Death Reflection and Employee Work Behavior in the COVID-19 New Normal Time: The Role of Duty Orientation and Work Orientation

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a destructive affair for both workplace and community. However, with the strengthen of global anti-pandemic measures, COVID-19 becomes the norm and there is an increased trend for people to reflect on life or death. Moreover, regardless of its facilitating role in advancing organizational behavior (OB) study, very few studies empirically examine the effects of death reflection in the work domain. Drawing on the generativity theory, we identify how death reflection influences employees’ in-role and extra-role performance under the COVID-19 pandemic. A longitudinal study is performed by using multi-source data from 387 employees in China. Our results reveal that the COVID-19-triggered death reflection is associated with the stronger in-role performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. We find that duty orientation is the mechanism that can explain the effects of the COVID-19-triggered death reflection on employees’ work behaviors. Furthermore, employees who reflect on death with high (vs. low) career and calling orientations tend to have higher in-role and extra-role performance, while employees who reflect on death with low (vs. high) job orientation are likely to have lower in-role and extra-role performance.

Using ATLAS for Mac to enact narrative analysis: metaphor of generativity from LGBT older adult life stories

The relationship between qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) and the development of new methods remains underexplored. While scholars argue that software tactics are used only to implement analytic strategies, some strategies are made possible only with new software developments. Aligned with the Five-Level QDA method, we aim to address the gap in the literature by thoroughly presenting the methodological aspects of an existing narrative inquiry. To be systematic in our explanation of QDAS integration, we begin by offering background information about the original project, followed by an analytical plan, which was informed by our researcher’s subjectivity and generativity theory. We then introduce our translational process that merges our subjective narrative strategy with objective ATLAS.ti tactics into a comprehensive framework for analysis. The findings, presented as a conceptual mapping of the data, informed deeper metaphorical exploration of generativity which is discussed as a life-long process of intergenerational connectedness.

Cultivating Generative Connection Through Agricultural Leadership

Adult agricultural leadership programs (ALP) address the needs of a diversifying society with pressing social, economic, environmental, and political challenges. Additionally, these programs offer transformative learning experiences that lead to a greater capacity of current and prospective leaders to become change agents in their communities. Our aging society generates a novel opportunity to reframe experiences of professional succession and retirement within the agricultural sector. In a profession where vitality, strength, and perseverance are fundamental, the agricultural industry needs leaders who remain aware of the foundational knowledge contributed by their predecessors. At the same time, it also necessitates innovation that may revolutionize the farming industry for decades to come. In this mixed-method study, we asked participants of an ALP in the Southeastern region of the U.S. to complete the Loyola Generativity Scale (N=45). Survey results (N=45; 60% response rate) indicated average overall generative (40.3; 40-41 scale average) concern. However, there was a considerable variation among participants, scores ranging from 25-57 (scale range 20-55). To understand the range of attitudes, we conducted interviews (N=10) to represent the distribution of scores by varying ages (M=38), gender, and educational background. Generativity Theory provided the foundation of our thematic qualitative analysis. We discuss the findings in terms of generative desire (motivational), beliefs (thoughts and plans), and actions (behaviors and applied meaning). Our quantitative and qualitative findings advance the conversation of the importance of maintaining social capital throughout one’s career and identifying generative connections that assist with difficult transitions, such as retirement, in later life.

Theories of Generative Change in Teacher Education

In 1950, Erik Erickson introduced the concept of generativity in psychosocial development when referring to an individual’s desire to produce new knowledge that contributes to the guidance of the next generation. Nearly fifty years later, Epstein built on the term generativity in his research when referring to the generation of new or novel behavior in problem-solving. According to Epstein, generativity theory is a formal, predictive, empirically based theory of ongoing behavior in novel environments. Because it can be used to predict generative behavior and engineer new performances, it is also predictive of creativity and offers important contributions to the study of the transformative processes needed by teachers who desire to work effectively with students in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms. The evolution of theories of generativity can be traced from their use in studies of psychosocial development, to their use in studies of education, teacher education, and the preparation of teachers who work effectively in complex, 21st century classrooms. It should be noted that the theme that runs throughout the research literature on generativity over the last seventy years is a focus on using the term generativity theory to refer to a formal, predictive theory of creative behavior in individuals. When applied to education and the development of teachers to teach in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms, it is important to note that oftentimes teachers—many of whom have never worked with diverse student populations before—must develop the ability to translate their desire to teach into a conscious concern to serve the next generation—into a generative commitment to teach all students. They must make decisions to establish goals for generative behavior and then turn those decisions into generative actions and the creation of effective pedagogical solutions that meet the needs of their diverse students. One meaning of generative behavior is to generate things and people, to be creative, productive, and fruitful, to “give birth” to creative pedagogical problem-solving both figuratively and literally. The scholarship on generativity theory emphasizes the notion that generativity, unlike simple altruism or general prosocial behavior, involves the creation of a product or legacy. The qualities emphasized in generativity theory are the qualities needed by teachers who hope to be effective in their work with diverse populations. Generative behavior involves the conservation, restoration, preservation, cultivation, nurturance, or maintenance of that which is deemed worthy of such behavior, as in nurturing children and adapting traditions that link generations and assure continuity over time—through generative concern, action, and narration. Reflection is not enough. Rather, generative action that stems directly from teachers’ commitment, enhanced belief, and stimulated by concern, inner desire and cultural demand is needed. Generative action—which includes the behaviors of creating, maintaining, and offering to others—is the ultimate result of generativity. Narrations of generativity and the use of writing as a pedagogical tool for deep thinking are two means by which the complex relations among demand, desire, concern, belief, internalization, commitment, and action can be captured and analyzed.

The Postgraduate Supervisor Under Scrutiny: An Autoethnographic Inquiry

Effective postgraduate supervision is a critical indicator of individual scholarship and institutional reputation. This paper uses autoethnography to scrutinize critical moments in the author’s enactment of the supervisory role over a lengthy career at a distance education university, where supervision takes place through face-to-face consultation, distance education, or a combination of both modes. Autoethnography, an innovative addition to the compendium of qualitative research methods, is gaining prominence as a means of examining the academic life through the personal and professional histories of individual academics. The author’s aim is to focus both inward on the vulnerable self as expressed in the role of academic supervisor and outward on the social and cultural aspects of this role as it is shaped within the context of the university. This has been done by constructing a text with a high degree of self-reflexivity, which combines evocative and literary elements with some explicit theorizing around generativity theory. Generativity is defined as an adult’s concern for and commitment to promoting the well-being of the next generation, in this case, the intellectual well-being of future cohorts of scholars. Against the framework of generativity, a series of autobiographical vignettes illustrate self-defining moments in the author’s development as supervisor. The role of memory and memory supports in producing an accurate story and measures taken to interact with the characters in the stories to enhance textual credibility are addressed. The vignettes illustrate the desire to conduct supervision as a generative act; cultural demand for generativity; the transmission of a personal aesthetic in supervision; the separation-individuation of the student; the redemption of generative commitment in the face of threats to generativity; and the perpetuation of the generative cycle. I conclude that autoethnography as method presents a useful route to both self-understanding and social understanding of the academic life, with particular reference to the role of postgraduate supervisor.