China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Determinants and Consequences of Work-Related Stress in Personnel of Residential Care Establishments
Published in Dorota Żołnierczyk-Zreda, Emotional Labour in Work with Patients and Clients, 2020
Furthermore, stress can have a negative impact on the functioning of workers, including: work performance, sickness absence, job satisfaction, burnout, counterproductive work behavior, and employee turnover [e.g. Demerouti et al. 2001; Jensen, Patel, and Messersmith 2013; Baka 2017; Meisler, Vigoda-Gadot, and Drory 2017; Schonfeld, Bianchi, and Luehring-Jones 2017]. Hence, employers interested in improving worker health and minimizing health effects should take action to prevent stress at the workplace.
Therapy of Autoimmune Diseases Using Antibodies to Molecules of the Major Histocompatibility Complex
Published in Irun R. Cohen, Perspectives on Autoimmunity, 2020
Lawrence Steinman, Scott S. Zamvil, Jacqueline Trotter, Subramaniam Sriram, Matthew K. Waldor
One of the intriguing aspects of anti-I-A therapy is the haplotype specificity of its action. When an anti-I-A* monoclonal antibody is administered to a (C3H × CWB)F1 (H-2k/b), antibody production to the synthetic polypeptide (H,G)-A—L, which is regulated by I-Ak, is suppressed, while antibody production to (T,G)-A-L, which is controlled by I-Ab, is unaffected.17 Since most humans are heterozygous at the critical HLA-D loci which play a role in conferring disease susceptibility, haplotype-specific therapy offers the possibility of suppressing autoimmune responses linked to particular alleles at HLA-D region loci without global immune suppression.
Monoclonal Antibodies Against Murine Ia Antigens: Studies On Structure, Function, Epitopes, And Idiotypes
Published in Soldano Ferrone, Chella S. David, Ia Antigens, 2019
G. J. Hämmerling, N. Koch, R. Grützmann, N. Ade
Antibodies 11-2.12 and 10-2.16 were a generous gift of L. A. Herzenberg, Stanford University (10-2.16 was obtained via the Salk-Institute cell distribution center). 11-2.12 is a BALB/c antibody (IgG3/k) specific for Ia.2 and 10-2.16 is a CWB antibody (IgG2b/k) specific for Ia. 17. Both antibodies have been described in detail by Oi et al.13
An Other Perspective on Five Factor Machiavellianism
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2021
Bastian P. Kückelhaus, Gerhard Blickle
Counterproductive work behavior refers to voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization (CWB-O), its members (CWB-I), or both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 349). CWB can be assessed using self-report (Robinson & Bennett, 1995) or other-report measures (Stewart et al., 2009). Coworkers assessed targets’ CWB with the German version (Zettler & Hilbig, 2010) of the 19-item Workplace Deviance Scale by Bennett and Robinson (2000). The scale contains two subscales: CWB directed toward the organization (CWB-O, 12 items), and interpersonally-directed CWB (CWB-I, 7 items). All items were rated from 1 (never) to 7 (daily). A CWB-O sample item is “Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than they spent on business expenses.” A CWB-I sample item is “Played a mean prank on someone at work.” Cronbach’s alphas were .87, .84, and .80 for the total score, CWB-O, and CWB-I, respectively.
Five Factor Machiavellianism: Validation of a New Measure
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2021
Bastian P. Kückelhaus, Gerhard Blickle, Iris Kranefeld, Theresa Körnig, Hanna A. Genau
Counterproductive work behavior refers to “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and, in so doing, threatens the well-being of the organization or its members, or both” (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, p. 349). We measured counterproductive work behavior with the German version (Zettler & Hilbig, 2010) of Bennett and Robinson (2000) 19-item Workplace Deviance Scale. The measure consists of two subscales, counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization (CWB-O) and interpersonally directed counterproductive work behavior (CWB-I). The CWB-O scale is comprised of 12 items, and the CWB-I scale contains 7 items. Target employees rated the items on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (daily). Cronbach’s alpha was .78 for CWB-O, .63 for CWB-I, and .81 for the total score.
Exploring Individual Antecedents of Performance Error: False Starts in Collegiate Football
Published in Human Performance, 2021
Joseph Patrick Graczyk, Erich C. Dierdorff, Robert S. Rubin, Grace Lemmon
The scholarship on work performance has largely centered on the determinants of the individual behaviors that comprise performance (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015). A host of individual attributes can account for variance in performance effectiveness, including general mental ability, skill proficiencies, and personality or motivational traits. Evidence from multiple meta-analyses supports this supposition (e.g., Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Taken collectively, this body of literature suggests that individual differences are important predictors of performance effectiveness. Yet, the individual behaviors that comprise performance encompass both “positive” behaviors (e.g. organizational citizenship behavior) that promote effectiveness and “negative” behaviors that detract from effectiveness. In terms of the latter, the most studied have been behaviors that fall under the category of counterproductive work behavior (CWB), which includes behaviors such as theft, destruction of property, misuse of resources, unsafe behavior, poor attendance, poor quality work, and substance use (Gruys & Sackett, 2003). Evidence from meta-analysis has supported CWB as deleterious behavior regarding performance effectiveness, revealing its negative correlation (ρ = −.32) with positive behavior such as organizational citizenship (Dalal, 2005). However, negative behaviors that relate to performance effectiveness also extend beyond CWB to include what could be generally termed as “performance errors.”