Pub Date : 2024-09-07DOI: 10.1177/20413866241267198
Keri A. Pekaar, Evangelia Demerouti, Piet J. R. van Gool
Implementing sustainability is a complex and challenging process that requires the collaboration and commitment of multiple stakeholders within supply chains. Existing research has largely overlooked the role of individual employees who can act as change agents and proactively initiate and facilitate sustainability initiatives. In this paper, we propose a proactive job design perspective to understand how these sustainability champions can balance the demands and resources related to sustainability in and across organizations. We suggest that they can use a combination of self- and partner-focused sustainability regulation strategies to influence the sustainability resources of their supply chain partners and create inter-organizational Job Demands-Resources dynamics that can enhance or hinder sustainability implementation. We develop a set of propositions that can guide future research on this topic and offer practical implications for organizations that want to foster employee proactivity and sustainability in their supply chains.
{"title":"Sustainability champions: A proactive perspective on the inter-organizational job design dynamics of sustainability implementation","authors":"Keri A. Pekaar, Evangelia Demerouti, Piet J. R. van Gool","doi":"10.1177/20413866241267198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241267198","url":null,"abstract":"Implementing sustainability is a complex and challenging process that requires the collaboration and commitment of multiple stakeholders within supply chains. Existing research has largely overlooked the role of individual employees who can act as change agents and proactively initiate and facilitate sustainability initiatives. In this paper, we propose a proactive job design perspective to understand how these sustainability champions can balance the demands and resources related to sustainability in and across organizations. We suggest that they can use a combination of self- and partner-focused sustainability regulation strategies to influence the sustainability resources of their supply chain partners and create inter-organizational Job Demands-Resources dynamics that can enhance or hinder sustainability implementation. We develop a set of propositions that can guide future research on this topic and offer practical implications for organizations that want to foster employee proactivity and sustainability in their supply chains.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-30DOI: 10.1177/20413866241276872
Sam T. Hunter, Jeffrey B. Lovelace, Brett H. Neely, Julian Allen
The charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) theory of leadership emphasizes an equifinality approach to leading, where a diverse set of styles are theorized to serve as viable routes to leader influence and success. The theory has received substantial support and attention over the past 15 years, yet there is a need to address key limitations and expand on insights from recent reviews to offer a revised and extended version of the CIP theory. We offer that each leader type emphasizes varying influence mechanisms resulting in differing dominant reactions from followers. In addition, we discuss the importance of considering mixed pathways as a key avenue for future iterations of the framework. Our proposed model addresses several criticisms of modern leadership theories by specifying how different leadership approaches elicit varying dominant follower motivational and effort mechanisms.
{"title":"Multiple Pathways to Leadership: A Revision and Extension of the CIP Leadership Framework","authors":"Sam T. Hunter, Jeffrey B. Lovelace, Brett H. Neely, Julian Allen","doi":"10.1177/20413866241276872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241276872","url":null,"abstract":"The charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) theory of leadership emphasizes an equifinality approach to leading, where a diverse set of styles are theorized to serve as viable routes to leader influence and success. The theory has received substantial support and attention over the past 15 years, yet there is a need to address key limitations and expand on insights from recent reviews to offer a revised and extended version of the CIP theory. We offer that each leader type emphasizes varying influence mechanisms resulting in differing dominant reactions from followers. In addition, we discuss the importance of considering mixed pathways as a key avenue for future iterations of the framework. Our proposed model addresses several criticisms of modern leadership theories by specifying how different leadership approaches elicit varying dominant follower motivational and effort mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142213481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-02DOI: 10.1177/20413866241264121
Annamaria V. Wolf, Katelyn N. Hendrick, William S. Kramer, Marissa L. Shuffler
The growing literature on meeting science has begun to offer numerous best practices for designing and facilitating team meetings. However, similar considerations are limited for meetings that take place within multiteam systems (MTSs). These MTSs require meetings to occur both within and between teams to achieve both proximal and distal goals. Accordingly, the unique attributes of and challenges faced by MTSs may impact meeting inputs, processes, outcomes, and performance in these complex systems. In this review, we integrate core theoretical and empirical evidence from the meeting science, teaming, and MTS literature to inform the development of key propositions. Specifically, these propositions address how the design, facilitation, and effectiveness of MTS meetings may be influenced and impacted by core linkage attributes of MTSs. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications as well as of future avenues for research that further explores and refines our understanding of meetings in MTS contexts.
{"title":"More Teams, More Meetings? Toward an Understanding of Multiteam System Meeting Design, Facilitation, and Effectiveness","authors":"Annamaria V. Wolf, Katelyn N. Hendrick, William S. Kramer, Marissa L. Shuffler","doi":"10.1177/20413866241264121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241264121","url":null,"abstract":"The growing literature on meeting science has begun to offer numerous best practices for designing and facilitating team meetings. However, similar considerations are limited for meetings that take place within multiteam systems (MTSs). These MTSs require meetings to occur both within and between teams to achieve both proximal and distal goals. Accordingly, the unique attributes of and challenges faced by MTSs may impact meeting inputs, processes, outcomes, and performance in these complex systems. In this review, we integrate core theoretical and empirical evidence from the meeting science, teaming, and MTS literature to inform the development of key propositions. Specifically, these propositions address how the design, facilitation, and effectiveness of MTS meetings may be influenced and impacted by core linkage attributes of MTSs. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications as well as of future avenues for research that further explores and refines our understanding of meetings in MTS contexts.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141886517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1177/20413866241245310
Carl P. Maertz, Clark D. Johnson, Brittney C. Bauer
This paper critiques a research practice that we call “bundling,” which has produced highly popular constructs in the organizational behavior literature, including organizational commitment, employee engagement, and organizational embeddedness. We show how these bundled constructs, using broad labels from common parlance, have produced overlapping meanings, confounded theoretical mechanisms, and imposed limiting “ideal employee” conceptions in the literature, organizations, and ultimately, societal discourse about employees. We argue that “unbundling” these constructs can provide multiple benefits to theory, empirical inquiry, and practical assessment of complex employee motives. As a demonstration, we unbundle the three focal constructs to integrate and clarify their component relations within the nomological net of turnover motivation. Thereby, we enrich conceptions of proximal withdrawal states, while synthesizing the most comprehensive model of turnover motivations. Finally, we discuss further research implications suggested by unbundling our focal constructs, and unbundling more generally.
{"title":"An inconvenient truth about “bundling” commitment, engagement, and embeddedness: Unbundling to extend theory on turnover motivations and beyond","authors":"Carl P. Maertz, Clark D. Johnson, Brittney C. Bauer","doi":"10.1177/20413866241245310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241245310","url":null,"abstract":"This paper critiques a research practice that we call “bundling,” which has produced highly popular constructs in the organizational behavior literature, including organizational commitment, employee engagement, and organizational embeddedness. We show how these bundled constructs, using broad labels from common parlance, have produced overlapping meanings, confounded theoretical mechanisms, and imposed limiting “ideal employee” conceptions in the literature, organizations, and ultimately, societal discourse about employees. We argue that “unbundling” these constructs can provide multiple benefits to theory, empirical inquiry, and practical assessment of complex employee motives. As a demonstration, we unbundle the three focal constructs to integrate and clarify their component relations within the nomological net of turnover motivation. Thereby, we enrich conceptions of proximal withdrawal states, while synthesizing the most comprehensive model of turnover motivations. Finally, we discuss further research implications suggested by unbundling our focal constructs, and unbundling more generally.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"114 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140939659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-26DOI: 10.1177/20413866241245301
William P. Tyne, David Fletcher, Nicola J. Paine, Clare Stevinson
This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesising the existing research on the effectiveness of interventions featuring physical challenges for developing transferable skills and psychological health outcomes. Results from 47 independent samples across 44 studies revealed that the overall proximal effects of the interventions were medium ( g = 0.51) and that effects gradually diminished over time ( g = 0.39). Analyses across individual outcomes revealed interventions positively influenced interpersonal ( g = 0.55), intrapersonal ( g = 0.53), and cognitive skills ( g = 0.53), as well as psychological health outcomes ( g = 0.56). Moderator analyses indicate interventions can be potentially beneficial irrespective of design and participants involved. However, the current state of the literature does not truly allow for thorough conclusions to be made regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of physical challenge interventions for organizational settings.
{"title":"Physical Challenge Interventions and the Development of Transferable Skills for the Workplace: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"William P. Tyne, David Fletcher, Nicola J. Paine, Clare Stevinson","doi":"10.1177/20413866241245301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241245301","url":null,"abstract":"This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesising the existing research on the effectiveness of interventions featuring physical challenges for developing transferable skills and psychological health outcomes. Results from 47 independent samples across 44 studies revealed that the overall proximal effects of the interventions were medium ( g = 0.51) and that effects gradually diminished over time ( g = 0.39). Analyses across individual outcomes revealed interventions positively influenced interpersonal ( g = 0.55), intrapersonal ( g = 0.53), and cognitive skills ( g = 0.53), as well as psychological health outcomes ( g = 0.56). Moderator analyses indicate interventions can be potentially beneficial irrespective of design and participants involved. However, the current state of the literature does not truly allow for thorough conclusions to be made regarding the appropriateness and effectiveness of physical challenge interventions for organizational settings.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140806708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-17DOI: 10.1177/20413866241245314
Nathanael L. Keiser
The after-action review (AAR), also termed debrief, is a training approach that commonly encompasses some form of technology, but technology is largely a tangential consideration, which serves as the impetus for this review. Based on a systematic review of 91 empirical studies (113 AARs), a variety of nuances are identified about (1) where in the AAR technology is used, and the (2) users, (3) type, and (4) use of that technology. Technology is indeed common to AARs, but typically relegated to either aid in the task performance episode (92%) or in the provision of task feedback (52%). More broadly, the findings from the present review reflect the inherent complexity of determining how best to use technology in AARs with little extant guidance. These findings are followed by a set of six recommendations that will ideally spur greater use of technology in AARs to address longstanding issues that attenuate its effectiveness.
{"title":"A systematic review of technology in the after-action review (or debrief)","authors":"Nathanael L. Keiser","doi":"10.1177/20413866241245314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241245314","url":null,"abstract":"The after-action review (AAR), also termed debrief, is a training approach that commonly encompasses some form of technology, but technology is largely a tangential consideration, which serves as the impetus for this review. Based on a systematic review of 91 empirical studies (113 AARs), a variety of nuances are identified about (1) where in the AAR technology is used, and the (2) users, (3) type, and (4) use of that technology. Technology is indeed common to AARs, but typically relegated to either aid in the task performance episode (92%) or in the provision of task feedback (52%). More broadly, the findings from the present review reflect the inherent complexity of determining how best to use technology in AARs with little extant guidance. These findings are followed by a set of six recommendations that will ideally spur greater use of technology in AARs to address longstanding issues that attenuate its effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"194 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140614654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-16DOI: 10.1177/20413866241245312
Allison M. Traylor, Julie V. Dinh, Linnea C. Ng, Denise L. Reyes, Shannon K. Cheng, Natalie C. Croitoru, Eduardo Salas
To better understand the effects of demographic diversity on teams, we conducted a meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between team demographic diversity and team processes. Drawing from the categorization-elaboration model, we hypothesized that team demographic diversity elicits opposing effects on team performance via information elaboration and social categorization processes. We also explored several team-level and contextual moderators on these relationships. In our meta-analysis of 406 effects from 38,304 teams, we found that team demographic diversity is related to increased social categorization processes, but we did not find support for a relationship between team demographic diversity and information elaboration. In addition, we identified team education level and occupational and industry context as moderators of these relationships, finding stronger support for moderators of the relationship between diversity and social categorization than the relationship between diversity and information elaboration. We discuss implications of our findings for research and practice.
{"title":"It's about the process, not the product: A meta-analytic investigation of team demographic diversity and processes","authors":"Allison M. Traylor, Julie V. Dinh, Linnea C. Ng, Denise L. Reyes, Shannon K. Cheng, Natalie C. Croitoru, Eduardo Salas","doi":"10.1177/20413866241245312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241245312","url":null,"abstract":"To better understand the effects of demographic diversity on teams, we conducted a meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between team demographic diversity and team processes. Drawing from the categorization-elaboration model, we hypothesized that team demographic diversity elicits opposing effects on team performance via information elaboration and social categorization processes. We also explored several team-level and contextual moderators on these relationships. In our meta-analysis of 406 effects from 38,304 teams, we found that team demographic diversity is related to increased social categorization processes, but we did not find support for a relationship between team demographic diversity and information elaboration. In addition, we identified team education level and occupational and industry context as moderators of these relationships, finding stronger support for moderators of the relationship between diversity and social categorization than the relationship between diversity and information elaboration. We discuss implications of our findings for research and practice.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"305 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140615018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-13DOI: 10.1177/20413866241245276
Alyssa M. Pandolfo, Tom W. Reader, Alex Gillespie
Failures of listening to individuals raising concerns are often implicated in safety incidents. To better understand this and theorize the communicative processes by which safety voice averts harm, we undertook a conceptual review of “safety listening” in organizations: responses to any voice that calls for action to prevent harm. Synthesizing research from disparate fields, we found 36 terms/definitions describing safety listening which typically framed it in terms of listeners’ motivations. These motivational accounts, we propose, are a by-product of the self-report methods used to study listening (e.g., surveys, interviews), which focus on listening perceptions rather than actual responses following speaking-up. In contrast, we define safety listening as a behavioral response to safety voice in organizational contexts to prevent harms. Influenced by cognitive, interactional, and environmental factors, safety listening may prevent incidents through enabling cooperative sensemaking processes for building shared awareness and understanding of risks and hazards.
{"title":"Safety Listening in Organizations: An Integrated Conceptual Review","authors":"Alyssa M. Pandolfo, Tom W. Reader, Alex Gillespie","doi":"10.1177/20413866241245276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241245276","url":null,"abstract":"Failures of listening to individuals raising concerns are often implicated in safety incidents. To better understand this and theorize the communicative processes by which safety voice averts harm, we undertook a conceptual review of “safety listening” in organizations: responses to any voice that calls for action to prevent harm. Synthesizing research from disparate fields, we found 36 terms/definitions describing safety listening which typically framed it in terms of listeners’ motivations. These motivational accounts, we propose, are a by-product of the self-report methods used to study listening (e.g., surveys, interviews), which focus on listening perceptions rather than actual responses following speaking-up. In contrast, we define safety listening as a behavioral response to safety voice in organizational contexts to prevent harms. Influenced by cognitive, interactional, and environmental factors, safety listening may prevent incidents through enabling cooperative sensemaking processes for building shared awareness and understanding of risks and hazards.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140560657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-20DOI: 10.1177/20413866241232138
Mark van Vugt, Stephen M. Colarelli, Norman P. Li
This paper makes the case for an evolutionary mismatch between digital work and the way human ancestors engaged in work. Psychological adaptations for producing things that early humans needed to survive and thrive, such as cognitive mechanisms for obtaining and processing food, toolmaking, and learning valuable working skills, evolved in the context of small networks of hunter–gatherers. These adaptations are central to understanding the significance of work in human evolution. Evolutionary mismatches operate when novel environments cue ancestral adaptations in ways that no longer provide adaptive benefits. We argue that digital work, although efficient and productive, is misaligned with some fundamental human needs, preferences, and routines, thereby illuminating a potential dark side. Yet digitalization also offers opportunities for matching the modern work environment to our evolved work psychology. We conclude with an agenda for advancing research in industrial and organizational psychology on digital work from an evolutionary mismatch perspective.
{"title":"Digitally Connected, Evolutionarily Wired: An Evolutionary Mismatch Perspective on Digital Work","authors":"Mark van Vugt, Stephen M. Colarelli, Norman P. Li","doi":"10.1177/20413866241232138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241232138","url":null,"abstract":"This paper makes the case for an evolutionary mismatch between digital work and the way human ancestors engaged in work. Psychological adaptations for producing things that early humans needed to survive and thrive, such as cognitive mechanisms for obtaining and processing food, toolmaking, and learning valuable working skills, evolved in the context of small networks of hunter–gatherers. These adaptations are central to understanding the significance of work in human evolution. Evolutionary mismatches operate when novel environments cue ancestral adaptations in ways that no longer provide adaptive benefits. We argue that digital work, although efficient and productive, is misaligned with some fundamental human needs, preferences, and routines, thereby illuminating a potential dark side. Yet digitalization also offers opportunities for matching the modern work environment to our evolved work psychology. We conclude with an agenda for advancing research in industrial and organizational psychology on digital work from an evolutionary mismatch perspective.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140203192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-07DOI: 10.1177/20413866241233739
Martin Martin Kilduff, Daniel Daniel O’Sullivan
The requirement for a theory contribution in empirical papers causes consternation among some and confusion among many. We address this issue by articulating alternative approaches to theory that include formal modeling, paradigm elaboration, problem solving, and theory emergence from observations. Knowledge about these different approaches will, we believe, help ameliorate disagreement and incomprehension across the research tribes that dominate social science and business school research. Each approach requires different assumptions about truth and the representation of reality. We outline each approach, provide examples, and a short critique. We suggest that what may seem mundane to the critical realist may be eye-opening to the pragmatist who directs attention to practitioners. For the scholar immersed within the walls of a paradigm, a set of stylized facts may challenge and inspire. The secret to innovative theory contributions is to synthesize ideas from the different tribes to use within your own focused research program.
{"title":"Where's the theory contribution? An answer in four parts","authors":"Martin Martin Kilduff, Daniel Daniel O’Sullivan","doi":"10.1177/20413866241233739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866241233739","url":null,"abstract":"The requirement for a theory contribution in empirical papers causes consternation among some and confusion among many. We address this issue by articulating alternative approaches to theory that include formal modeling, paradigm elaboration, problem solving, and theory emergence from observations. Knowledge about these different approaches will, we believe, help ameliorate disagreement and incomprehension across the research tribes that dominate social science and business school research. Each approach requires different assumptions about truth and the representation of reality. We outline each approach, provide examples, and a short critique. We suggest that what may seem mundane to the critical realist may be eye-opening to the pragmatist who directs attention to practitioners. For the scholar immersed within the walls of a paradigm, a set of stylized facts may challenge and inspire. The secret to innovative theory contributions is to synthesize ideas from the different tribes to use within your own focused research program.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140071592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：