skip to main content
10.1145/2617848.2617850acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Influence of Bring Your Own Device on the Psychological Climate at Workplace

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 August 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the new electronic era, the increasing amounts of various resources make it more difficult to use information at workplace. Bring your own device (BYOD) makes employee in the business organization to handle these various information resources in the fashion way. BYOD, such as notebook and smart phone at work has become the usual and normal trend in the workplace. People deal their daily job with these devices. Trends such as the influx of workers' own devices into the workplace will require more flexible and creative management style in order to maintain the performance as usual. This study examined the theoretical framework guiding research on work design and psychological climate, consider context of BYOD, and evaluate evidence on the processes assumed to underlie these associations. The results provide support that psychological meaningfulness has significant influence on psychological safety which will positively contribute to job performance. Information processing positively contribute to psychological meaningfulness, while work-life conflict will sabotage the formation of psychological meaningfulness. Interaction outside organization is significantly related to psychological safety, while life-work conflict has a negative effect. The findings reveal that BYOD provides opportunities for employees to redefine their work. Instead of passively taking the work, employees can proactively determine the method and process of work with the BYOD.

References

  1. Weinberger, L.A., Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 1998. 1(1): p. 75--93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Steers, R.M., R.T. Mowday, and D.L. Shapiro, Introduction to special topic forum: The future of work motivation theory. The Academy of Management Review, 2004. 29(3): p. 379--387.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, C., C. Chiu, and C. Chen, The effect of TQM practices on employee satisfaction and loyalty in government. Total Quality Management, 2010. 21(12): p. 1299--1314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardy, R.L. and B. Leonard, Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises2011: ME Sharpe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Thomson, G., BYOD: enabling the chaos. Network Security, 2012. 2012(2): p. 5--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahn, W.A., Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 1990. 33(4): p. 692--724.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pfeffer, J., Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force1995: Harvard Business Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, S.P. and T.W. Leigh, A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996. 81(4): p. 358--368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. James, L.R., et al., Psychological climate: Implications from cognitive social learning theory and interactional psychology. Personnel Psychology, 1978. 31(4): p. 783--813.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. James, L.R., et al., Correlates of psychological influence: An illustration of the psychological climate approach to work environment perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 1979. 32(3): p. 563--588.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Argyris, C., Integrating the Individual and the Organization1964: Transaction Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Baer, M. and M. Frese, Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003. 24(1): p. 45--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Schepers, J., et al., Psychological safety and social support in groupware adoption: A multi-level assessment in education. Computers & Education, 2008. 51(2): p. 757--775. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Edmondson, A., Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 1999. 44(2): p. 350--383.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. White, R.W., Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological review, 1959. 66(5): p. 297--333.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. May, D.R., R.L. Gilson, and L.M. Harter, The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2004. 77(1): p. 11--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Rich, B.L., J.A. Lepine, and E.R. Crawford, Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of management journal, 2010. 53(3): p. 617--635.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Abraham, R., Emotional competence as antecedent to performance: A contingency framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 2004. 130(2): p. 117--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gruman, J.A. and A.M. Saks, Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 2011. 21(2): p. 123--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenhaus, J.H. and N.J. Beutell, Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management review, 1985. 10(1): p. 76--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hitt, M.A., The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. Organizational Dynamics, 2001. 28(3): p. 7--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedman, S.D., P. Christensen, and J. DeGroot, Work and life: The end of the zero-sum game. Harvard business review, 1998. 76: p. 119--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas, L.T. and D.C. Ganster, Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1995. 80(1): p. 6--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahn, R.L., et al., Occupational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. NY: Wiley, 1964.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Siegel, P.A., et al., The Moderating Influence of Procedural Fairness on the Relationship Between Work-Life Conflict and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005. 90(1): p. 13--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Bradley, B.H., et al., Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012. 97(1): p. 151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Koskinen, K.U., P. Pihlanto, and H. Vanharanta, Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Management, 2003. 21(4): p. 281--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Herbig, B., A. Büssing, and T. Ewert, The role of tacit knowledge in the work context of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2001. 34(5): p. 687--695.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Tushman, M.L. and D.A. Nadler, Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design. Academy of Management review, 1978. 3(3): p. 613--624.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Galbraith, J.R., Organization Design: An Information Processing View. Organizational Effectiveness, 1984. 8(1): p. 21--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgeson, F.P. and S.E. Humphrey, The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006. 91(6): p. 1321--1339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, R. and T.D. Wall, Attentional demand and cost responsibility as stressors in shopfloor jobs. Academy of Management Journal, 1989. 32(1): p. 69--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wall, T.D., P.R. Jackson, and S. Mullarkey, Further evidence on some new measures of job control, cognitive demand and production responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1995. 16(5): p. 431--455.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Campion, M.A., Ability requirement implications of job design: An interdisciplinary perspective. Personnel Psychology, 1989. 42(1): p. 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Salancik, G.R. and J. Pfeffer, A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative science quarterly, 1978. 23(2): p. 224--253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Oldham, G.R. and J.R. Hackman, Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010. 31(2-- 3): p. 463--479.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sims, H.P., A.D. Szilagyi, and R.T. Keller, The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 1976. 19(2): p. 195--212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Stone, E.F. and H.G. Gueutal, An empirical derivation of the dimensions along which characteristics of jobs are perceived. Academy of Management Journal, 1985. 28(2): p. 376--396.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker, C.P., et al., Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2003. 24(4): p. 389--416.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Yun, H., W.J. Kettinger, and C.C. Lee, A New Open Door: The Smartphone's Impact on Work-to-Life Conflict, Stress, and Resistance. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2012. 16(4): p. 121--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Netemeyer, R.G., J.S. Boles, and R. McMurrian, Development and validation of work--family conflict and family--work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996. 81(4): p. 400--410.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Janssen, O. and N.W. Van Yperen, Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 2004. 47(3): p. 368--384.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Chin, W.W., The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in Modern Methods for Business Research, G.A. Mrcoulides, Editor 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: NJ. p. 295--336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Hair, J.F., et al., Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed1998, NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker, Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of marketing research, 1981. 18(2): p. 39--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Podsakoff, P.M., et al., Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003. 88(5): p. 879--903.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Wrzesniewski, A. and J.E. Dutton, Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management review, 2001. 26(2): p. 179--201.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Influence of Bring Your Own Device on the Psychological Climate at Workplace

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ICEC '14: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Electronic Commerce
        August 2014
        95 pages
        ISBN:9781450326186
        DOI:10.1145/2617848

        Copyright © 2014 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 August 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        ICEC '14 Paper Acceptance Rate14of22submissions,64%Overall Acceptance Rate150of244submissions,61%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader