Individuals and their work environment coexist as an interacting entity. The objective work environment shapes employees’ internal psychological experiences, and, in turn, their subjective responses and coping strategies reshape the external environment (Sylva et al., 2019). Job satisfaction reflects the intrinsic link between work environment and human cognition, serving as a fundamental predictor of positive employee attitudes and behaviors (Spector, 1997). Conversely, job dissatisfaction represents a negative cognitive appraisal, indicating a discrepancy between work environment and employees’ subjective expectations (Mattarelli & Tagliaventi, 2015). Maertz et al. (2023) found that job dissatisfaction can lead to psychological issues (e.g., frustration, depression) and to behaviors such as tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover.

 

With the advancement of positive psychology and proactive behavior research, scholars have increasingly recognized the importance of heightened employee proactivity and agency in the workplace (Jiang et al., 2023). This shift indicates that employees do not function merely as passive recipients of the work environment, but are active agents capable of learning through feedback or job-specific challenges (Decius et al., 2023). Research exploring the link between job dissatisfaction and employee behavior has revealed some counterintuitive outcomes: Job dissatisfaction can stimulate positive work behaviors, including job crafting, organizational citizenship behavior, and innovative behavior (Wang et al., 2020; Zhou & George, 2001). Thus, when employees develop a negative cognitive appraisal of their work environment, such as job dissatisfaction, they may experience corresponding adverse psychological and behavioral motivations. However, this state can simultaneously motivate employees to seek new methods or avenues to improve their work situation, thereby transforming job dissatisfaction into proactivity.

 

According to person–environment fit theory (Edwards et al., 1998), employees strive to reduce strain and stress caused by misfit through coping strategies integrating self-regulation and environmental change. Parker et al. (2010) conceptualized this as proactive person–environment fit behavior (PPEFB), which is aimed at maximizing compatibility between individual traits and environmental demands through self-regulation or environmental improvement. These behaviors reflect employees’ efforts to align their skills and preferences with work demands through feedback seeking, job negotiation, and career initiatives (Parker & Collins, 2010). For example, employees apply their job knowledge to seek performance feedback or negotiate work designs for better person–job fit. The inconsistent relationship between job dissatisfaction and behavioral outcomes observed in existing research suggests that the association between job dissatisfaction and PPEFB is complex and indeterminate. Whether through seeking performance feedback to adjust behaviors or proposing creative ideas to enhance job design, these efforts reflect employees’ extensive initiatives to improve person–environment fit. Consequently, in this study we examined how to cultivate and facilitate the transformation of job dissatisfaction into PPEFB.

 

As an extrarole behavior, PPEFB entails both challenge and change. Because there are perceived risks and costs (e.g., organizational sanctions for failed initiatives), maintaining silence or self-preservation often becomes employees’ preferred approach to expressing their dissatisfaction. Few studies have explored coping strategies for job dissatisfaction through the lens of resource depletion and cognitive appraisal. Zhou and George (2001) found that employees who were highly dissatisfied with their job exhibited the greatest creativity when continuance commitment and perceived support for creativity were high. However, although they confirmed the potential of dissatisfaction to stimulate proactivity, they did not identify the specific mechanisms for turning employees’ job dissatisfaction into work-adjustment behavior. On the basis of person–environment fit theory, job dissatisfaction stems from employees’ perceived discrepancies between their expectations and the work environment (van Vianen, 2018). We posited that transforming job dissatisfaction into PPEFB would require two conditions to be met: organizational empowerment and employee motivation. Specifically, a positive labor relations climate provides employees with environmental resources, and organizational commitment reflects their intrinsic identification with the organization. The synergistic interaction of these factors can buffer the adverse effects of job dissatisfaction, enabling employees to engage in PPEFB.

 

In summary, in this research we constructed a model grounded in person–environment fit theory to examine the interactive effects of job dissatisfaction, labor relations climate, and organizational commitment on PPEFB. Our aim was to clarify the intrinsic relationship and contextual factors between job dissatisfaction and PPEFB, thereby offering insights for guiding management practices and fostering employee proactivity.

PPEFB may yield positive outcomes like performance improvement and career advancement (Ma et al., 2023). Proactive personality and conscientiousness could strengthen employees’ psychological connections with the organization, enhancing PPEFB (Parker & Collins, 2010). Conversely, as the perception that work quality is impaired is negative, employees’ job dissatisfaction may undermine their engagement and efficiency (Chinomona & Mofokeng, 2016). For instance, when employees perceive workplace injustice they become dissatisfied, which, in turn, leads to turnover intention and work withdrawal (Hughes & Bozionelos, 2007). Such negative affect impedes cognitive processing of alternatives, reducing PPEFB intentions (Parker et al., 2019).

 

Conversely, in traditional models scholars have posited unidirectional links: dissatisfaction predicts withdrawal, whereas satisfaction enables proactivity (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983).  More recently, Feinberg et al. (2020) reconceptualized the functional potential of dissatisfaction, and Zhou and George (2001) demonstrated that dissatisfaction signals person–environment misfit, prompting creative behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors, and job crafting to improve work conditions. These behaviors constitute core PPEFB strategies for enhancing person–environment fit (Vleugels et al., 2023). Thus, in this research we proposed that PPEFB would stem from multilevel interactions between individual traits and organizational resources. We investigated how heterogeneous resources jointly enable PPEFB mechanisms, which is crucial for advancing person–environment fit theory and practice.

Organizational commitment signifies a psychological bond wherein employees identify with organizational goals and values (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Those with strong (vs. weak) commitment are more capable of maintaining positive emotions and keeping trust in their organization, even during adversity (Wu et al., 2025). Highly committed, dissatisfied employees will be motivated to transform challenges into opportunities and realign work conditions, whereas low commitment predicts diminished extrarole behaviors (Schwarz et al., 2023). Thus, a high level of organizational commitment may mitigate the psychological costs of dissatisfaction, serving as a key moderator of the link between dissatisfaction and PPEFB.

 

Edwards et al. (1998) posited in person–environment fit theory that individuals gravitate toward congruent organizations, exerting effort for collective benefit. Highly committed employees will regard themselves as company insiders and perceive dissatisfaction as a signal of misfit, triggering opportunities for organizational improvement. Such strong values alignment could enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation, facilitating proactive role construction and organizationally desired behaviors (Nguyen et al., 2020). Therefore, we formed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Organizational commitment will moderate the relationship between job dissatisfaction and proactive person–environment fit behavior, such that the negative impact of job dissatisfaction on proactive person–environment fit behavior will be weaker for employees with high (vs. low) levels of organizational commitment.

Person–environment exchange is embedded in the workplace, where individual proactive adjustments depend on organizational resources and opportunities provided (Parker & Collins, 2010). Thus, PPEFB initiation requires alignment between environmental supplies and individual needs. The workplace labor relations climate reflects the degree of mutual trust and cooperation, signaling organizational support to employees (Xi et al., 2017). We proposed that when labor relations climate resources matched commitment-based needs, dissatisfied employees would show higher willingness and capacity for PPEFB. Thus, we examined four congruence types for this relationship: (a) high commitment–high harmonious labor relations climate, (b) low commitment–low harmonious labor relations climate, (c) low harmonious labor relations climate–high commitment, and (d) high harmonious labor relations climate–low commitment.

 

Under the condition of high commitment and high harmonious labor relations climate, a resource-abundant environment enables collaborative resource spillover that enhances PPEFB. Specifically, a supportive climate amplifies commitment, strengthening individual positive affect and organizational citizenship behavior (Huang et al., 2022). Simultaneously, highly committed employees with a strong collective consciousness are willing to integrate resources for job improvement, thereby maximizing environmental resource utilization (Schwarz et al., 2023). Consequently, an upward dynamic coupling emerges between contextual resources and employees’ commitment: Prolonged exposure to a harmonious labor relations climate secures work safety perceptions, mitigating dissatisfaction-induced cognitive dissonance while boosting proactive motivation. Conversely, in the condition of low commitment–low harmonious labor relations climate, dissatisfied employees deprived of problem-solving resources may question environmental stability, triggering self-protective withdrawal behaviors that reduce PPEFB (Zimmerman et al., 2016).

 

In the condition of low harmonious labor relations climate with high commitment, an adversarial climate deprives employees of autonomy and advancement opportunities, undermining the process of person–environment fit. Consequently, high commitment fails to motivate but instead induces psychological contract breach, suppressing employees’ work initiative. De Clercq et al. (2020) found that when employees feel abused or overcontrolled by supervisors, this triggers dissatisfaction-driven counterproductive behaviors. In the condition of high harmonious labor relations climate with low commitment, the low commitment decouples the exchange relationship between individual and organization. Thus, even when the climate is positive, employees will not be motivated to engage in PPEFB (Jiang et al., 2023). Therefore, we formed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The matching of organizational commitment and labor relations climate will moderate the relationship between job dissatisfaction and proactive person–environment fit behavior, such that job dissatisfaction will most strongly predict proactive person–environment fit behavior under conditions of high organizational commitment and a harmonious labor relations climate.

 

The proposed research model is presented in Figure 1.

Following the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, we ensured that throughout our research we conformed with ethics standards. We collected data via a paper-based survey distributed to 501 employees across 102 departments within 15 firms spanning food, e-commerce, manufacturing, and tourism industries in multiple Chinese provinces. Specifically, we mailed the survey forms to supervisors, who distributed them to employees. A designated coordinator within each department collected completed surveys, sealed them in unit-specific envelopes, and returned them via mail to the research team. Participation was voluntary, and we obtained informed consent from all participants, emphasizing the importance of honest responses and guaranteeing data confidentiality. We distributed surveys at two time points 1 month apart. At Time 1, we measured organizational commitment and job dissatisfaction. At Time 2, we assessed labor relations climate and PPEFB. Completed survey forms were coded by survey phase and department. We collected 588 survey forms, with 501 valid responses retained after matching (85.2% response rate). Participants’ demographic details are shown in Table 1.

All scales we used had been published in peer-reviewed studies. We applied a standard back-translation method to guarantee the equivalence of meaning, inviting several scholars to complete the translation work. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

 

We assessed job dissatisfaction with a five-item scale adapted from the Job Satisfaction Index (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). As certain items in the original scale were designed to measure overall job satisfaction (as opposed to job dissatisfaction), we reverse scored these items during data analysis. A sample item is “I find real enjoyment in my work” (α = .72).

 

We used a 13-item scale developed by Meyer and Allen (1991) to measure organizational commitment. A sample item is “It would be very hard for me to leave my organization, even if I wanted to” (α = .75).

 

We used a 17-item scale developed by Cui et al. (2012) to measure labor relations climate. A sample item is “The company and employees have mutual trust” (α = .87).

 

We assessed PPEFB with a 12-item scale developed by Parker and Collins (2010). A sample item is “Seek feedback from your supervisor about work performance” (α = .87).

 

Control variables comprised gender, age, marital status, department type, firm type, and unit size.

Assessment of job dissatisfaction, organizational commitment, and PPEFB was made at the individual level (Klein & Kozlowski, 2012). Labor relations climate captures shared perceptions of mutual trust, cooperation, and interest alignment between management and employees. Consequently, obtaining individual-level environmental perceptions through employee ratings provides greater accuracy. Thus, we operationalized the workplace climate measure by aggregating individual survey responses to the work-unit level.

 

We performed a hierarchical linear modeling analysis. One-way analysis of variance results confirmed significant between-unit variance in labor relations climate (F = 3.85, p < .001). Intraclass correlation coefficients were ICC(1) = .37 and ICC(2) = .74, which exceeded established aggregation thresholds (LeBreton et al., 2023). Additionally, the mean within-group agreement index of .92 met the conventional criterion. These statistical results collectively justified the appropriateness of aggregating individual-level labor relations climate perceptions to the work-unit level.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables are presented in Table 2. Job dissatisfaction was negatively correlated with PPEFB, whereas organizational commitment and labor relations climate were positively correlated with PPEFB. These results provided initial support for Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Table 3 shows the results of discriminant validity testing. Single-factor, two-factor, and three-factor models showed a poor fit to the data, whereas the four-factor model demonstrated a satisfactory fit. The average variance extracted for all factors exceeded .50 and composite reliability surpassed .70. Standardized loadings exceeded .50 (p < .01) with no Heywood cases, demonstrating good convergent validity.

Results for the hierarchical linear modeling analysis are presented in Table 4. The null model revealed significant between-unit variance, ICC(1) = .23, ICC(2) = .11. Model 1 showed job dissatisfaction negatively predicted PPEFB. In Model 2, the interaction of organizational commitment and job dissatisfaction was marginal, which did not support Hypothesis 1. In Model 3, the significant three-way interaction indicated the congruence of organizational commitment and labor relations climate moderated the relationship between job dissatisfaction and PPEFB.

The sample was categorized into four groups: high organizational commitment–high labor relations climate, high organizational commitment–low labor relations climate, low organizational commitment–high labor relations climate, and low organizational commitment–low labor relations climate. A simple slope analysis (Dawson, 2014) demonstrated the strongest positive relationship between job dissatisfaction and PPEFB in the high organizational commitment–high labor relations climate group (β = .27, p < .05). The association of job dissatisfaction with PPEFB was negative but nonsignificant in the high organizational commitment–low labor relations climate (β = −.31, p > .05), low organizational commitment–high labor relations climate (β = −.05, p > .05), and low organizational commitment–low labor relations climate (β = −.12, p > .05) groups. These findings (see Figure 2) indicated that job dissatisfaction positively predicted PPEFB only when high organizational commitment coexisted with a harmonious labor relations climate, which supported Hypothesis 2.

We developed a theoretical model grounded in person–environment fit theory to examine how job dissatisfaction, labor relations climate, and organizational commitment jointly predict PPEFB. We found that job dissatisfaction exerted dual effects on PPEFB. Although scholars have advocated re-examining the duality of dissatisfaction (Pascual-Nebreda et al., 2022), the mechanisms underlying the transformation of dissatisfaction into proactive behaviors have remained underexplored. By framing dissatisfaction as person–environment misfit, we demonstrated its dual pathways, whereby it induces psychological strain while activating change-seeking potential. This reconciles contradictory findings in the dissatisfaction literature and advances PPEFB knowledge through counterintuitive logic.

 

Organizational commitment did not significantly moderate the dissatisfaction–PPEFB relationship. This indicates that the influence of organizational commitment is complex and contingent upon specific conditions (Wu et al., 2025). When environmental support is absent, dissatisfaction may attenuate commitment-based motivation despite its role as a psychological bond.

 

In our study the congruence of organizational commitment and labor relations climate moderated the link between dissatisfaction and PPEFB. The strongest positive effect emerged under the condition of a high labor relations climate with high organizational commitment. When an inclusive, equitable, and supportive labor climate coupled with strong employee commitment is established in an organization, the psychological discrepancies arising from person–environment misalignment can be mitigated. Thus, we have systematically revealed boundary conditions for dissatisfaction–PPEFB transformation, enriching the literature on proactive behavior and person–environment fit.

First, managers should adopt a holistic view of the dual effects of dissatisfaction by cultivating commitment and creating a supportive labor relations climate. Given that the relationship between dissatisfaction and PPEFB is contingent upon the degree of organizational commitment and the labor relations climate, employee dissatisfaction should be leveraged as an opportunity for proactive responses through human-centered motivational policies, transparent communication, and a caring culture (Hu et al., 2025). Second, managers should enhance employees’ affective bonds with the organization by ensuring that management practices are aligned with employees’ values expectations. This can be achieved through personnel selection and performance evaluation systems that reward proactive and creative behaviors. Finally, the joint moderation effect we observed indicates that emphasis solely on either organizational commitment or labor relations climate inadequately optimizes PPEFB transformation. Instead, integrated interventions spanning leadership support, employee assistance programs, cultural mechanisms, and commitment reinforcements will help to achieve synergistic effects.

Although job dissatisfaction research has flourished in Western contexts, its linkage with proactive behavior remains underexplored in the Chinese cultural and organizational setting (Wang et al., 2020). Future studies could incorporate cultural–institutional differences to advance the conceptualization of dissatisfaction within the Chinese context. We did not control for occupational characteristics or personality traits. Individuals in certain occupations (e.g., physicians) exhibit above-average dissatisfaction because of high job demands, whereas others (e.g., knowledge workers) may be more capable of turning dissatisfaction into creativity. Expanding occupational diversity in future studies would enhance ecological validity. Despite the two-wave data collection method used in our study, common method bias may have persisted, thereby limiting assessment of the dynamics underlying employee proactive behavior. Experience sampling methods or latent growth modeling may better capture the mechanisms of the dissatisfaction–PPEFB relationship (Gabriel et al., 2019; Jung & Wickrama, 2008).

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055617

 

Chinomona, E., & Mofokeng, T. M. (2016). Impact of organisational politics on job dissatisfaction and turnover intention: An application of social exchange theory on employees working in Zimbabwean small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The Journal of Applied Business Research, 32(3), 857–870. https://scispace.com/pdf/impact-of-organisational-politics-on-job-dissatisfaction-and-27ar5us15n.pdf

 

Cui, X., Zhang, Y., & Qu, J. (2012). Labor relations climate and job satisfaction: The moderating role of organizational commitment [In Chinese]. Nankai Business Review, 15(2), 19–30. https://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/30060091/Labor_Relations_Climate_and_Job_Satisfaction__The_.htm

 

Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7

 

Decius, J., Schaper, N., Klug, K., & Seifert, A. (2023). Active learning, active shaping, or both? A cross-lagged panel analysis of reciprocal effects between work design and informal workplace learning, and the mediating role of job crafting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 144, Article 103893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103893

 

De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2020). When does job dissatisfaction lead to deviant behaviour? The critical roles of abusive supervision and adaptive humour. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 294–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877679

 

Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person–environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical and directions future research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198522799.003.0003

 

Feinberg, M., Ford, B. Q., & Flynn, F. J. (2020). Rethinking reappraisal: The double-edged sword of regulating negative emotions in the workplace. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.005

 

Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., & Butts, M. M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118802626

 

Hu, D., Oh, I.-S., & Agolli, A. (2025). A meta-analysis of employee HR attributions and their relationships with employee-perceived high-performance work systems and employee outcomes. Human Resource Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22309

 

Huang, W., Shen, J., & Yuan, C. (2022). How decent work affects affective commitment among Chinese employees: The roles of psychological safety and labor relations climate. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(1), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211029673

 

Hughes, J., & Bozionelos, N. (2007). Work-life balance as source of job dissatisfaction and withdrawal attitudes: An exploratory study on the views of male workers. Personnel Review, 36(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710716768

 

Jiang, Z., Wang, Y., Li, W., Peng, K. Z., & Wu, C.-H. (2023). Career proactivity: A bibliometric literature review and a future research agenda. Applied Psychology, 72(1), 144–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12442

 

Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x

 

Klein, K. J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. E. (2012). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass.

 

LeBreton, J. M., Moeller, A. N., & Wittmer, J. L. S. (2023). Data aggregation in multilevel research: Best practice recommendations and tools for moving forward. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09853-9

 

Ma, B., Zhu, S., & Jain, K. (2023). The “sense” behind proactive behaviors: Feedback seeking, meaningfulness, and personal initiative. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 144, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2023.103896

 

Maertz, C. P., Jr., Keith, M. G., Raghuram, S., Porter, C. M., & Dalton, G. L. (2023). Advancing theory and practice on managing dysfunctional turnover: Developing an improved measure of turnover reasons. Group & Organization Management, 48(5), 1387–1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211065880

 

Mattarelli, E., & Tagliaventi, M. R. (2015). How offshore professionals’ job dissatisfaction can promote further offshoring: Organizational outcomes of job crafting. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 585–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01088.x

 

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

 

Nguyen, K. T., Nguyen, P. N. D., Do, T. T. T., Trinh, A. T., & Truong, V. A. N. (2020). Proactive personality, value congruence, perceived organizational support, and problem prevention behavior: A reciprocal moderated mediation model. Management Science Letters, 10(16), 4045–4054. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.7.004

 

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732

 

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554

 

Parker, S. K., Wang, Y., & Liao, J. (2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015302

 

Pascual-Nebreda, L., Cabanelas-Lorenzo, P., & Blanco-González, A. (2022). Understanding dissatisfaction through evaluation theory. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(7), 3116–3129. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3585

 

Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.429

 

Schwarz, G., Newman, A., Yu, J., & Michaels, V. (2023). Psychological entitlement and organizational citizenship behaviors: The roles of employee involvement climate and affective organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(1), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1962388

 

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231549

 

Sylva, H., Mol, S. T., Den Hartog, D. N., & Dorenbosch, L. (2019). Person-job fit and proactive career behaviour: A dynamic approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1580309

 

van Vianen, A. E. M. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702

 

Vleugels, W., Verbruggen, M., De Cooman, R., & Billsberry, J. (2023). A systematic review of temporal person-environment fit research: Trends, developments, obstacles, and opportunities for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2607

 

Wang, H., Chen, X., & Lu, C. (2020). When career dissatisfaction leads to employee job crafting: The role of job social support and occupational self-efficacy. Career Development International, 25(4), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-03-2019-0069

 

Wu, L.-W., Wang, C.-Y., & Tang, Y.-C. (2025). Do commitment and asset specificity serve as the double-edged sword to assist co-production in enhancing value co-creation? A dyadic approach in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 37(5), 1302–1320. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-04-2024-0459

 

Xi, M., Xu, Q., Wang, X., & Zhao, S. (2017). Partnership practices, labor relations climate, and employee attitudes: Evidence from China. ILR Review, 70(5), 1196–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793916684778

 

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069410

 

Zimmerman, R. D., Swider, B. W., Woo, S. E., & Allen, D. G. (2016). Who withdraws? Psychological individual differences and employee withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 498–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000068