Symbolic Immortality at Work: Understanding the

Antecedents of Generative Job Performance

B. Lindsay Brown & Lillian Eby

Research Question:

How does mortality awareness translate into meaningfulness

in the workplace?

What is generativity?Age development & nurturing younger

generations (Erikson, 1950)

Motivation, behaviors, & attitudes directed towards helping or positively impacting others, organizations, community, or society (McAdams, St. Aubin, & Kim, 1992)

Associated w/ meaningfulness in life

Symbolic Immortality & MeaningfulnessExistential dilemma

Transcend death by impacting the world and making contribution to the future that will benefit others (Kotre, 1984; Wade-Benzoni, 2006; Wade-Benzoni, et al., 2009)

Generativity connects the individual with something greater than the self and is associated with mortality awareness (Becker, 1973; Kotre, 1984)

Generativity allows one to “outlive the self” (Kotre, 1984)

Current Literature on Workplace Mortality AwarenessContradictory findings

◦Beneficial & detrimental

Job tension (Chisolm, Kasl, & Eskenazi,1983)

Pro-social behaviors (Elder & Clipp, 1988)

Task significance & variety ◦Emotional exhaustion, organizational

commitment & pay satisfaction (Jermier, Gaines, & McIntosh, 1989)

Importance of Understanding Mortality Awareness at WorkMultiple work contexts

◦Overt - Combat military, hospice workers◦Covert - Substance abuse counselors, ER clerical

staff, 911 operators

Personal & vicarious effects of death at work

Aging population

Trainability

Current StudyFormally assess mortality awareness and

relationships to supervisor-rated performance outcomes

Address when and for whom mortality awareness increases workplace generativity

Grant & Wade-Benzoni’s (2009) contingency model of death awareness at work

Contingency Model of Death Awareness at Work (Grant & Wade-Benzoni, 2009)

Death reflection

Generative work behaviors

Work orientation Job design

Research Hypotheses

Death reflection

Generative work behaviors: 1. Task

performance2. OCB-I

Calling work

orientation

Mentoring received

H1

H2

H3

MethodSample348 substance abuse counselors and their clinical

supervisors◦ 17 organizations across U.S.

ProcedurePaper-and-pencil surveys part of larger N.I.D.A.

study◦ $50/$75 compensation

MeasuresPreviously validated (α= .88 - .97)Supervisor-rated job performance

Results: Hierarchical Moderated Regression - Task Performance

Variable df R² ∆R² B SE B β t ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------

Step 1 341 .11 .12** Age .001 .002 .02 .31 Personal Recovery - .15 .05 -.18** -3.09 Death Reflection (DR) - .06 .03 - .03 -.56 Calling -.02 .04 - .04 -.66 Mentoring .18 .05 .31** 5.88

Step 2 338 .11 .01 DR X Calling .02 .04 .03 .50 DR X Mentoring .05 .04 .07 1 30 Calling X Mentoring .03 .04 .04 .83

Step 3 337 .12 .01* DR X Calling X Mentoring .10 .04 .12* 2 .28

H1a & H2a not supported; H3a supported

Three-way Interaction of Death Reflection, Calling, & Mentoring on Task Performance

Three-way Interaction of Death Reflection, Calling, & Mentoring on Task Performance

Results: Hierarchical Moderated Regression - OCB-IVariable df R² ∆R² B SE B β t -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 1 341 .11 .12** Age -.01 .003 -.18** -3.30 Personal Recovery .10 .08 .07 1.29 Death Reflection (DR) .07 .05 .08 1.46 Calling .02 .06 .02 -.36 Mentoring .30 .05 .32** 6.14

Step 2 338 .11 .01* DR X Calling .03 .06 .03 .53 DR X Mentoring .03 .06 .03 .48 Calling X Mentoring - .18 .06 -.14** -2.76

Step 3 337 .12 .01 DR X Calling X Mentoring .06 .07 .04 .82

H1b, H2b, & H3b not supported

DiscussionAll three factors must be present to positively impact generative task performanceNull findingsPractical implications

◦Self-selection◦Job previews

Theoretical implications◦Specifying behaviors and relationships

Future research◦Mediating factors◦Other forms of generative work outcomes

“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others

and the world remains and is immortal.”

-Albert Pike

Thank you for your time.Questions?