This year, the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP) has been in publication for 85 years, which is a huge milestone and an excellent reason for celebration. As you all may know, JOOP publishes conceptual and empirical articles that aim to increase understanding of people and organizations at work. Its domain is broad, covering work, organizational, engineering, vocational and personnel psychology, as well as behavioural and cognitive aspects of industrial relations, ergonomics, human factors, and industrial/work sociology. Interdisciplinary approaches with a psychological emphasis are particularly welcome, as are papers that develop links between work, organizational and personnel psychology, and other areas of the discipline, such as social and cognitive psychology. More information about JOOP's mission and review policy can be found in my last editorial (de Jonge, 2011).

To add to this momentous occasion, I am pleased to report that JOOP's impact factor has seen a substantial increase from 0.88 in 2010 to 1.94 in 2011. The journal is now ranked 20 of the 72 journals in the Applied Psychology category, and 44 of the 166 journals in the Management category. This is a terrific achievement, and a clear signal that JOOP is now on the right track.

To celebrate JOOP's 85th birthday, I am delighted to have the honour of putting together this virtual special issue (, which includes some of the most highly cited articles published in the journal during the last two decades. More specifically, the Editorial Board selected the four highest cited articles in each of four 5-year periods, starting from 1992 to 2011. These articles were theoretically impactful and practically relevant, and their focus reflected JOOP's mission of advancing our understanding of people and organizations at work through the lens of psychologists and related disciplines.

Under what conditions do job demands lead to psychological strain? How many leadership factors could be detected in Bass' (1985) leadership model? What is the meaning of the concept of commitment to supervisor in other cultures such as China? Are engaged and ‘enriched’ employees more productive? These questions constitute some of the important research questions that were addressed in the collection of articles in this virtual issue. Together, the four articles selected for this virtual issue help equip us with the understanding and knowledge needed for important issues in work and organizations.

The article by Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey, and Parker (1996) tested one of the most prominent job stress models of the last century, that is, Karasek's (1979) Demand–Control Model. The key hypothesis of this model indicates that job control can offset the detrimental effects of job demands on employee health. However, empirical findings for this buffering hypothesis are not consistent. Wall and colleagues addressed an important methodological issue in their article with the potential to explain conflicting empirical findings regarding this hypothesis. They argued that failure to find empirical support for the demand–control hypothesis partly results from biased measures of job demands and inadequate operationalization of control. Indeed, they found clear evidence for the predicted buffering effect of job control using more focused measures of demands and control. Parallel analyses using more general measures did not show an equivalent effect. Interestingly, the findings of this article were replicated in a longitudinal study by de Jonge, Vegchel, Shimazu, Schaufeli, and Dormann in 2010. So, changing specific job characteristics through job redesign would seem to be an effective tool for enhancing employee well-being and health. This is in line with legal acts and guidelines that are aimed at improving and/or maintaining a healthy psychosocial work environment.

The second article by Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) re-examined the factor structure of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) initially proposed by Bass (1985). Based on prior literature, nine different factor models were tested to determine the best fitting model for the MLQ. Using confirmatory factor analyses and cross-validation, factor models were tested in a validation set of nine samples, and replicated in a calibration set of five samples. Findings indicated that a six-factor model showed the best model fit in both the validation and calibration sample. Post hoc testing also showed a higher order three-factor structure, that is, transformational leadership, developmental/transactional leadership, and passive corrective leadership. An implication of this study is that, using the MLQ in different hierarchical ways, it is likely to increase the chances of tapping into the range of different leadership styles that are present across different organizational settings and cultures. Another implication is that distinguishing between different components of transformational leadership seems to be useful for leadership assessment, training, and development.

The relation between employee performance and loyalty to supervisor compared with organizational commitment was the central focus of Chen, Tsui, and Farh's (2002) article. They conducted two studies in the People's Republic of China. In the first study, they developed and validated a Chinese loyalty to supervisor scale in addition to Becker, Billings, Eveleth, and Gilbert's (1996) commitment to supervisor scale. Results showed that the new scale is valid and reliable, and that there are more than the two dimensions of the Western-oriented scale of Becker et al. (1996). In the second study, the two original dimensions developed in Western settings did not predict performance outcomes in Chinese samples, while the newly developed dimensions did. The authors conclude that their new scale is particularly meaningful in the cultural fabric of China. In a relation-oriented society, supervisors may be a more important factor in influencing employee behaviour and attitudes at work than the organization as an impersonal system. In turn, employees' attitude towards a supervisor (e.g., loyalty to supervisor) might have a stronger impact on employees' performance than employees' attitude towards the organization (e.g., organizational commitment). This article clearly showed that further research in different cultural contexts is needed to test the generality of existing theories, models, and instruments that were largely developed in the Western culture and tradition.

The fourth and final article investigated how daily fluctuations in job resources are consecutively related to personal resources, work engagement, and financial returns (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). Using a baseline, general questionnaire, and a diary booklet, the authors showed that day-level job resources had an effect on work engagement via day-level personal resources. In addition, day-level supervisory coaching was positively related to day-level work engagement, which, in turn, predicted daily financial returns. Remarkably, financial returns were mainly influenced by situational factors and work engagement, but not by personal resources such as self-efficacy and optimism. The results of this study stressed the importance of taking daily fluctuations in work characteristics and work engagement into account, when examining momentary performance indicators. Practically, this article first suggested that work-related interventions particularly focusing on supervisory coaching might create engaged and productive employees. Second, work redesign strategies that aim at job enrichment could also activate employees' personal resources. Finally, organizations should rely not only on general, enduring work redesign but also on daily reinforcements of job resources.

This virtual issue pulls out landmark articles from our archives, and it is really a great way to celebrate the journal's anniversary and history. It also celebrates the authors' success, and JOOP's increasing impact in work and organizational psychology. JOOP's 85th anniversary is an enormous milestone and a stepping stone for the years to come. A public and warm thank you to all people who contributed to JOOP's current level and position!


  1. Top of page
  2. References