‫אוניברסיטת בר‪-‬אילן‬
‫המחלקה לפסיכולוגיה‬
‫המגמה לפסיכולוגיה חברתית‪-‬ארגונית‬
‫פיתוח כלי מדידה למנהיגות האחראית‬
‫לאוששות עובדים‬
‫– ‪Development of a measurement scale for LRR‬‬
‫‪Leaders' Responsibility for Recovery‬‬
‫הצעת מחקר לתואר שני‬
‫‪Master's Thesis Proposal‬‬
‫ ד"ר רונית קרק‬:‫מנחה‬
064987837 .‫ז‬.‫ תמיר רובין ת‬:‫מוגש על ידי‬
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
The Objective of the Study ........................................................................................................ 4
Theoretical Background ............................................................................................................. 4
Methods .................................................................................................................................... 9
Resources................................................................................................................................. 11
Appendix 1 - Study's Questionnaire ............................................................................... 15
2
Introduction
In the last decades work has become increasingly demanding. People in today’s
workplace are expected to make work their top priority. They invest many hours a
day at their workplace and their well-being and ability to work is highly dependent on
their daily experience at work. Employees and their firms believe that an “always on”
ethic is essential for succeeding in the global marketplace (Perlow & Porter, 2009;
Perlow, 2012). According to a recent survey, 94% of 1,000 professionals reported
they work 50 or more hours a week, with nearly half of that group turning in more
than 65 hours a week. In addition, many employees spend 20-25 hours a week
monitoring their BlackBerrys, while outside the office (Perlow & Porter, 2009; Perlow,
2012, Burke & Cooper, 2008).
Working in general and particularly working under intense conditions draws
upon individuals' resources and causes strain reactions. High levels of job demands
are positively related to employees' need for recovery (Sonnentag & Zijilstra, 2006).
This intense lifestyle highlights the importance of recovery from work. Recovery can
be seen as a process opposite to the strain process during which these strain
symptoms are reduced and return to their prestressor level (Sonnentag & Fritz,
2007).
Barack Obama, the president of the USA, who holds one of the most stressful jobs in
the world, acknowledges the importance of recovery, and does not neglect his own
needs. His staff reports that the president takes daily 30 minutes breaks, when he
stays alone in his office, and during which no one and nothing is to disturb him.1 As
his own boss, Obama has the privilege to allow himself these recovery periods. But
does he feel responsible for the recovery needs of his employees? In work contexts
with high pace and workload, employees might neglect their recovery needs
(Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010; von Thiele, 2011). Kark & Sonnentag (2013) argue
that leaders can play an important role in supporting employees’ recovery processes.
They propose Leaders’ Responsibility for Recovery (LRR) as a new concept that
can contribute to the prediction of employees’ recovery processes and subsequently
enhance positive outcomes in different life domains. The role that leaders play in
employees' recovery processes has attained limited attention.
1
Calcalist, November, 28th, 2008; http://www.calcalist.co.il
3
The Objective of the Study
The goal of the current study is to better understand how leaders can enhance
employees’ ability to recover from work. In order to study the impact of Leaders'
Responsibility for Recovery (LRR) on the capability of employees to recover from
work, their recovery experiences and their restoration processes during respites from
work, as well as to investigate moderators of that relationship, a structured reliable
measurement scale for LRR must be developed. Such a measurement scale does
not exist, hence, the aims of this study are:
a. Examining and understanding the behaviors which constitute LRR, based on
the behavior of managers in the field.
b. Breaking down LRR into sub-components through qualitative analysis of
critical incidents described by managers who tried to foster employees'
recovery from work.
c. Exploring various outcomes of managers' recovery enhancement behaviors,
and drawing its significance for current research in the field of recovery.
d. Based on the above, constructing and validating a new scale that measures
the concept of LRR.
Theoretical Background
Responsible Leadership
Leaders have a significant role in shaping organizational culture, norms, and
employees’ values and behaviors (e.g., Schein, 1996; Grojean, Resick, Dickson &
Smith, 2004; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Yaffe & Kark,
2011; Hogg, van Knippenberg & Rast, 2012). This role highlights the importance of
the concept of responsible leadership that has garnered increased attention in recent
years. Irresponsibility on the part of organizational leaders represents an area of
growing concern to the greater public (Waldman, 2012).
Responsible leadership can be conceptualized and examined based upon
multiple definitions and moral bases. A responsible leader should take the right
means in order to forge an effective organization. While through an economic
perspective of responsible leadership leaders should use resources to improve the
quality of life of employees only when it benefits the shareholders, a broader
stakeholder perspective suggests that responsible leadership involves actions and
decisions that should balance the needs and concerns of a variety of stakeholder
4
entities (e.g., employees, shareholders, customers, the environment, and the greater
community). It implies that leaders need to be accountable to all of these entities
(Pless & Maak, 2011, Waldman, 2012; Waldman & Galvin 2008; Waldman & Siegel
2008). One consequence is that responsible leaders must take into account the
needs of their employees, even if these actions do not contribute directly to the
wealth of the shareholders (Waldman & Galvin 2008), and show more societal
concern. Such actions may do have a positive influence on the employees'
effectiveness, and thus may contribute to the effectiveness of the organization as a
whole (Waldman & Siegel 2008).
Recovery
The recovery experience is practically essential to any employee. It may take
place during work hours and off-work hours (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Demerouti,
Bakker, Geurts, & Taris, 2009). Lunch-break, coffee-break, taking a vacation, and
even going back home at the end of the day – all of these are common customary
terms for taking time to recover from the load and stresses of one's job. Recovery is
enhanced by the ability to psychologically detach from work during off-job hours
(Etzion, Eden, & Lapidot,1998; Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Demerouti et al. 2009),
and by utilizing that time for relaxation activities (Sonnentag and Fritz (2007).
Research has shown that the amount of time spent on recovery activities is
related to positive outcomes (Sonnentag, 2003; ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012)
and that psychological detachment and relaxation predict positive outcomes such as
work engagement and the ability to reduce work-home interference (Sanz-Vergel,
Demerouti, Bakker, & Moreno-Jiménez, 2011; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008,
2010). Studies have also shown that periods that allow for recovery are essential in
protecting employees’ health, well-being, and performance capabilities, such as
proactive behavior, and coping with conflicts (Demerouti et al., 2009; Sonnentag,
2003; Sonnentag, 2012; Sonnentag, Unger, & Na¨gel, 2013). Thus, recovery
processes are important as a relief and an antidote from the stressful experiences at
work. On the other hand, the absence of psychological detachment is related to
increased exhaustion and need for recovery (Sonnentag et al., 2010).
Leaders' responsibility for recovery
However, it is not only of one's own control whether they can take time to
recover, or manage to successfully recover when they are outside of work. Factors
such as job stressors and high job strain situations (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005),
working patterns, high number of hours worked (Jansen, Kant, van Amelsvoort,
5
Nijhuis, & van den Brandt, 2003) and low work-home boundaries (Sonnentag et al.,
2010) reduce the ability to psychologically detach from work and increase the need of
recovery. All of these characteristics may be significantly affected by managers'
decisions and behaviors. Though recovery studies dealt with these attributes, not
much attention was given to the influence of the managers' actions and behaviors in
these situations. Some managers may have a higher tendency to foster recovery
within their employees; some may have a lower one. As employees' need for
recovery increases with today's increased work demands (Sonnentag & Zijilstra,
2006), and considering the employees as a stakeholder entity, the need for recovery
should be addressed by the responsible leader. Kark & Sonnentag (2013) suggest
that one form of responsibility is evident in leaders’ actions to enhance employees’
ability to recover from their work. They define Leaders' Responsibility for Recovery
(LRR) as a leadership practice in which leaders acknowledge employees' need to
recover from work; are concerned by employees’ recovery; behave in ways that
enable recovery; and play a role in shaping work environments and practices that
allow for employees to recover .
Leaders' mechanisms to convey messages concerning recovery
LRR is based on the notion that supervisors have responsibility to support not
only employees’ ability to work and perform, but also to foster their recovery from this
work. Following the initial findings from earlier research (Perlow, 2012; Perlow &
Porter, 2009), it is contend that leaders have a central role in enabling employees to
take the time to recover, as well as to actually experience recovery, psychological
detachment and relaxation (Kark & Sonnentag, 2013). Leaders who take this
responsibility can foster recovery in various ways – these include HR practices such
as structuring work in a manner that allows for rest, allocating resources for recovery,
role modeling, symbolic actions, and emotionally supportive behavior.
Human-Resources practices, including changing work-structure, have impact
on the performance and satisfaction of the employees (Delaney & Huselid,1996,
Kehoe & Wright, 2013). By applying their perceptions towards work structure,
structuring work in a manner that allows for rest and allocating resources for
recovery, leaders pass their conceptions to the employees. In order to take the time
to rest during the day, as well as detach and relax, employees need to know that the
work is structured in a way that allows for them to take time off without harming the
work schedule, as well as knowing that resources are allocated for this.
Leaders can provide their employees with assistance and/or constructive
advice, either themselves or via professional personal, in planning their working
6
schedule and their ongoing tasks. Decent planning will enable the employees to take
advantage of their routine breaks for recovery, and to finish their working day on time,
providing the employee with more time to detach from work and to relax. Leaders can
also initiate actions to restructure the work processes in ways that facilitate
employees’ ability to take the time to detach and relax during off-job hours. A study in
BCG consulting firm demonstrated the positive contribution of the addition of a
predictable time off (PTO) slot during weekdays for each consultant, an evening in
which this employee is completely free from work, and should not even be available
via e-mail or smartphone. In order to do so, the firm has created a structured open
dialogue between the team members, where they planned their week in a way they
could allow PTO for each member of the team. As taking time off was not a common
practice at BCG at that time, this initiative was doable only because the management
of the firm approved it (Perlow, 2012; Perlow & Porter, 2009). Moreover, Sonnentag &
Fritz (2007) found that control may act as an external source that enhances recovery
from work during off-job time. If managers structure work in a way that their
employees don't have to be available during off-job time (i.e. answering calls and emails during evening, weekends), then they provide their employees with more
control over their leisure time, and enhance recovery.
Leaders can also allocate resources to recovery purposes such as
constructing a space for relaxation, subsidizing gym and leisure activities, and
encouraging the utilization of these. Resources can also take the form of providing
assistance in times of work pressure, e.g. Microsoft grants extended paid parental
leave in case of need.2
Role modeling and learning from exemplary behaviors of leaders has been
shown to have a major effect on the ways in which individuals and groups behave.
Leaders perform as role models and doing so they transmit values and expectations
how work should be held, and may influence the way their employees behave
(Waldman & Yammarino, 1999; Grojean et al, 2004; Yaffe & Kark, 2011). Thus,
leaders who model taking the time to recover and demonstrate psychological
detachment and relaxation (e.g., not answering e-mails during weekends), are likely
to foster followers’ ability to take the time to recover. In the BCG case, team leaders
had to take part and have an evening off. By doing so they reassured their team
members that it is okay to confirm with the new initiative (Perlow, 2012).
People need to know that taking time to recover will be valued and respected
in the organization (Perlow & Porter, 2009). The performance of symbolic acts by
2
Business Insider, February, 11th 2013; http://www.businessinsider.com
7
leaders has shown to have effect on embedding procedural and behavioral changes
(Roberto & Levesque, 2005). Leaders who convey the explicit message that they
support and legitimize recovery, will enhance recovery; for example, congratulating
an employee publicly for a completion of a stressful job or work period and rewarding
them with special vacation – this act stresses the importance of recovering after
making an effort. A recent different example is given by the Vice-Chancellor of
Germany, Sigmar Gabriel: He announced that he is to take a weekly afternoon-off in
order to spend more as a dad, and created a public discussion in favor of his act.3
Last, each employee has different considerations, limitations and needs that
are related to his or her ability to take the time to recover and relax. A leader that
provides emotional support for recovery at the individual level will contribute to
recovery. Managers’ supportive behavior in general, and their support of families
more specifically, have been found to enable employees to better balance the
demands between work and family, to enhance job satisfaction and physical health
and to reduce turnover intensions (Hammer, Kossek, Anger, Bodner, & Zimmerman,
2011). In contrary, it is suggested that employees who work under a climate of fear
(i.e. of being laid-off), may choose to work extra-hours and not to use available
helpful policies, thus they reduce their recovery possibilities (Hochschild, 1997).
Relations-oriented
behaviors
of
leaders
–
supporting
employees
through
consideration, sympathy and encouragement through tough periods, recognizing
employees for their efforts, and consulting with employees concerning decision that
may affect them – all were found to be behaviors which positively related to leadermember exchange relationships (Yukl, O’Donnell & Taber, 2009). Good leadermember exchange behaviors and particularly supportive behavior were found to
predict high employee engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Christian, Garza, &
Slaughter, 2011), and this in turn is related to high levels of recovery (Sonnentag,
2003). Empathy, and organizational awareness are also traits of the socially aware
leader (Goleman, 2000). Along with other capabilities such as listening, identification
containing, concern, etc. a managers might show their employee that they legitimize
their need of recovery and enhance their sense of being recovered.
In summary, it is contended that leaders who (1) structure work and enable
resources for the benefit of recovery, (2) display symbolic acts of legitimizing
recovery, (3) are a role model for recovery and (4) provide emotional support and a
safety net for individual recovery, will foster employees’ ability to take the time to
3
The Guardian, January, 5th, 2014; http://www.theguardian.com
8
recover, as well as enable them to use this time in a manner that allows for recovery
(i.e., psychological detachment and relaxation).
An investigation of managers' descriptions of critical situations in which they
took responsibility for employees’ recovery from work, accompanied with selfreported attitudinal and behavioral approaches towards recovery will be the basis for
theme analyses for the construction of the LRR measurement scale.
Methods
Stage 1
Participants :
For the first part of the study I will collect data from 75 managers, which have
experience and seniority in having employees under their direct supervision. Data will
be collected from classes of the Executive Master's Program in the Federmann
School of Public Policy, HUJI, as well as from various experienced managers in
Israel, using snowball sampling method (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). This population
is chosen since I rely on the accumulated experience of these managers for
providing significant insights concerning handling employees who needed recovery.
Procedure:
Data Collection:
In this study I will use critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954; Chell, 2004;
Butterfield et. al., 2005) to collect narratives from 75 managers in Israel on situations
in which the managers took responsibility for employees’ recovery from work. The
data will be collected via open-ended questionnaires, consist of two sections: a.)
critical incident description – I will ask the managers to recall a specific incident in
which they fostered recovery from work. I will inquire how the managers have done it;
what behaviors they showed; what their aim was; what the outcome of their behavior
was; etc. I will try to encompass different aspects of fostering recovery they have
demonstrated (oral messages, emotional support, actions taken, etc.), as portrayed
by the literature. b.) general approach section – questions which will ask about the
managers' behavioral and attitudinal general approach towards the recovery of their
employees; and their own recovery ideals and behaviors. This will be used in order to
search for additional patterns of role-modeling, symbolic actions, and more. See
questionnaire in appendix 1.
Pre-test – The open-ended questionnaires were pre-tested on 8 managers. After
testing the time and their ability to understand the questionnaires were corrected
9
accordingly. Completion time now is 15-30 minutes for each participant and the
questions of the last version are all understandable to a wide range of managers.
Data Analysis:
I will use qualitative methods, based on grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss,
2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1994) and theme analyses (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to
analyze the data. I will conduct a theme analysis, sorting constructs that appear to
adequately capture the LRR behaviors, outcomes, mechanisms, and contingencies
emerging in the data. Following this, independent coders will categorize all interview
statements, and agreement analysis will be performed (Cohen, 1960). If the analysis
will prove that new items of data still emerge after the inspection of the latest
questionnaires, then I will administer additional questionnaires until no more further
items of data emerge.
Finally I will create a questionnaire that will include all the items that were found,
phrased in the form of inquiries regarding one's own manager (i.e. sentences such as
"My manager tries to avoid communicating work-related subjects with me after the
formal working-hours"). Items will be generated according to the different facets of
leaders' recovery behavior that will be found in the open ended questionnaires. This
will enable me to come up with a suggested structure to the LRR concept, each
group representing a presumed distinct factor of LRR.
Stage 2
Participants:
The above mentioned questionnaire will be administered to 250 working students in Israel.
Procedure:
Data Collection:
The questionnaire will be administered via Internet, using automated data
collection web-site, such as "Qualtrics". The data will be formed in tables and analyzed.
Data Analysis:
The data collected will be used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis with
AMOS/SPSS (Thompson, 2004), in prospects of the suggested factors' structure
from stage 1. The scale will be verified for reliability and validity. To validate the scale,
other measures will be administered to check the distinctiveness of this construct
from similar constructed scales.
10
Resources
Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on
organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of management
journal, 39(4), 779-801.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain
referral sampling. Sociological methods & research, 10(2), 141-163.
Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2008). The long work hours culture: Causes,
consequences and choices. Emerald Group Publishing.
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the
critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475-497.
Chell, E. (2004). 5) Critical Incident Technique. Essential guide to qualitative methods in
organizational research.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology,
64(1), 89-136.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
psychological measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative
behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices
on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management journal, 39(4), 949969.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Geurts, S. A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Daily recovery from workrelated effort during non-work time. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 7, 85123.
Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: reserve
service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 577.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin,51(4), 327.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Transaction Books.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard business review, 78(2), 78-93.
Grojean, M. W., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., & Smith, D. B. (2004). Leaders, values, and
organizational climate: Examining leadership strategies for establishing an organizational
climate regarding ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(3), 223-241.
Geurts, S. A., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation
between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment & Health, 482-492.
11
Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Anger, W. K., Bodner, T., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2011). Clarifying
work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive
supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134.
Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind. WorkingUSA, 1(2), 21-29.
Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. (2012). Intergroup leadership in
organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries.Academy of Management
Review, 37(2), 232-255.
Hubermann, O., Shealtial, I., & Levi, R. (2008, November 28). ‫ הרגלים של‬21 :‫סדרת השראה‬
‫ כלכליסט‬, ‫אנשים אפקטיביים במיוחד‬. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3157682,00.html
Jansen, N., Kant, I., van Amelsvoort, L., Nijhuis, F., & van den Brandt, P. (2003). Need for
recovery from work: evaluating short-term effects of working hours, patterns and schedules.
Ergonomics, 46(7), 664-680.
Johnson, G. (1990). Managing strategic change; the role of symbolic action.British Journal of
Management, 1(4), 183-200.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
empowerment and dependency. Journal of applied psychology,88(2), 246.
Kark, R., & Sonnentag, S. (2013). Leaders’ Responsibility for Recovery: How Leaders can
Encourage Employees’ Restoration Processes during Respites from Work (Working Paper).
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the selfregulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high-performance human resource
practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39(2), 366-391.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Sage.
Oltermann, P. (2014, January 5). German vice-chancellor takes time off to be a dad. the
Guardian. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://gu.com/p/3ytkp
Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with your Smartphone: How to Break the 24/7 Habit and
Change the way you work. Harvard Business Press.
Perlow, L. A., & Porter, J. L. (2009). Making time off predictable--and required. Harvard
business review, 87(10), 102-109.
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (Eds.). (2011). Responsible leadership. Springer.
Roberto, M. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2005). The art of making change initiatives stick. MIT
Sloan management review, 46(4), 53-60.
Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2011). Daily
detachment from work and home: The moderating effect of role salience.human
relations, 64(6), 775-799.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior,
25(3), 293-315.
12
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative
science quarterly, 229-240.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the
interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518.
Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological Detachment From Work During Leisure Time The
Benefits of Mentally Disengaging From Work. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 21(2), 114-118.
Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. V. (2005). Switching off mentally: predictors and consequences of
psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 10(4), 393.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). " Did you have a nice evening?" A daylevel study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3),
674.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when
demands are high: the role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(5), 965.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and
validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of
occupational health psychology, 12(3), 204.
Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need
for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355-365.
Sonnentag, S., Unger, D., & Nägel, I. J. (2013). Workplace conflict and employee well-being:
The moderating role of detachment from work during off-job time. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 24(2), 166-183.
Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job activities as predictors
of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 330.
Stanger, M. (2013, February 11). 18 Of The Best Perks At Top Employers. Business Insider.
Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://read.bi/YOFkgj
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative
research, 273-285.
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home
interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts
and applications. American Psychological Association.
von Thiele Schwarz, U. (2011). Inability to Withdraw from Work as Related to Poor Next‐Day
Recovery and Fatigue among Women. Applied Psychology,60(3), 377-396.
Waldman, D. A. (2012). Moving forward with the concept of responsible leadership: Three
caveats to guide theory and research. In Responsible Leadership (pp. 75-83). Springer
Netherlands.
13
Waldman, D. A., & Galvin, B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible
leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 327-341.
Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader.The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(1), 117-131.
Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-ofmanagement and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266285.
Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB.Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(4), 806.
Yukl, G., O'Donnell, M., & Taber, T. (2009). Influence of leader behaviors on the leadermember exchange relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(4), 289-299.
14
Appendix 1:
Recovery Narratives – Manager Questionnaire:
Working in general and particularly working under intense conditions draws upon
individuals' resources and causes strain reactions. Even when people love their workplace
and enjoy their job, they may still experience stresses which are caused by or relate to their
working experiences.
Recovery refers to a process during which these strain symptoms are reduced by taking time
for recovery, psychological detachment, relaxation, specific recovery experiences (e.g. rest,
vacation, physical exercise), adaptation of work structure, and more.
Managers may have an influence on if and how employees recover during and after work
hours.
Part 1
Think of a specific situation in which you facilitated your employees' ability to recover from
work.
Please describe in details the situation (What happened? What type of job was it? Who was
involved? What did you do in order to deal with the situation? How did you facilitate
recovery(?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
There follows some questions which elaborate on the case you have just described. Please
refer to them, whether they add to your former description.
What were the circumstances in which your employee needed to recover? What were the
causes or the specific event that preceded them ?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
How did you realize your employee's need for recovery? What were the emotions involved
that made you notice the need for recovery ?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
How did you try to facilitate the recovery? What were your behaviors ?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
15
Concerning the situation you have just described, how demanding were the employee's tasks
in relation to the following categories?
Physical
Not at all 1 ----- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 ----- 6 ----- 7 Very much
Cognitive
Not at all 1 ----- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 ----- 6 ----- 7 Very much
Emotional
Not at all 1 ----- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 ----- 6 ----- 7 Very much
The manager's behavior may foster recovery in various ways, among them by conveying oral
messages or expressing emotions.
What oral messages did you try to convey in order to foster recovery?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
What were the emotions you have expressed in order to facilitate recovery?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Did you make changes in the working structure in order to support or facilitate recovery?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Where there any other people/figures involved the process of recovery?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
How did your employee/s react to your attempt to foster recovery?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Following your actions, what were the positive or negative effects or consequences on the
functioning of the employee/s and/or the well-being of theirs?
In the short term_____________________________________________________________
In the long term_____________________________________________________________
How did this behavior positively or negatively affect your relationship with the employee?
In the short term_____________________________________________________________
In the long term_____________________________________________________________
Were there any team and/or organizational outcomes of this?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
16
Part 2
As mentioned above, managers may have an influence on if and how employees recover
during and after working hours.
Beyond the above-mentioned case, what is your perception of personal and general
managerial responsibility for the recovery of the employees?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
What are your ways of fostering recovery?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
To what extent do your consider the after-work hours as a chance of the employee to
recover? How do you encourage that?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Do you give personal example of recovery to your employees? How do you recover yourself
from work?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Do you have any recollection of cases in which you've noticed that your employee/s needed
recovery, and you didn't foster it or didn't allow it? Please describe them.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
For research needs we'll appreciate if you fill certain work-related personal details
Gender: M / F
Age:
Number of employees in Company/Organization:
Company/Organization main line of business:
Personal seniority in company:
Managerial seniority in company:
Accumulated managerial experience:
supervision:
Number of employees under your
How long had you worked with these specific employees?
Years of education:
Education:
17