Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The relationship between organizational performance and two dimensions of the ‘high performance work system’ – enriched job design and high involvement management (HIM) – is widely assumed to be mediated by worker well-being. We outline the basis for three models: mutual-gains, in which employee involvement increases well-being and this mediates its positive relationship with performance; conflicting outcomes, which associates involvement with increased stress for workers, accounting for its positive performance effects; and counteracting effects, which associates involvement with increased stress and dissatisfaction, reducing its positive performance effects. These are tested using the UK’s Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004. Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between enriched job design and four performance indicators, supporting the mutual gains model; but HIM is negatively related to job satisfaction and this depresses a positive relationship between HIM and the economic performance measures, supporting a counteracting effects model. Finally, HIM is negatively related to job-related anxiety–comfort and enriched job design is unrelated to it.

Related collections

Most cited references 96

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

The operated Markov´s chains in economy (discrete chains of Markov with the income)

Grigoriy Sokolov (2015)

0 comments Cited 5168 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Reuben M. Baron, David A Kenny (1986)

In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.