Job-demand for Learning and Job-related Learning: The Moderating Effect of Need For Achievement

Purpose – The purpose of the research is to examine whether need for achievement moderates the relationship between job-demand for learning and job-related learning. Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained from 153 participants full-time. The scales for job-demand for learning and job-related learning were developed for this research, whilst the scale for need for achievement was obtained from an external source. Hierarchical regression analysis was used in testing the hypothesized moderating effects. Findings – It was found that need for achievement moderates the relationship between job-demand for learning and job-related learning. Specifically, although job-demand for learning is correlated positively to job-related learning for both the high and the low need for achievement groups, this correlation is stronger amongst the high group. Research limitations/implications – The use of a cross-sectional design in this study prohibits inferences being drawn regarding the causal relationships between job-demand for learning, need for achievement and job-related learning. Practical implications – Job-related learning can be facilitated through increasing the need for achievement by allowing employees to establish their own learning and performance goals rather than by imposing such goals on them. The redesign of jobs to create challenges for employees is an equally important practical consideration. Originality/value – This research provides a succinct view of the relationship between an external factor, job-demand for learning, and an internal motivator, need for achievement. It emphasizes the degree to which organizations can facilitate learning through design of challenging jobs, to the extent of the individuals’ motivation.

Genome-wide Association Study Identifies SESTD1 as a Novel Risk Gene for Lithium Responsive Bipolar Disorder

Lithium is the mainstay prophylactic treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), but treatment response varies considerably across individuals. Patients who respond well to lithium treatment might represent a relatively homogeneous subtype of this genetically and phenotypically diverse disorder. Here, we performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify (i) specific genetic variations influencing lithium response and (ii) genetic variants associated with risk for lithium-responsive BD. Patients with BD and controls were recruited from Sweden and the United Kingdom. GWAS were performed on 2698 patients with subjectively defined (self-reported) lithium response and 1176 patients with objectively defined (clinically documented) lithium response. We next conducted GWAS comparing lithium responders with healthy controls (1639 subjective responders and 8899 controls; 323 objective responders and 6684 controls). Meta-analyses of Swedish and UK results revealed no significant associations with lithium response within the bipolar subjects. However, when comparing lithium-responsive patients with controls, two imputed markers attained genome-wide significant associations, among which one was validated in confirmatory genotyping (rs116323614, P=2.74 × 10-8). It is an intronic single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) on chromosome 2q31.2 in the gene SEC14 and spectrin domains 1 (SESTD1), which encodes a protein involved in regulation of phospholipids. Phospholipids have been strongly implicated as lithium treatment targets. Furthermore, we estimated the proportion of variance for lithium-responsive BD explained by common variants ('SNP heritability') as 0.25 and 0.29 using two definitions of lithium response. Our results revealed a genetic variant in SESTD1 associated with risk for lithium-responsive BD, suggesting that the understanding of BD etiology could be furthered by focusing on this subtype of BD.