No abstract

Drawing on the dualistic model of passion, we conducted a construct validation of the passion for work scale across four samples of employees and students. Specifically, we tested the two-factor structure of the model and examined the convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity of passion for work against conceptually similar work motivation and career-relevant constructs. Findings support the duality of the passion for work (i.e., harmonious and obsessive), its uniqueness as a motivational work construct, and its consequences on career-related outcomes. The findings also contribute to the increasing breadth of the passion literature across various contexts and its consequences for one's work and career experiences.

Does passion predict performance? Whereas harmonious passion is typically associated with strong performance, evidence for the obsessive passion-performance relationship has been so far inconclusive. The mixed results in the literature suggest that there are hitherto unexamined boundary conditions and mechanisms shaping the relationship between obsessive passion and performance. This study draws on principles from conservation of resources and the dual-systems model of self-regulation to explain how these two types of passion (obsessive and harmonious) relate to work performance. We examined career adaptability as a buffer that determines when and for whom obsessive passion precipitates emotional exhaustion as well as when and for whom emotional exhaustion diminishes work performance. This proposed moderated mediation model was tested in two multisource samples in corporate ( N = 139 employee-supervisor dyads) and healthcare sectors ( N = 156 time-lagged employee-peer dyads) respectively. We observed support for the proposed model in both samples. Career adaptability prevents obsessively passionate workers from being consumed by obsession.

No abstract

This study examines convergence by providing a systematic literature review using scientometric method. Despite the steady growth of convergence literature, we still have an incomplete understanding of convergence concepts as well as the processes of industry convergence. Our systematic review highlights several key findings. First, our review highlights six clusters of research on convergence. Second, our analysis suggests that the process of convergence does not necessarily progress in the three-to four-step supply-side process as postulated in the literature, i.e., from scientific convergence, technology convergence, market convergence, and finally to industry convergence. Although existing literature suggests that industry convergence occurs as a result of supply-side convergence, we expand on this proposition and put forth market-driven convergence processes. Third, we provide a typology of the convergence concepts to bring clarity and avoid indiscriminate use of the various convergence concepts. Finally, our study offers new debates on the literature of convergence, providing scholars with research directions that extend beyond the standard convergence processes. Our systematic review is relevant to scholars and managers as the study highlights a taxonomy of convergence scholarship, a typology of convergence concepts, and a reevaluation of the industry convergence process model to drive the research forward.