”), what meaning it has in a person's life, what significance the meaning attributed to work has, and by what processes work attains its meaning for society in general, becomes of utmost importance. Moreover, in the light of European integration across cultures and the global internationalization of organizations, differences in cultural contexts for the meaning of work take on a particularly urgent problem for better understanding. Finally, Fineman in his discussant paper raises the crucial point, that the basic epistemological assumptions that guided both the basic conceptual framework and the methodology used in the MOW (1987) and the follow-up studies reported in this issue can be questioned. He argues that these assumptions allow only a rather restricted view of the meaning of work and forego many options in addressing more holistic perspectives of work and its meaning generating processes. Given the fact that meaning is in principle a product of subjective interpretation processes, the question about what social processes form the basis for the meaning of work and its consequences, as well as what epistemological assumptions make sense in trying to understand better the holistic nature of work and its meaning, must be finally addressed.

In this sense this issue attempts: (1) to contribute to the ongoing debate on the concept of meaning of work; as well as (2) to invite interested researchers and practitioners in W & 0 psychology to join in this debate. This journal strongly encourages such a debate and will publish quality rejoinders, commentaries, and critical alternatives to the problems raised in this special issue.