Conference Agenda

Organizational commitment, defined as an employee's psychological attachment to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991), has been considered as a key concern in today’s evolving work environment. Many organizational problems, such as absenteeism, turnover, and low performance, are the result of a lack of organizational commitment (Jung & Ritz, 2014). The COVID-19 pandemic has increasingly changed workplaces by forcing a rapid transition to flexible working (Van der Meer et al., 2024). Many workers embraced this flexibility and perceived more freedom to combine different life domains, often resulting in a satisfactory work-life balance (Metselaar, 2022). With strong indications that employees wish to maintain this flexibility (Brooks et al., 2022), it is essential to examine how these changes influence organizational commitment.

Existing research on the relationship between work-life balance and organizational commitment has yielded mixed findings. On the one hand, it could be argued that flexible working enhances employees’ autonomy to decide when and where to work, helping them to achieve a satisfactory work-life balance (Metselaar et al., 2022). In return for this flexibility, employees might show more commitment to the organization. On the other hand, it could also be that by realizing a satisfactory work-life balance by making use of flexible working can result in more physical distance from work which may negatively affect organizational commitment (Vermeeren et al., in press).

As such, while some studies suggest a positive link between work-life balance and commitment, others indicate that additional factors, such as employees’ well-being and working conditions, may moderate this relationship (Vermeeren et al., in press). These complexities suggest the need to further explore the boundary conditions of this relationship, accounting for the role of context. Coherently with this perspective, this study examines the role of contextual factors both at the meso (organizational) level, by examining the moderating effect of employee engagement and social support, and at the macro (national) level, by investigating this relationship in a large municipality in the Netherlands (N = 2,590) and multiple municipalities in Switzerland (N= 1.140). In doing so, it draws on the Conservation of Resources theory (COR) and the social exchange theory. By delving into the role of context, this article contributes shedding light on mixed findings in the work-life balance and commitment relationship while accounting for national variation in public administration and their implications on the work environment.

References

Brooks, S. K., Hall, C. E., Patel, D., & Greenberg, N. (2022). “In the office nine to five, five days a week… those days are gone”: qualitative exploration of diplomatic personnel’s experiences of remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychology, 10(1), 1–15.

Jung, C. S., & Ritz, A. (2014). Goal management, management reform, and affective organizational commitment in the public sector. International Public Management Journal, 17(4), 463-492.

Metselaar, S. A., den Dulk, L., & Vermeeren, B. (2023). Teleworking at different locations outside the office: Consequences for perceived performance and the mediating role of autonomy and work-life balance satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(3), 456-478.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

Van der Meer, J., Vermeeren, B., & Steijn, B. (2024). Wellbeing during a crisis: A longitudinal study of local government civil servants. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(1), 32-59.

[In press] Vermeeren, B., Van der Meer, J., Metselaar, S. & Den Dulk, L. Towards a win-win situation? Work-life balance and affective commitment in Dutch public sector organizations

The issue of new ways of working (NWW) has garnered considerable interest, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated social restrictions imposed by various governments (Giauque et al. 2024b, Hesselbarth et al. 2024). NWW refer to a work situation enabled by new information and communication technologies, allowing employees to perform their tasks independently of a specific time or physical location, while maintaining collaboration with both colleagues and supervisors. However, these NWW – particularly hybrid work arrangements (Carrasco-Garrido et al. 2023, Chênevert et al. 2023, Hopkins and Bardoel 2023) – raise new managerial challenges and questions, especially regarding their impact on employee engagement (Gerards et al. 2018, Giauque et al. 2024a) and well-being (Marino and Capone 2021, Renard 2023). These constitute timely and highly relevant research questions – both for line managers leading hybrid teams, as well as for higher management, who must choose an appropriate stance regarding the employees’ access to NWW.

An interesting element that caught researchers’ attention regarding the effects of NWW on employees is the risk of social isolation (Michela et al. 2024, Rudolph and Zacher 2024, Schall and Chen 2022), which can lead to a deterioration of employees’ health and work engagement. In light of this, current research does not seem unanimous on the impacts of NWW on the perception of social isolation (Rudolph and Zacher 2024). The same is true of the relationship between NWW and work engagement, with some studies highlighting positive effects – and some not – while others have even identified a deterioration of work engagement (Renard et al. 2021). In other words, there are still many uncertainties regarding the relationships between NWW, social isolation and employees’ work engagement. Our article aims to delve into these elements, and it is structured around several research questions. Do NWW contribute to a feeling of social isolation among public employees? Do NWW lead to better work engagement or, on the contrary, do they lead to a deterioration of said engagement? If there is a feeling of social isolation related to the dimensions of NWW, can it have a negative impact on employees’ work engagement?

Our survey adopts the theoretical framework of organizational fit (Edwards and Billsberry 2010, Englert et al. 2023, Giauque et al. 2024a). We therefore assume that NWW can help align employees’ expectations with the objectives and values of their organization; thus, leading workers to become more engaged in their job. We also expect that a better fit between individuals and their organization can help limit the effects of NWW on employees’ feeling of social isolation.

We rely on quantitative data from a large-scale survey, carried out between October 2021 and February 2022, specifically pertaining to the effects of NWW on occupational health and performance. Five public organizations agreed to participate. We were able to collect 2150 valid and usable questionnaires (out of a theoretical potential of 11675, therefore giving us a return rate of 18.25%). Using second-generation statistical processing (partial-least square structural equation modeling, or PLS-SEM), we then tested a research model linking four dimensions specific to NWW. Namely, the possibilities of working with a certain (1) flexibility in terms of time, as well as in terms of (2) geographical location, while (3) benefiting from the appropriate tools and information, and being able to quickly (4) contact colleagues when needed. We measure the effects of these four NWW-specific dimensions on our respondents’ sense of social isolation and engagement at work. We also introduce a mediating variable in our model, namely organizational fit, to find out whether the NWW dimensions contribute to creating a better fit between our respondents and their organization and whether this fit can contribute to reducing the feeling of social isolation and increasing their engagement at work.

The results of our analyses reveal several intriguing and, at times, ambiguous relationships within our research model. Among the four dimensions of NWW, only the ability to quickly reach colleagues is directly and positively associated with work engagement. The other three dimensions show no statistically significant relationship with our respondents’ work engagement. In contrast, organizational fit emerges as having a strong positive impact on work engagement.

However, some dimensions of NWW are positively associated with feelings of social isolation – specifically, temporal and geographical flexibility. In other words, employees who benefit from flexibility in time and location report higher levels of social isolation. Conversely, being able to contact colleagues rapidly and having access to the right tools and information serve as protective factors, reducing perceived isolation.

The most striking and counterintuitive finding concerns the role of organizational fit in relation to social isolation. Surprisingly, higher levels of organizational fit are associated with higher levels of reported social isolation. Moreover, our mediation analysis shows that a protective factor – such as the ability to quickly contact colleagues – can become positively associated with social isolation when mediated by organizational fit.

In other words, organizational fit plays an ambiguous role, acting as a double-edged sword: it fosters employees’ work engagement, yet under certain conditions – particularly in hybrid work settings – it may also contribute to feelings of social isolation. The more working conditions foster alignment between the individual and the organization, the more likely this alignment is to be accompanied by a general sense of social isolation. Thus, while certain dimensions of NWW strengthen organizational fit, they may simultaneously have unintended adverse effects on employee well-being.

In our discussion, we compare our research results with other surveys and try to make sense of these different results. Our conclusion proposes some practical implications for public managers.

References:

Carrasco-Garrido, C., De-Pablos-Heredero, C. and Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. L. (2023) Exploring hybrid telework: A bibliometric analysis. Heliyon, 9(12), pp. e22472.

Chênevert, D., Giauque, D., Abord de Chatillon, E., Delobbe, N. and Vayre, É. (2023) From teleworking to hybridity: a new way of thinking about the management of our organizations? International Journal of Psychosociology and Management of Organizational Behaviors, XXIX(77), pp. 5-22.

Edwards, J. A. and Billsberry, J. (2010) Testing a Multidimensional Theory of Person-Environment Fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(4), pp. 476-493.

Englert, B., Sievert, M., Helmig, B. and Jansen, K. (2023) The incongruity of misfit: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Human Relations.

Gerards, R., de Grip, A. and Baudewijns, C. (2018) Do new ways of working increase work engagement? Personnel Review, 47(2), pp. 517-534.

Giauque, D., Cornu, F. and Pacht, S. (2024a) The Relationship Between New Ways of Working and Employee Engagement: First and Foremost a Matter of Environment Fit. Administrative Sciences, 14(12), pp. 338.

Giauque, D., Cornu, F., Renard, K. and Emery, Y. (2024b) New Ways of Working and Job Outcomes in Public Organizations: The Mutual Gains and Conflicting Outcomes Perspective. in Riccucci, N. M., (ed.) Public Personnel Management. Current Concerns, Future Challenges,New York: Routledge. pp. 34-56.

Hesselbarth, Y., Alfes, K. and Festing, M. (2024) Understanding technology-driven work arrangements from a complexity perspective: a systematic literature review and an agenda for future research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(5), pp. 964-1006.

Hopkins, J. and Bardoel, A. (2023) The Future Is Hybrid: How Organisations Are Designing and Supporting Sustainable Hybrid Work Models in Post-Pandemic Australia. Sustainability, 15(4), pp. 3086.

Marino, L. and Capone, V. (2021) Smart Working and Well-Being before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(4), pp. 1516-1536.

Michela, V., Arianna, C., Andrea, C. and Enrico, P. (2024) It's an e-work life! An explorative study on the relationships between e-work characteristics and well-being. International Journal of Psychology.

Renard, K. (2023) Perceptions of Work–Life Balance and Coworker Support Promote Teleworker Well-Being: Survey of the Swiss Public Sector During COVID-19. Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels, XXIX(77), pp. 75-99.

Renard, K., Cornu, F., Emery, Y. and Giauque, D. (2021) The Impact of New Ways of Working on Organizations and Employees: A Systematic Review of Literature. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), pp. 38.

Rudolph, C. W. and Zacher, H. (2024) Working from home: When is it too much of a good thing? Human Resource Development Quarterly.

Schall, M. C., Jr. and Chen, P. (2022) Evidence-Based Strategies for Improving Occupational Safety and Health Among Teleworkers During and After the Coronavirus Pandemic. Hum Factors, 64(8), pp. 1404-1411.

In various fields of work, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the public sector to attract qualified and motivated staff. This paper examines how subject-specific career choices in the public sector are made and investigates how values, motives, and personality traits influence this decision. In addition to these established variables, the contribution adds to the literature by analyzing the different subject-specific drivers of career choices across various disciplines, focusing on lawyers, computer scientists, and engineers. Are their choices driven by different motivational structures and different employment contexts (i.e. the employment situation and professional cultures in the specific sectors)?

From a theoretical point of view, there is a link to earlier research (e.g. Christensen & Wright 2011; Wright & Christensen 2010; Word & Park 2015; Vandenabeele 2008), with an orientation towards the person-environment-fit model and the attraction-selection-attrition model, which emphasize the importance of the fit between the individual and the employment environment and is closely linked to the theory of social identity (Tajfel 1982). Studies on public service motivation emphasize the special employment environment of the public sector and show that certain individuals are particularly attracted to this sector due to existing values and the opportunity to make a special contribution to shaping the common good (e. g. Favero, Pedersen & Park 2024; Vogel, Döring & Sievert 2024). Overall, these approaches suggest that the public sector's recruitment strategies need to focus more on self-selectivity. Standardized recruitment strategies that do not consider specific characteristics will not be expedient. Rather, approaches are needed that are contextually tailored to target groups in the respective specialist disciplines. The basis for this is the investigation which determinants are decisive for individuals from different fields of study and employment contexts when choosing a sector.

This paper chooses a quantitative research design and uses data from a German graduate survey. One advantage of the research design is that individuals who have already made an actual employment decision can be chosen as the object of investigation. This avoids having to resort to hypothetical career choices made by students, whose consistency in the further course of their studies is uncertain. The influence of course-specific background, different value orientations, and other personality traits for or against employment in the public sector will be investigated. In addition, determinants for sector decisions within individual disciplines are considered. The separate consideration of graduates from the same discipline who have opted for different sectors appears crucial in order to control for socialization effects that may have developed in the course of their studies (Wright & Christensen 2010, 159–160). Conclusions from this work should support recruiters in communicating employer characteristics in specific contexts and to specific target groups.

Governments worldwide face the necessity of preparing public sector employees for the future of work, and one key area is digitalization, which is essentially a change management process. Organizational change relies on individuals who drive and facilitate transformation, commonly referred to as change agents. Change agents are responsible for initiating, sponsoring, directing, managing, and implementing change (Caldwell, 2003: 139–140) and are expected to align employees with new organizational goals, often by leveraging hierarchical influence and decision-making power (Wallace et al., 2011).

The effectiveness of change agents depends on their ability to engage change recipients to encourage change adoption. For example, research indicates that if change agents are perceived as a threat to employees' professional identity, they may provoke resistance to change rather than support for it (Specht et al., 2018). Research has also shown that change agents must dedicate significant time to motivating and persuading others to understand and accept change (Hyde, 2018; Sonenshein and Dholakia, 2012). This points to the social relationships that develop through this process, and the importance of understanding the perspectives of change agents as well as change recipients.

Despite the growing recognition of change as being a social process (Sonenshein and Dholakia, 2012), research has not sufficiently explored how change recipients evaluate change agents and what characteristics they find most important. Most literature fails to take the perspective of change recipients regarding their change agent relationship into account (Vos and Rupert, 2018).

We address this gap by analyzing which attributes drive recipient preferences to explain what makes an "ideal" change agent in the eyes of change recipients. Instead of assuming which characteristics matter most, we investigate how change recipients make trade-offs when selecting a change agent, showing the relative importance of characteristics such as technical expertise, communication skills, leadership style, and demographic factors. Borrowing from leadership theory, we apply implicit leadership and leader-follower congruence assumptions to explain this decision-making process. While the literature has shown that feeling and acceptance of a change agent comes through legitimacy (Eskerod et al., 2017), we suggest that change recipients may develop this legitimacy through various change agent characteristics that these may depend also on change recipients own skills and knowledge. Therein highlighting a mutually interdependent relationship between and a change agent and a change recipient.

To assess our research questions, we conduct a choice-based conjoint experiment with employees from two German municipalities (N=334) undergoing change management processes in the subject area of digitalization. Both city administrations represent typical German public organizations, which often focuses on stability with an strong respect for hierarchy and position and relatively slow and incremental approach to change (Breaugh and Hammerschmid 2021). The experiment asks city employees what their preferred change agent is based on six different characteristics, including their knowledge, skills and demographic characteristics. The data was collected approximately 12 months after both cities introduced digitalization change agents, so that the study participants have been exposed to change agents before and developed an informed opinion about their preferences, increasing the external validity of the study.

The study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it identifies key factors in change processes that foster acceptance among change recipients. By showing that change-related skills and behaviors are found to be more influential than demographic traits or hierarchical positions, this study supports the argument that effective change agents are defined more by their functional fit with recipients than by their hierarchical status or social attributes. Second, by focusing specifically on change recipients and what they evaluate as being essential for change agent characteristics, we add an important underdeveloped perspective to the change literature. Third, while much change agent literature is interdisciplinary, this study offers a behavioral lens with a specific focus on proactive choices in contrast to self-reported behavior or opinions, more accurately mimicking real world decision making. Finally, based on these findings this article provides a practical guidelines for managers for selecting change agents and matching them to change recipients to enable a high fit between change agent and recipient to foster change adoption.

References

Caldwell R (2003) Models of change agency: a fourfold classification. British journal of management 14(2): 131–142.

Breaugh, J. Hammerschmid, G. (2021). "Different systems, different civil service, different HRM: a comparison of HRM approaches in Anglo-Saxon and Rechtsstaat systems" in Research Handbook on HRM in the Public Sector., Steijn, B and Knies, E Eds, Edward Elgar

Eskerod P, Justesen JB and Sjøgaard G (2017) Enriching project organizations with formal change agents. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 10(3): 578–599.

Hyde CA (2018) Leading From Below: Low-Power Actors as Organizational Change Agents. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 42(1): 53–67.

Sonenshein S and Dholakia U (2012) Explaining Employee Engagement with Strategic Change Implementation: A Meaning-Making Approach. Organization Science 23(1): 1–23.

Specht J, Kuonath A, Pachler D, et al. (2018) How Change Agents’ Motivation Facilitates Organizational Change: Pathways Through Meaning and Organizational Identification. Journal of Change Management 18(3): 198–217

Vos, J. F., & Rupert, J. (2018). Change agent's contribution to recipients' resistance to change: A two-sided story. European Management Journal, 36(4), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.11.004

Wallace M, O'Reilly D, Morris J, et al. (2011) Public Service Leaders as ‘Change Agents’ – for Whom? Public Management Review 13(1): 65–93.