infy analysis

VIKALPA VOLUME 39 NO 2 APRIL - JUNE 2014 57

R E S E A R C H

includes research articles thatfocus on the analysis and

resolution of managerial andacademic issues based on

analytical and empirical or caseresearch

ExecutiveSummary

Three-Factor Model of Employee Passion:An Empirical Study in the Indian Context

Niharika Gaan and Kalyani Mohanty

KEY WORDS

Work Passion

Work Cognition

Work Affect

Work Rumination

Job Well-being

Although the passion that people demonstrate at work would appear to be a topic of

considerable interest and importance to organizational scholars and practitioners,

the extant literature scarcely discusses the construct of it without further investiga-

tion. The study of Vallerand et al. (2003) pertaining to the area of passion has made

profound theoretical contribution confirming the precepts of positive psychology

(Seligman, 2002). However, the behavioural outcomes such as working on holidays,

or out-of-work outcomes such as constantly thinking about work when not at work

(work rumination) sharing a nomological network with the construct, has not been

examined by them, as argued by Perrew et al., (2014). Further, the comprehensive

work shown by Zigarmi et al. (2011) in defining the Work Passion (WP) construct

suffers from methodological lacunae. Given that the extant literature on work passion

calls for further examination, the pertinent study aims to investigate the validity and

reliability of Passion scales based on the model proposed by Zigarmi et al. (2011).

Four dimensions of a process model constituting work cognition, work affect, job well-

being, and work intention along with work rumination as an integral part of work

passion were examined. Questionnaires were administered to a sample of corporate

professionals heralding spectrum of industries to validate the passion scale. The prin-

cipal component analysis was performed which extracted four factors (work cogni-

tion, work affect, job well-being & work rumination) out of five factors to validate the

construct. However, in order to confirm the validity of the scale, the structural equa-

tion modeling analysis was adopted which further indicated that the three-factor

structure of work passion (work cognition, work affect, and work rumination) was the

best fit model in comparison to the four-factor models.

Incidentally, the emergence of work rumination as an important dimension of WP

construct has confirmed the dualistic nature of the passion construct as stated by

Vallerand et al. (2003) through its dualistic status as positive and negative work rumi-

nation. The triadic nature of WP can be prospective as well as retrospective in nature;

where people tend to think about issues that have occurred in the past or anticipatively

ruminate about issues and demands that may arise at work (Cropley & Zijlstra, 2011).

The intriguing nature of the present study suggesting cognitions (work cognition),

affects (work affects), and behaviours (work rumination) to be preceding the formation

of dualistic status of passion (harmonious and obsessive passion) provides a good

basis for future investigation.

58

Though passion seems to have 2000 years of intel-

lectual history, the field of psychology has not

captured its emotional aspect involving intense

personal interests, commitment, and over-commitment

until recently (Krapp, 2002). Literature reports its cover-

age in the context of numerous non-work activities like

sports, gambling, romance, and internet use (Amiot et al.,

2006; Mageau et al., 2005; Rousseau et al., 2002; Seguin-

Levesque et al., 2003). Most creative work is an outcome

of passion, influenced both by a persons basic interest in

a particular kind of work and by the work environment

surrounding the person (Amabile, 2001; Fisher & Smith,

2006), and is stated to result in cognitive, affective, and

instrumental outcomes (Vallerand & Houlfort, 2003). It is

even put forward as being an active ingredient for ven-

ture growth (Baum, Locke, & Smith, 2001), well-being

(Burke & Fiskenbaum, 2009), and entrepreneurial suc-

cess (Cardon, Zietsma, Saparito, Matherne, & Davis, 2005).

Further, passion seems to be an essential driver for em-

ployee engagement (Pati, 2012; Ho et al., 2009), thereby

indicating precedence over work attitude. Despite its prac-

tical significance, the organizational sciences have yet to

develop an informed understanding of the content do-

main, predictive efficacy, and influence of passion on rel-

evant outcomes, including job stress and performance.

Thus, the authors here regard work passion (WP) as a

construct in its nascent stage of development.

WHY PASSION MATTERS

Lately work passion (WP) has become a catchphrase for

researchers and practitioners because of certain inherent

weaknesses attached to the concept of employee engage-

ment (EE). A clear understanding of the difference be-

tween the two concepts can help the practitioner to choose

the specific indicator which positively influences the per-

formance of the organization, without leaving room for

any anomaly. Firstly, the key indicators that differentiate

employee engagement from passion include factors be-

sides organizational and job-related factors (Zigarmi et

al., 2009), which together have generally been used to

explain the WP construct. The WP construct has an added

element as it not only takes into account both organiza-

tional and job factors but is also considered to be a self-

defining activity which strengthens one's identity

(Zigarmi et al., 2011; Vallerand et al., 2003). Academi-

cians perceive engagement construct as being connected

solely to job-related factors, whereas the practitioners re-

late it solely to organizational factors, creating a wide

gulf in their interpretation. From the social cognitive

theory perspective (Zigarmi et al., 2011), WP is thought to

emphasize the appraisal process of an individuals per-

ception on the events and experiences impacting his well-

being, whereas from the role theory perspective, EE is

described as a kind of stable psychological presence

whereby the individuals in organizations express them-

selves physically, cognitively, and emotionally with re-

spect to their discretionary work roles (Kahn, 1990).

Secondly, emotional and intellectual involvement are

considered as emotional and intellectual commitment to

the organization (Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw,

2005) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by

employees in their jobs (Frank et al., 2004) and this sub-

stantially explains variance in employee engagement.

However, it has also been observed that organizational

commitment and job involvement are interchangeably

used. It therefore draws the criticism that employee en-

gagement overlaps and bleeds into already existing con-

struct of organizational commitment or job involvement,

thereby having little merit in its identity (Harrison,

Newman, & Roth, 2006; Saks, 2008). Work engagement is

neither strong enough nor descriptive enough to be asso-

ciated with affective, cognitive, and/or behavioural com-

ponents found in social cognitive theory and appraisal

literature (Zigarmi et al., 2009), whereas WP presupposes

the key underlying drivers of intense desire and inten-

tionality that are not part of engagement but are extensive

enough to provide incentive for work behaviours (Zigarmi

et al., 2009). More importantly, engagement is not a term

which is sufficiently encompassing to fully capture the

magnitude of work passion and its impact on individu-

als (Perrew et al., 2014). Moreover, the distinction be-

tween both the constructs is reinforced with the evidence

that employee engagement is a part of intensive work sys-

tem rather than being a component of sustainable work

system (Docherty, Kira, & Shani, 2009).Given the criti-

cisms attached to the term employee engagement, WP has

been gaining ground as human resource professionals

are more precise about the concepts, antecedents, and

modifiers that affect employee motivation and work pas-

sion (Zigarmi et al., 2009).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Passion makes employees excited about their work

and gives a sense of personal accomplishment. It is an

intrinsic motivation in its highest form, which makes

work interesting, engaging, and positively challenging;

THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF EMPLOYEE PASSION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT


and can lead to complete absorption in the work

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). If an employee is passionate

about his job, it is implicitly connected to his concept of

self. Passion for work is the outward manifestation of

individual purpose and connection with organizational

purpose (Love, 2005); however, there is no one-size-fits-

all solution for bringing passion to ones life (Boyatzis,

McKee, & Goleman, 2002).

In a similar vein, Vallerand et al. (2003) have stated that

passion can be understood as a strong inclination toward

a self-defining activity that people love, feel a devotion

towards, and in which they invest significant time and

energy. With these criteria, the internalization of activity

with ones identity gives the underlying meaning to the

WP construct. The proposition of Vallerand et al. (2003)

is based on a self-determination theory that believes that

internalization of activity is influenced by the interaction

of innate, psychological needs of autonomy, competence,

and relatedness (Williams & Deci, 1996) which are not

self-generated and are rather dependent on external en-

vironment. However, what is posited by them is strongly

contradicted due to its inherent tendency of being exhorted

and influenced by the environmental factors (Zigarmi et

al., 2009). Furthermore, they postulated dualistic exist-

ence of passion consisting of harmonious and obsessive

passion unlike the other studies. The former is consid-

ered to emanate when a person freely accepts an activity

as important for him and as representative of his identity

(Ryan & Desi, 2000). This component of passion is sup-

posed to yield a positive outcome. The latter emanates

from an uncontrollable urge to partake in an activity where

one can experience contingencies attached to it, which

may lead to negative psychological adjustment (Mageau,

Carpentier, & Vallerand, 2012) as the activity controls

individual interests.

Despite being a pioneer in the field of WP, Vallerand et al.

(2003) had not studied the behavioural outcomes such as

working on holidays, or out-of-work outcomes such as

constantly thinking about work when not at work (work

rumination), as a part of the WP construct (Forest et al.,

2010) or as sharing a nomological network with it

(Perrew et al., 2014). The author argues here that con-

trolled rumination can also be a part of passion which

results in problem solving and creativity. However, it is

shown as a moderating variable between WP and emo-

tional exhaustion (Donahue, Forest, & Bergeron , 2012).

Additionally, a high level of passion (Obsessive) has a

predilection to be associated with uncontrolled rumina-

tion (Ratelle, et al. 2004) and inflexibility (Vallerand et al.,

2003).

As per the extensive study by Zigarmi et al. (2011), WP is

an individuals persistent, emotionally positive, mean-

ing-based, state of well-being, stemming from recurring

cognitive and affective appraisal of various job and or-

ganizational situations which results in consistent and

constructive work intentions and behaviours (Zirgami et

al., 2009). It measures affective and cognitive intention,

and provides a clearer sense of how the individual in-

tends to behave on behalf of the organization. The cogni-

tive aspect of the formation of WP involves the growth of

mental schema or thought patterns that contain the fea-

tures, images, feelings, and ideas associated with the work

experience being appraised (Lord & Kernan, 1987;

Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1990). Emotions are

generated in the process of appraisal through the cogni-

tive aspect of passion which is termed as work affect and

helps the appraiser to perceive the work experience to be

either threatening or enhancing (Gotlieb et al., 1994;

Jaussi, 2007). As defined by Schaufeli, Bakker, and

Salanova (2006), job well-being is a positive, fulfilling,

state of mind characterized by vigour, dedication, and

absorption which is nomologically networked with em-

ployee engagement. During the second phase of the ap-

praisal process, intentions are generated as ones

inclination to act in a given way toward a particular com-

mitment target (Brown, 1996). Although the study of

Zigarmi et al. (2011) tried operationalizing the construct

in a manner which apparently seems to be comprehen-

sive, it suffers from methodological lacunae. The sample

drawn in the study solely represented one division of an

electronics company based in the western US and the

coverage was narrow, excluding the middle level and

senior managers in the hierarchy.

This may pose the greatest limitation to the generaliza-

tion of the study. Research on the role of passion in work

organizations is comparatively scarce, with the excep-

tion of one study (Vallerand & Houlfort, 2003) that has

proposed obsessive passion as one of its aspects, which

does not appear to be part of the study conducted by

Zigarmi et al. (2011). Consequently, it leads to the debate

on the dualistic state of the employee passion construct

comprising obsessive passion and harmonious passion.

Owing much to this foundational work, studies have rec-

ognized passion as a complex construct capable of elicit-

60

ing employee reactions ranging from exceedingly posi-

tive to highly destructive (Marsh et al., 2013). Accord-

ingly, the expansiveness of the construct and its associated

impact on important organizational outcomes encourage

further investigation in studies with the potential to move

the research base forward by revisiting the construct and

defining it in a meaningful way.

METHOD

Samples and Procedure

The database consisted of 256 working professionals

ranging from lower level executives to general managers.

The data was collected during January 2012-February

2013 from public as well as private sector undertakings

located in the northern region of India and had a return

rate of 65 percent with a usable rate of 51 percent. The

different modes of survey administration, chosen on the

basis of convenience and feasibility, were e-mails, online

survey, and field survey. It involved snowball sampling

to get the leads from the higher authorities like the gen-

eral managers from banks and manufacturing industry,

and project leaders of the information technology (IT) sec-

tor. Twenty-one percent of the sample was generated from

manufacturing, 19 percent from IT, and 40 percent from

sectors like power, logistics, service, and education. The

employees age averaged 33.7 years (SD=1.48); 12 per-

cent had Masters degrees and the rest were graduates.

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are

provided in Table 1.

Measures

Based on the studies by Zigarmi et al. (2011) and

Vallerand (2003), a list of 70 items was prepared for meas-

uring constructs which needed to be scored on a five-

point Likert continuum (1-Least important, 5-Most

important). Scale indicators for face validity provided

measures which were checked by the panel consisting of

four faculty members. Faculty members conversant with

the content area of employee passion were requested to

review each item in terms of its relevance to the domain

passion. Initial screening resulted in the addition of the

dimension called work rumination consisting of 10 items

and the reduction of other items from 82 to 60, which

were taken forward for evaluation. Thus the final version

of the employee passion questionnaire used for the study

consisted of self-report items to be scored on a five-point

Likert continuum (1-Strongly disagree, 5-Strongly agree).

In addition to their evaluation regarding the relevance of

the topic, other factors which were considered by the fac-

ulty members were conceptual clarity, sentence clarity,

and conciseness.

Table 1: Demographic Statistics

N Percentage N Percentage

Age Experience at Current Employment

40 40 16 6-10 38 15

11 onward 36 14

Gender Total Work Experience

Male 130 51 1-5 78 30

Female 126 49 6-10 120 47

11-15 22 9

Industry 16-20 28 11

FMCG 10 4 21 onward 18 7

Manufacturing 52 21 Hierarchy

Automobile 6 2 Non Management Nil

Consulting 10 5 Lower Management

Telecommunications Nil Middle Management

Banking 28 11 Senior Management

IT 48 19 Marital Status

Others (Power, logistics and service sectors) 102 40 Married 154 60

Unmarried 102 40



To test the theoretical model of employee work passion,

five facets work cognition, work affect, job well-being,

work intention, and work rumination were incorpo-

rated. The first phase was conducted as a pilot test with a

sample size of 140, with a view to assess and refine the

measures.

ANALYSES

Principal Component Analysis

A principal component analysis was performed on 70

items employing varimax rotation as a means of examin-

ing the factor structure of the employee passion scale on

the sample size of 140. It extracted four factors which

accounted for 53 percent of the variance keeping restric-

tions on fifty factors while performing exploratory factor

analysis.

A total of 20 items were generated out of 70 items corre-

sponding to factors like work cognition, work affect, job

well-being, and work rumination having eigen value of

more than 1 ranging between1.56-5.28. The addition of

work rumination has profound influence here with 7 per-

cent explanatory power towards WP and has supported

the expert opinion. The value of KMO obtained from the

analysis was 0.704, which reveals that the sample size

was adequate for this test (Hutecheson & Sofroniou, 1999).

Similarly, the value of Bartletts test of sphericity was

878.04, p

62

of 20 items.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Table 3 corresponds to the inter-correlation among the

dimensions. As per Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), it is

necessary to demonstrate correlation with scales which

measure the same construct or with scales that would be

associated with it. They have even posited that discrimi-

nant validity is established by the presence of non-sig-

nificant correlations with scales.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

After the factor analysis, 14 indicators constituting em-

ployee passion were subjected to confirmatory factor

analysis with the aid of IBM SPSS AMOS 20.0 version

and a sample size of 250. As depicted in Table 4, an ad-

equate fit of the measurement model was shown to the

three-factor model (2 [75] =214.95, CFI=0.913,RMSEA=0.061). The results of the three-factor model when

contrasted with the four-factor model (with all 14 items

loading on the four factors) as well as the absolute null

model (with no relationships among 14 items), supported

the three-factor conceptualization of employee passion

over the four factor as well as the null model. The model

having job well-being as an endogenous variable along

with three exogenous variables (work affect, work cogni-

tion, and obsessive passion), when compared with the

three-factor model, proved to have poor fit indices (2[76] =294.5, CFI= 0.81, RMSEA= 0.092). This analysis

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, & Inter-Correlations (N=256)

No. Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. COG1 3.83 1.12 1.00

2. COG2 3.72 1.20 .42** 1.00

3. COG3 3.81 .99 .59** .32* 1.00

4. COG4 3.85 1.02 .43** .40** .44** 1.00

5. AFF1 4.41 1.15 .24** .20* .33** .26** 1.00

6. AFF2 4.01 1.02 .25* .25** .32** .48** .24* 1.00

7. AFF3 4.11 .86 .34** .21* .49** .33** .31* .35** 1.00

8. AFF4 4.21 1.03 .34* .27** .21* .31* .28** .27** .40** 1.00

9. JOBW1 3.69 1.03 .20** 30* .31* .38* .25* .39* .21* .25* 1.00

10. JOBW2 3.95 1.09 .26** .37* .21** .21* .37* .27* .26** .22* .27** 1.00

11. JOBW3 3.86 1.11 .27** .31* .21** .31** .29* .20** .40** .23* .28** .37** 1.00

12. RUMIN1 3.67 1.01 .21** .26* .29* .22* .23** .23* .29* .23* .28** .26** .20** 1.00

13. RUMIN2 3.71 .96 .33* .26* .23** .23* .23** .28* .20* .29** -.21** -.26* -.23* .25** 1.00

14. RUMIN3 4.17 1.03 .20** .33** .25** .39* .27* .25* .21* .38* -.20** -.21* -.26* .31* .51** 1.00

Total Employee passion

Note: *p


vouches for the researches posited by authors like Hoe

(2008) for examining the best fit model.

DISCUSSION

This study has made an attempt to revisit the WP con-

struct that can possibly be operationalized in the Indian

context. It is fundamentally based on the intensive study

made by Zigarmi et al. (2011). The noticeable results de-

picted by confirmatory factor analysis have four-pronged

precedents. Firstly, it confirms the dualistic model of ob-

sessive passion (Vallerand et al., 2003), which is appar-

ently seen to exist in the present finding and which has

not appeared to be an integral part of the social cognitive

approach, strongly endorsed by Zigarmi et al. (2009). This

confirmation is manifested in work rumination that has

emerged as a subscale to WP. Rumination is defined as a

class of conscious thoughts that revolve around a com-

mon instrumental theme that is repetitive in nature (Mar-

tin & Tesser, 1996). Additionally, it has been classified as

depressive rumination (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1993), post-

event rumination (Kashdan & Roberts, 2006; Rapee &

Heimberg, 1997), and positive rumination (Johnson,

McKenzie, & McMurrich, 2008). Due to the presence of

perseverative thinking (depressive rumination), uncon-

structive consequences like anxiety, bad mood, and de-

pression can possibly occur (Berger & Motl, 2000), thereby

showing a sign of obsessive passion. This preseverative

thinking can be attributed to intra and/or interpersonal

contingencies associated with the activity, such as con-

tingent self-esteem, social acceptance or high perform-

ance leading to the development of an obsessive passion

for that activity (e.g. Mageau et al., 2009).The rumination

about work issues can also have beneficial effects and be

associated with positive connotations (Cropley & Zijlstra,

2011). For this reason, Cropley and Purvis (2003) pro-

posed two other concepts problem-solving pondering

and detachment to have a better understanding of how

thinking about ones job after working hours did not nec-

essarily have to be detrimental. In a similar vein, Vallerand

et al. (2010) found that people with harmonious passion

might willingly engage in an activity without any contin-

gencies attached to it and might stop being passionate if

they experienced a negative factor like physical pain or

suffering. Therefore, it can be argued that such problem-

solving pondering and detachment may lead to harmo-

nious passion (Vallerand et al., 2010).

The four-factor model having inferior fit index as com-

pared to the three-factor model shows the path between

work rumination and job well-being (-0.17) which sup-

ports previous research by reaffirming that it is difficult

to unwind from work if perseverative thinking continues

beyond working hours and controls the state of ones mind

(Steptoe, Cropley, & Jokes, 1999; Sonnentag, 2001), even-

tually leading to obsessive passion (Vallerand & Houlfort,

2003). Moreover, work rumination has reported to have

both negative and positive trade-offs depending on the

basis of constructive and unconstructive outcomes

(Watkins, 2008) and its classification (Johnson, McKenzie,

Figure 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Three-factor Model of Employee Passion

Note: *p

64

& McMurrich, 2008). For instance, Treynor, Gonzalez, and

Nolen-Hoeksema (2003) found that certain ruminations

called reflective ruminations promoted positive introspec-

tion that could foster successful problem solving

ponderings leading to constructive outcomes.

Secondly, though the four-factor model of WP shows job

well-being as a subscale according to confirmatory analy-

sis finding, it does not play a mediating role in the present

finding as indicated through the poor fit indices shown

in the results, and the tenability of such relations are re-

jected. Moreover, the four-factor model of WP is also not

superior to its three-factor model since it shows lower fit

indices compared to the latter. Therefore, job well-being

cannot be a component of the WP construct. However, job

well-being is considered to be interchangeably used with

engagement as it apparently seems to share a nomologi-

cal network with the latter (Balducci, Scheufeli, &

Fraccaroli, 2011). At the same time it is even argued that

employee engagement can be a key indicator of employee

well-being (Albrecht, 2012). Besides that, job well-being

supposedly has incremental value over job attitudes in

predicting work performance. Subsequently, it can be

deduced that job well-being which is considered to be an

integral part of the nomological network to construct

employee engagement remains debatable (Robertson,

Birch, & Cooper, 2012). Hence, it can be argued here that

job well-being cannot be a part of the WP construct as

professed by Zigarmi et al. (2011) as its inclusion does

not support a strikingly distinct identity of WP from EE.

Thirdly, as per the present finding, the WP construct does

not include work intention as its sub-scale. The appraisal

process as a part of WP helps the employee to determine

how to cope with the events and experiences (Lazaurus,

1991) by examining the different aspects of the job

(Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen,

1986). This may consequently lead to positive or negative

work intention (Zigarmi et al., 2011) whereas WP, as pro-

fessed by Vallerand (2003), involves psychological proce-

sses constituting valuation of activity, internalization, and

representation of the activity in the core aspect of ones

self. The latter statement has been supported in the present

finding by proving work rumination to be ubiquitous in

explaining the WP construct. Moreover, the subscale

shows repetitive and persistent thinking due to strong

and intense feeling about the activity. Therefore, it is un-

justified to consider work intention as a part of the con-

struct if it is shown as a criterion variable in the

meta-analysis of past research (Hom & Griffeth, 1991).

Additionally, it is customary to treat both behavioural

intentions as criterion variables in tests of concurrent or

predictive validity. Even if it is shown as part of any con-

struct in past research, the studies have acutely suffered

from very weak evidence for nomological validity to sup-

port the strong conclusions reached by the authors to-

wards the construct (Cohen, 1979).

Fourthly, WP is evolving through synthesis of work cog-

nition, work affects, and work rumination as per the

present finding showing the path between work cogni-

tion and work affect (0.46), work affect and work rumina-

tion (0.41), as well as between work cognition and work

rumination (0.57) to be significant. On the contrary,

Donuhue et al. (2012) posit that rumination is supposed

to be playing a mediating role between the dualistic model

of employee passion and emotional exhaustion. Thus,

the present findings contradict the past research by stat-

ing that the interaction of work cognition, work affects,

and work rumination precedes passion, the reason being

the recurring cognitive and affective appraisal that inevi-

tably orients towards rumination, leading to higher level

of passionate commitment and increase in motivation as

reflected in the study of Fritz and Sonnentag (2006). While

the inferences in their study seemed to be quite murky,

they are significantly supported in the present study. If

the work experience enhances emotional reactions of the

appraiser like pleasure and happiness, it may result in

lasting affective inferences leading to perseverative

thoughts (Siemer & Reisenzein, 2007). This in turn may

yield constructive results like innovation and creativity

(Cropley & Purvis, 2003). Thus Zigarmi et al.s (2009) study

which proposed that employees work passion is an in-

dividuals persistent, emotionally positive, meaning-

based, state of well-being, stemming from recurring

cognitive and affective appraisals of various job and or-

ganizational situations, has been partially proved here.

IMPLICATIONS

The most important contribution of the Passion scale de-

veloped here is the strong theoretical underpinnings pro-

vided by the dualistic model of passion with its roots in

Aancient Greek philosophy as well as modern psychol-

ogy (particularly positive psychology). Though Zigarmi

et al.s (2009) work was the fulcrum of this study, it evolved

more along the dualistic model of Vallerand (2003). Fol-

lowing are some of the implications of the present study.



The earlier studies had suggested that passionate work-

ers invested long hours in their work (Baum et al., 2001).

Later studies have shown that workers have an intense

love for that activity in which they invest significant

amounts of time and energy, and which gets internalized

and defines their self-identity (Vallerand et al., 2003). This

may lead to behavioural consequences which may require

thinking beyond working hours leading to work rumina-

tion. Thus the flavour of work rumination as a part of the

WP construct has thrown a new light on an emerging

field where the dualistic nature of the passion construct

is confirmed through its dualistic status of positive and

negative work rumination (Cropley & Purvis, 2003).

WP is explained by the cognitive element capturing the

perceived importance for the job; affective element com-

prising intense liking and enjoyment (Ho, Wong, & Lee,

2009); and the inability to unwind from work, contribut-

ing to work related rumination. This can be prospective

as well as retrospective in nature; where people tend to

think about issues that have occurred in the past or

anticipatively ruminate about issues and demands that

may arise at work (Cropley & Zijlstra 2011). Thus a new

three-dimensional model of WP has evolved unlike the

past research, deciphering the nuances associated with

the dualistic status of WP.

Thirdly, the triadic nature of WP may arouse high physi-

ological and psychological problem solving pondering

(Cropley & Zijlstra, 2011). The consequent cognitive

processing and problem solving (Watkins, 2008) may lead

to harmonious passion associated with positive emotions,

concentration, and flow. Yet, at another time it may arouse

anxiety and depression resulting in obsessive passion

which is usually associated with experiencing negative

emotions (Vallerand et al., 2003). This is in line with the

underlying philosophy of positive psychology (Seligman

& Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) as well as positive organiza-

tional scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) that

embraces both the positive and negative aspects of life.

Further, the practitioner can always predict why some

but not all engaged workers suffer from maladjustment

and low psychological well-being. One practical impli-

cation of using this thinking is that human resource man-

agers, while designing HR practices, can concentrate more

on facilitating factors rather than inhibiting them which

may lead to debilitating effects like obsessive passion.

Prior research has demonstrated the validity and impor-

tance of disparity between harmonious and obsessive

passion in order to predict peoples cognitions, affects,

behaviours, performances, and quality of their interper-

sonal relationships (Vallerand, 2008; Vallerand, et al.,

2010). The present study suggests that the cognitions

(work cognition), affects (work affects), and behaviours

(work rumination) precede the formation of dualistic sta-

tus of passion (harmonious and obsessive passion) which

leads to the need for further investigation. It not only de-

fines the construct but also provides an in-depth under-

standing.

LIMITATIONS

Though validation of the construct has been established

through structural equation modeling based on cross-sec-

tional design, it can take into account the longitudinal

study by varying the control variables like organizational

climate of trust, transparency, and empowerment at one

time period and climate of distrust, concealment, and

dependency at another period. The sample size of the

research is the greatest constraint in order to arrive at any

generalization of dimensionality of the scale and the ge-

neric ability of the construct. This weakness can be elimi-

nated in future research by increasing the size of the

sample or by changing the nature of the population on a

cross-cultural basis. A comparative study can be carried

out based on gender, educational level, and specific oc-

cupation in order to find the degree of variation in pas-

sion. Additionally, future research can divide generic

components of employee passion into occupation-spe-

cific components and can extend the study by showing

the variation between both the constructs (generic vs. spe-

cific) which has remained one of the limitations of this

study.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, S.L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organiza-tional level resources on employee well-being, engage-ment, commitment and extra-role performance: Test ofa model. International Journal of Manpower, 33(7), 840-853.

Amabile, T. M. (2001). Beyond talent: John Irving and thepassionate craft of creativity. The American Psycholo-gist, 56(4), 333-336.

Amiot, C., Terry, D., Jimmieson, N., & Callan, V. (2006). A

66

longitudinal investigation of coping processes during amerger: Implications for job satisfaction and organiza-tional identification. Journal of Management, 32(4), 552-574.

Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: The role of employeeengagement in business success. Workspan, 47(12), 48-52.

Balducci, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Fraccaroli, F. (2011).The jobdemands-resources model and counterproductive workbehaviour: The role of job-related affect. European Jour-nal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(4), 467-496.

Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A., & Smith, K.G. (2001). A multi-dimen-sional model of venture growth. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44(2), 292-303.

Bearden, W.O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Con-sumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualizationand measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1),121-34.

Berger, B. G., & Motl, R. W. (2000). Exercise and mood: Aselective review and synthesis of research employingthe profile of mood states. Journal of Applied Sport Psy-chology, 12(1), 69-92.

Boyatzis, R., McKee, A., & Goleman, D. (2002). Reawakeningyour passion for work. Harvard Business Review, 80(4),87-94.

Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifyingthe concept and simplifying the existing construct ty-pology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 230-251.

Burke, R.J., & Fiskenbaum, L. (2009). Work motivations, workoutcomes and health: Passion versus addiction. Journalof Business Ethics, 84(2), 257-263.

Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive organiza-tional scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publish-ers.

Cardon, M.S., Zietsma, C., Saparito, P., Matherne, B.P., & Davis,C. (2005). A tale of passion: New insights into entrepre-neurship from a parenthood perspective. Journal of Busi-ness Venturing, 20(1), 53-45.

Cohen, J. B. (1979). Exploring attitude construct validity: Orare we? Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 303-306.

Cropley, M., & Millward Purvis, L. J. (2003). Job strain andrumination about work issues during leisure time: Adiary study. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 12(3), 195-207.

Cropley, M., & Zijlstra, F.R.H. (2011). Work and rumination.In J. Langan-Fox, & C.L.Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of stressin the occupations. U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M.A.Runco., & R.S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity, NewburyPark, C.A: Sage, pp.190-212.

Docherty, P., Kira, M., & Shani, A. B. (2009). Organizationaldevelopment for social sustainability in work systems.In R. W. Woodman, W. A. Pasmore., & A. B. Shani (Eds.),Research in organizational change and development,17(1), 77-144. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Donahue, E.G., Forest, J., & Bergeron, E. (2012). Passion forwork and emotional exhaustion: The mediating role ofrumination and recovery. Applied Psychology: Health andWell-being, 4(3), 341-368.

Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? Themoderating effect of values on the link between organi-zational justice and work behavior. Applied Psychology:An International Review, 55(4), 541-562.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A.,& Gruen, R.J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter:Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(9), 992-1013.

Forest, J., Mageau, G.A., Sarrazin, C., &, Morin, E. M.(2010).Work is my passion: The different affective,behavioural, and cognitive consequences of harmoni-ous and obsessive passion toward work. Canadian Jour-nal of Administrative Sciences. 28(1), 27-40.

Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P., & Taylor, C.R. (2004). The race fortalent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st cen-tury. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-25.

Fritz, C. & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, andperformance-related outcomes: The role of workloadand vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(4), 936-45.

Gotlieb, J.B., Grewal, D., & Brown, S.W. (1994). Consumersatisfaction and perceived quality: Complementary ordivergent constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6),875-85.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). Howimportant are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisonsof integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325.

Hom, P.W., & Griffeth, R.W. (1991). A structural equationsmodeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional andlongitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3),350-366.

Ho. V.T., Wong, S., & Lee, C.H. (2009). Tale of Passion: Link-ing Job Passion and Cognitive Engagement to EmployeeWork Performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1),26-47.

Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate socialscientist. London: Sage.

Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal en-gagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Jaussi, K. S. (2007). Attitudinal commitment: A three-dimen-sional construct. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 80(1), 51-61.

Johnson, S. L., McKenzie, G., & McMurrich, S. (2008). Rumina-tive responses to negative and positive affect amongstudents diagnosed with bipolar disorder and majordepressive disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(5),702-713.

Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2006). Affective outcomes andcognitive processes in superficial and intimate interac-



tions: Roles of social anxiety and curiosity. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 40(2), 140-167.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. UK: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Lord, R. G., & Kernan, M. C. (1987). Scripts as determinants ofpurposeful behavior in organizations. Academy of Man-agement Review, 12(2), 265-277.

Love, A. (2005). Expressing purpose through work. ResearchMonograph, HRx Renaissance Consortium, Flint Hill,Va.

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interestdevelopment: Theoretical considerations from ontoge-netic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 383-409.

Mageau, G. A., Vallerand, R. J., Rousseau, F. L, Ratelle, C. F.,& Provencher, P. J. (2005). Passion and gambling: Inves-tigating the divergent affective and cognitive conse-quences of gambling. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,35(1), 100-118.

Mageau, G. A., Vallerand, R. J., Charest, J., Salvy, S., Lacaille,N., Bouffard, T., & Koestner, R. (2009). On the develop-ment of harmonious and obsessive passion: The role ofautonomy support, activity specialization, and identifi-cation with the activity. Journal of Personality, 77(2), 601-646.

Mageau, G. A., Carpentier, J., & Vallerand, R. J. (2012).Therole of self-esteem contingencies in the distinction be-tween obsessive and harmonious passion. European Jour-nal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 720-729.

Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts.In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition, Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenire, M.A. K., Parker, P.,Morin, A. J. S., Carbonneau, N.,

Jowett, S., Bureau, J. S., Fernet, C., Guay, F., Salah Abduljabbar,A., & Paquet, Y. (2003). Passion: Does one scale fit all?Construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psy-chometric invariance over different activities and lan-guages. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 796-809.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, L.H. (1994). Psychometrictheory.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1993). Sex differences in control of de-pression. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.),Handbook of mental control, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, pp.306-324.

Pati, S.P. (2012). Development of a measure of employee en-gagement. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(1), 94-104.

Perrew, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., Mcallister, C.P.,& Harris, J.N. (2014). Developing a passion for workpassion: Future directions on an emerging construct. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 145-150

Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behav-ioral model of anxiety in social phobia. BehaviourResearchand Therapy, 35(8), 741-756.

Ratelle, C. F., Vallerand, R. J., Mageau, G. A., Rousseau, F. L.,& Provencher, P. J. (2004).When passion leads to pathol-ogy: A look at gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(2),105-119.

Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforcehow can you create it? Workspan, 49(2), 9-36.

Robertson, van T., Birch, A. J, Cooper, C. L. (2012). Job andwork attitudes, engagement and employee performance:Where does psychological well-being fit in? Leadership& Organization Development Journal, 33(3), 224-232.

Rousseau, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Ratelle, C., Mageau, G. A., &Provencher, P. J. (2002). Passion and gambling: On thevalidation of the Gambling Passion Scale (GPS). Journalof Gambling Studies, 18, 45-66.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). The darker and brighter sidesof human existence: Basic psychological needs as a uni-fying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319-338.

Saks, A. M. (2008). The meaning and bleeding of employeeengagement: How muddy is the water? Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, 1(1), 40-43.

Seguin-Levesque, C., Laliberte, M. L., Pelletier, L. G.,Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Harmonious andobsessive passion for the Internet: Their associations withcouples relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 33(1), 197-221.

Siemer, M., & Reisenzein, R. (2007). Emotions and appraisals:Can you have one without the other? Emotion, 7(1), 9-26.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positivepsychology: An introduction. The American Psychologist,55(1), 5-14.

Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process forcommunicators. Strategic Communication Management,9(3), 26-40.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). Themeasurement of work engagement with a short ques-tionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4),701716.

Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individualwell-being: A diary study. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 6(3), 196-210.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2006). Endocrinological processesassociated with job stress: Catecholamine and cortisolresponses to acute and chronic stressors. In P. L. Perrewe& D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in organizational stress andwell-being: Employee health, coping and methodologies,Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier, pp. 159.

Steptoe, V.J., Cropley, M., & Jokes, K. (1999). Blood pressureand response to uncontrollable stress. Journal of Hyper-tension, 17(2), 193-200.

Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003).Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cog-nitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 247-225.

Vallerand, R. J., & Houlfort, N. (2003). Passion at work: To-ward a new conceptualization. In W. Gilliland, D. D.

68

Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives onValues in Organizations (pp. 175-204). Greenwich, CT: In-formation Age Publishing.

Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R.,Ratelle, C. F., & Marolais, J. (2003). Les passions de lame:On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756-767.

Vallerand, R. J. (2008). On the psychology of passion: In searchof what makes peoples lives most worth living. Cana-dian Psychology, 49(1), 1-13.

Vallerand, R.J., Paquet, Y., Philippe, F.L., & Charest, J. (2010).On the role of passion for work in burnout: A processmodel. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 289-312.

Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive re-petitive thought. Psychological bulletin, 134(2), 163-206.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization ofbiopsychosocial values by medical students: A test ofself-determination theory. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 70(4), 767-779.

Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1990). Effects of feedback oncognitive processing and choice of decision style. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 603-612.

Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2009).Beyond engagement: Toward a framework and opera-tional definition for employee work passion. HumanResource Development Review, 8(3), 300-326.

Zigarmi, D., Nimon, K., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2011).A preliminary field test of an employee work passionmodel. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 195-221.

Niharika Gaan is an Assistant Professor and Chairperson ofStudent Welfare at Management Development Institute,Murshidabad (MDI-M). She teaches courses in organizationalbehaviour and human resource management to post-gradu-ate students. Her main research interests pertain to employeeengagement, transformational leadership, sustainable lead-ership, work passion, emotional labour, job attitude, virtualteam effectiveness, and mentoring. She has publication inpeer reviewed journals like Indian Journal of Industrial Rela-tions, New Zealand Journal of Human Resource Management, De-cision, and Vision-The Journal of Business Perspectives and hasauthored a book too. Currently, has undertaken a researchproject funded by ICSSR (Ministry of HRD).

e-mail: [email protected]

Kalyani Mohanty is the reader and head of the Personnel andIndustrial Relations Department at Utkal University. She haspublished around 25 research articles in peer reviewed jour-nals and has authored a text book as well as a reference book.Currently, she is serving as an editorial board member ofSrushty Review. Her areas of research interest include HRD,job attitude, and trade unions. Till date, 15 M.Phil. and 7 Ph.Dstudents have completed their research work under her su-pervision.

e-mail: [email protected]



R E S E A R C H

includes research articles thatfocus on the analysis and

resolution of managerial andacademic issues based on

analytical and empirical or caseresearch

ExecutiveSummary

Exploring Victims Experiences ofWorkplace Bullying: A GroundedTheory Approach

Mariam Ciby and R P Raya

KEY WORDS

Workplace Bullying

IT Organizations

Victims Experiences

Grounded Theory Approach

Conceptual Model

Perceived OrganizationalSupport (POS)

Exit Behaviour

Despite considerable research on workplace bullying, trying to identify causal rela-

tionships and measurements of specific constructs, there is a need to draw from the

experiences and feelings of the targets of workplace bullying. The current study ex-

plores the victims experiences from an interpretive perspective in the context of Infor-

mation Technology organizations in India. The qualitative data were collected through

in-depth interviews with the victims of workplace bullying. The analysis using

grounded theory approach resulted in a conceptual model, which explains the ante-

cedents, bullying behaviours, consequences, and self-coping methods of the victims.

Job demands, leadership and management styles of the supervisor, and interpersonal

conflict emerged as the major antecedents of workplace bullying. The victims inabil-

ity to adapt to changes was found as a personality factor that stimulated workplace

bullying in the presence of other antecedents. The study reveals that although the

victims experienced negative bullying behaviours in their daily life, most of them were

unaware of the phenomenon. Some of the new bullying behaviours identified from the

current study are taking ownership of otherswork without giving due credit, grab-

bing others challenging assignments, and repeated borrowing of money without re-

turning.

The victims experienced various negative emotions as the initial reaction to bullying

behaviours. As the bullying behaviours prolonged, the participants experienced vari-

ous personal and work-related consequences. The self-coping mechanisms identified

in the study were sharing emotional experiences with friends and family, having an

easy-going attitude, voicing the issues, and perceived organizational support (POS).

POS was considered to be important for having an influence on employee turnover

intention and organizational commitment. Based on the POS, three categories of vic-

tims were identified Leavers, Survivors, and Loyals.

The paper contributes to the body of knowledge as it brings out the experiences and

feelings of the targets of workplace bullying. The detailed knowledge of the phenom-

enon helps the organization to either intervene or prevent the relevant processes. The

study suggests that the victims need to be empowered with awareness programmes

and organizational support to reduce the effects of workplace bullying.

infy analysis

Documents