Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate a boundary spanning, interprofessional collaboration between advanced practice nurses (APNs) and junior doctors to support junior doctors’ learning and improve patient management during the overtime shift.

A mixed methods evaluation of an intervention in an adult tertiary referral hospital, to enhance interprofessional collaboration on overtime shifts. Phase 1 compared tasks and ward rounds on 86 intervention shifts with 106 “regular” shifts, and examined the effect on junior doctor patient management testing a model using regression techniques. Phase 2 explored the experience of the intervention for stakeholders. 91 junior doctors participated (89 percent response rate) on 192 overtime shifts. Junior doctors, APNs and senior medical professionals/administrators participated in interviews.

The intervention was associated with an increase in self-initiated ward rounds by junior doctors, partially explained by junior doctors completing fewer tasks skilled nurses could also complete. The intervention significantly reduced doctors’ engagement in tasks carried over from day shifts as well as first year (but not more experienced) junior doctors’ total tasks. Interviews suggested the initiative reduced junior doctors’ work pressure and promoted a safe team climate, situation awareness, skills, confidence, and well-being.

Junior doctors overtime shifts (5 p.m. to 11 p.m.) are important, both for hospitals to maintain patient care after hours and for junior doctors to learn and develop independent clinical decision making skills. However, junior doctors frequently report finding overtime shifts challenging and stressful. Redesigning overtime shifts to facilitate interprofessional collaboration can improve patient management and junior doctors’ learning and well-being.

Scholars have argued that different forms of proactive behaviors (e.g., career initiative, feedback seeking, and taking charge) all involve employees’ self-initiated and future-focused efforts to bring about change in a situation (Parker et al., 2006). There are at least three important elements that define proactivity: future-focus, change-orientation, and self-initiation (Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker et al., 2006). First, proactive behavior is future-focused, which means that this action is targeted at anticipated problems or at opportunities with a long-term focus. Second, proactive behavior is change-oriented, involving not just reacting to a situation but being prepared to change that situation in order to bring about a different future. Third, and underpinning the prior two elements, proactive behavior is self-initiated, which means that employees initiate a proactive goal without being told to, or without requiring explicit instructions from supervisors. Accordingly, proactivity has also been conceived of as a process in which employees generate and implement, under their own direction, a proactive goal to bring about a different future (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012; Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008).

Proactivity is a type of goal-directed work behavior in which individuals actively take charge of situations to bring about future change in themselves or their organization. In this chapter, we draw on goal-regulation research to review conceptual and empirical evidence that elucidates some of the complex links of affective experience and employee proactivity. We identify the different ways in which affective experience influences different stages of proactivity, including employees’ efforts in setting a proactive goal (envisioning), preparing to implement their proactive goal (planning), implementing their proactive goal (enacting), and engaging in learning from their proactive goal process (reflecting). Overall, our review suggests an important, positive role of high-activated positive trait affectivity and moods in motivating proactivity across multiple goal stages, as compared to low-activated positive affectivity and moods. The role of negative affect is mixed, and likely depends on both its valence and the stage of proactivity that is being considered. We identify a lack of research on the role of discrete emotions for employee proactivity. We discuss future avenues for research, particularly the roles of intra- and inter-personal emotion regulation for proactivity and of affective embeddedness of proactive processes in the social environment of organizations.

Simon L. Albrecht is a registered psychologist and has a PhD and a master’s degree in Organizational Psychology. Simon’s PhD focused on identifying the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational trust. Simon is a Senior Lecturer within the Organizational Psychology program at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Teaching, research, and practice interests are in the areas of work engagement, organizational development and change, leadership development, culture and climate, and organizational politics. Simon has published in numerous international journals, has numerous book chapters in print, and has presented at international conferences. In addition to his academic and research interests Simon also has considerable consultancy experience. He has previously been a director of a human resource consultancy engaged in delivering a broad range of organizational development activities and programs.

The chapters in this volume are drawn from the best contributions to the 2010 International Conference on Emotion in Organizational Life held in Montreal, Canada in August of that year, complemented with invited chapters consonant with the theme of this volume. This highly successful conference, founded by the editors of this volume, and first held in 1998, is fondly referred to by many as the “Emonet” conference, after the email discussion listserv set up to support the conference and all those interested in advancing knowledge in emotions in organizational settings. We are especially grateful to the conference paper reviewers and acknowledge their service in the appendix of the book.

This study aims to look at the current state of academic research on innovative work behavior (IWB) and how far it has progressed by using key performance analysis and science mapping techniques of bibliometric analysis.

This study has analyzed 246 publications from Web of Science database on IWB from 1989 to 2021. Data were analyzed using MS Excel and VOSviewer.

There has been a rise in the number of academic studies on IWB during the past decade. In addition, it was discovered that a significant percentage of papers had multiple authors working together on them and that collaborations between institutes in Asia and the developed world are taking place.

IWB research trends and trajectories may be assessed to enable academics and practitioners better understand the current and future trends and research directions. Future studies in this field might use the findings as a starting point to highlight the nature of the topic.

Bibliometric techniques provide a far more comprehensive and reliable picture of the field. This article has the potential to serve as a one-stop resource for researchers and practitioners seeking information that can aid in transdisciplinary endeavors by leading them to recognized, peer-reviewed papers, journals and networks.