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.

Apple Pollination: Demand Depends on Variety and Supply Depends on Pollinator Identity

Insect pollination underpins apple production but the extent to which different pollinator guilds supply this service, particularly across different apple varieties, is unknown. Such information is essential if appropriate orchard management practices are to be targeted and proportional to the potential benefits pollinator species may provide. Here we use a novel combination of pollinator effectiveness assays (floral visit effectiveness), orchard field surveys (flower visitation rate) and pollinator dependence manipulations (pollinator exclusion experiments) to quantify the supply of pollination services provided by four different pollinator guilds to the production of four commercial varieties of apple. We show that not all pollinators are equally effective at pollinating apples, with hoverflies being less effective than solitary bees and bumblebees, and the relative abundance of different pollinator guilds visiting apple flowers of different varieties varies significantly. Based on this, the taxa specific economic benefits to UK apple production have been established. The contribution of insect pollinators to the economic output in all varieties was estimated to be £92.1M across the UK, with contributions varying widely across taxa: solitary bees (£51.4M), honeybees (£21.4M), bumblebees (£18.6M) and hoverflies (£0.7M). This research highlights the differences in the economic benefits of four insect pollinator guilds to four major apple varieties in the UK. This information is essential to underpin appropriate investment in pollination services management and provides a model that can be used in other entomolophilous crops to improve our understanding of crop pollination ecology.