SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING OF THE STAFF OF ENTERPRISES WITH DIFFERENT INVOLVEMENT IN INNOVATIVE PROCESSES: AGE ASPECT
https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2020-2-186-193
Abstract
The results of empirical investigations of subjective well-being of multi-age engineering staff at successful innovative enterprise and the enterprise with long-term problems of transition to innovative development format have been presented. Subjective well-being has been сonsidered as emotional regulator of labor activity and staff acceptance of innovations factor. Readiness for innovative changes, self-esteem of fatigue, health status, stress and age state of health has been studied as indicators of well-being. It has been shown that at ordinary enterprise the most unpleasant indicators of subjective well-being are typical for young staff, but at the innovative enterprise the staff regardless of age have a high level of subjective well-being which is manifested in a commitment to innovative values and personal involvement in the labor process.
About the Authors
L. N. Zakharova
National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Psychological Sciences,
Nizhny Novgorod
I. S. Leonova
National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of Sociological Science,
Nizhny Novgorod
References
1. Cameron K. S., Quinn R. E. Diagnostika i izmenenie organizatsionnoi kultury [Diagnosing and changing organizational culture]. St-Petersburg, Piter, 2001. 320 p.
2. Klepikova E. A., Kolosnitzina М.G. Eidzhizm na rossiiskom rynke truda: diskriminatsciya v zarabotnoi plate [Ageism at the russian labour market: wage discrimination]. Rossiiskii zhurnal menedzhmenta [Russian Management Journal], 2017, no. 1, pp. 69-88.
3. Klimenko L. V., Posukhova O. Yu. Gendernye aspekty prekariatizatsii truda v rossiiskom obshchestve [Gender aspects of precarization of labour in Russian society]. Zhenshchina v rossiiskom obshchestve [Woman in Russian Society], 2017, no. 1, pp. 29-40.
4. Krotenko T. Yu., Zhernakova M. B. Kompetentsii menedzhera epokhi tsifrovoi revolyutsii [Manager’s competencies of the digital revolution era]. Vestnik Universiteta, 2019, no. 5, pp. 23-26.
5. Sungurova N. L., Khomenko N. V. Osobennosti psikhologicheskogo blagopoluchiya i professional’nogo razvitiya proizvodstvennogo personala [Features of psychological well-being and professional development of production personnel]. Sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya psikhologii truda i organizatsionnoi psikhologii [Current status and prospects of development of labor psychology and organizational psychology]. A. N. Zankovsky, A. L. Zhuravlev Eds. Moscow, Izd-vo Institut psikhologii RAN Publ., 2018, pp. 475-487.
6. Prognoz sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii na period do 2036 g. Ministerstvo ekonomicheskogo razvitiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Forecast of the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2036. Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation]. Available at: https://bit.ly/2xqOXu7 (accessed 17.12.2019).
7. Diener E., Suh E. M., Lucas R. E., Smith H. L. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 1999, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 276-302.
8. Eldor L., Vigoda-Gadot E. The nature of employee engagement: rethinking the employee organization relationship. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2017, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 526-552.
9. Greenberg J. Behavior in organizations. Prentice Hall, 2011. 690 p.
10. Kahn W. A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 1990, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692-724.
11. Kessler R. C., Andrews G., Colpe A. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 2002, vol. 32, pp. 959–956.
12. Linley P. A., Maltby J., Wood A. M., Osborne G., Hurling R. Measuring happiness: The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 2009, vol. 47, pp. 878-884.
13. Prati L., McMillan-Capehart A., Karriker J. H. Affecting organizational identity: A manager’s influence. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2009, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 404-415.
14. Posthuma R. A. Age stereotypes in the workplace: common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 2009, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 158-188.
15. Zaniboni S., Kmicinska M., Truxillo D. M., Kahn K., Paladino M.P., Fraccaroli F. Will you still hire me when I am over 50? The effects of implicit and explicit age stereotyping on resume evaluations. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 2019, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 453-467.
Review
For citations:
Zakharova L.N., Leonova I.S. SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING OF THE STAFF OF ENTERPRISES WITH DIFFERENT INVOLVEMENT IN INNOVATIVE PROCESSES: AGE ASPECT. Vestnik Universiteta. 2020;(2):186-193. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2020-2-186-193
Views:
539
Email this article 