Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Nagar, Dinesh
- Impact of Gender and Managerial Levels on Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance of Indian Revenue Service Officers
Abstract Views :243 |
PDF Views:1
Authors
Richa Shukla
1,
Dinesh Nagar
1
Affiliations
1 Barkatullah University, Bhopal, M.P., IN
1 Barkatullah University, Bhopal, M.P., IN
Source
Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, Vol 4, No 1 (2013), Pagination: 83-86Abstract
The sagacious use of emotions or emotional intelligence in the workplace is being recognized as an influential factor in enhancing the well being and work related outcomes. Similarly job performance is the most extensively researched criterion variable in both organizational bahaviour and human resource management literatures. The present study was conducted as part of a larger study in a public sector organization with an all India presence. This study explored the impact of gender and managerial levels on emotional intelligence andjob performance. 300 IRS officers (232 Males and 68 Females) from the four zones (east, west, north and south) and three managerial levels (147 junior, 90 middle and 63 senior level) were asked to rate 60 items of emotional intelligence in a scale developed by Singh and 33 items in a self developed scale of job performance. Results found that female officers exhibit relatively higher social skills (component of EI) as compare to male officers whereas there is no difference in job performance among male and female officers. Furthermore, officers of senior managerial level exhibited higher self regulation and social skills and also higher organizational commitment, satisfaction with rewards and incentives, high organizational support and totaljob performance as compare to the officers ofjunior and middle managerial levels.Keywords
Emotional Intelligence, Job Performance, Gender, Managerial Levels, Indian Revenue Service Officers.- A Study of Residential Satisfaction in High Rise Apartment Complexes
Abstract Views :381 |
PDF Views:0
Authors
Jaya Jotwani
1,
Dinesh Nagar
1
Affiliations
1 Department ofPsyehology, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, IN
1 Department ofPsyehology, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, IN
Source
Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, Vol 9, No 5 (2018), Pagination: 804-809Abstract
Residential satisfaction in high rise apartment complexes have been emerged as influencing trameworks in psychology and personal life satisfaction, health and well-being. In the Indian context very few studies on residential satisfaction has been conducted in high rise residential complexes. The present study attempts to examine the main and interactional effects of floor level and gender on evaluation of complex amenities, community life style, health, happiness and residential satisfaction. Three hundred male and female residents participated in the present survey. A 2x2 factorial design structure involving gender (male vrs females) and two floor levels (higher vrs lower) was utilized. The main effects ol^gender and floor levels on maj or outcome variables were not found significant. While looking at the results it seems very clear that substantially large number of residents exhibited moderately high level of satisfaction with complex amenities, reported moderately high level of residential satisfaction and better community life style in the complex. Moreover, a large number of significant interactional effects between gender and floor levels on social support, health, happiness and residential satisfaction were found. Some of the results are found consistent with the previous studies. Implications of the results are discussed.Keywords
Residential Satisfaction, Satisfaction with Amenities, Community Life, Health, Happiness.References
- Conroy, Narwold, & Sandy (2013). The value of a floor: Valuing floor level in high-rise condominiums in San Diego. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, d(2), 197-208.
- Cutrona, C., Russell, D., Hessling, R., Brown, P., & Murry, V. (2000). Direct and moderating effects of community context on the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1088-1101.
- Derogatis, L.R. (1983). Misuse of the symptom checklist 90. Archives of General Psychiatry, 40,1152-1153.
- Festinger, L., Schachter, S., &Back, K. (1950). The spatial ecology of group formation. In L. Festinger, S. Schachter, and K. Back (Eds.), Social pressure in informal groups: A study of humanfactors in housing (pp. 141-161). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Grillo, M., Teixeira, M., & Wilson, D. (2010). Residential satisfaction and civic engagement: Understanding the causes of community participation. Social Indicators Research, P7(3), 451-466.
- Hall, Jr. (2005). High-rise building fires. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association.
- Heller, K., Price, R., Reinharz, S.,Riger, S., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Psychology a-nd community change (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
- Herman, H., Saxena, S., & Moodie, R. (2005). Promoting mental health concepts emerging evidence, practice. Areport of the world Health Organization, Department of mental health and substance abuse in collaboration with the Victorian health promotion foundation and the University of Melbourne.
- Hills, P., &Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford happiness questionnaire: A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33,1073-1082.
- Hughey, J., & Bardo, J. (1987). Social psychological dimensions of community satisfaction and quality of life: Some obtained relations. Psychological Reports, 67(1), 239-246.
- James, P.S. (2004). Occupation stressing Joseph LaDou. Current Occupational Environment Medicine 3,603-6lS. McGraw-Hill.
- Kellekc, L., & Berkoz, L. (2006). Mass housing: User satisfaction in housing and its environment in Istanbul, Turkey. International Journal of Housing Policy, 6(1), 7799.
- Marans, R. W. (2015). Quality of urban life and environmental sustainability studies: Future linkage opportunities. Habitat International, 45(1), 47-52.
- Nagar, D. (2006). Environmental psychology. Concept publishing Company: New Delhi.
- Nagar, D., & Sharma, A. (2006). Influence of community living and environmental stressors on health and well-being. In A. Dalai (Ed.) Social dimensions of health (pp. 282-309). Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
- Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (2005). Communityp^ychology: In pursuit ofliberation and Well-being. New York: Palgrave.
- Paulus, P. B., & Nagar, D. (1987). Environmental influences on social interaction and group development. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations: Review ofpersonality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 68-90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- Paulus, P. B., & Nagar, D., & Camacho, M. (1991). Environment and psychological factors in reactions to apartments and mobile homes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 77,143-161.
- Prilleltensky, I. (2005). Promoting well-being: Time for a paradigm shift in health and human sqtwicqs. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, .75(66), 53-60.
- Sarason, I.G., Levine, H.M., Basham, R.B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Pshycology 44(1), 127-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127
- Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agendamJournal of Environmental Psychology, 29,309-317.
- Timlett, R. E., & Williams, I. D. (2008). Public participation andrecycling performance in England: A comparison of tools for behaviour change. Resource. Conservation and Recycling, 52(4), 622-634.
- Theodori, G. (2001). Examining the effects of community satisfaction and attachment on individual well-being. Rural Sociology, 66(4), 618-628.
- Ukoha, O.M., Beamish, J.O. (1997). Assessment of residents' satisfaction with public housing in Aabuja, Nigeria. Habitat International, 27(4), 445-460.
- Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Chavis, D., Rich, R., &Prestby, J. (1985). Getting together and getting things done. Psychology Today, 19,64-71.