Pub Date : 2020-03-24DOI: 10.1177/2041386620912833
M. Kerrissey, Patricia Satterstrom, A. Edmondson
Novel forms of teamwork—created by rapid change and growing diversity among collaborators—are increasingly common, and they present substantial methodological challenges for research. We highlight two aspects of new team forms that challenge conventional methods. Factors pertaining to change (e.g., in membership) create entitativity challenges such as whom to count as team members, while factors pertaining to difference (e.g., in expertise) create concordance challenges such as how to interpret disagreement in groups. We review research methods that are well-suited to each of these specific challenges. We identify the particular challenges of studying teams that exhibit high difference and change simultaneously and call for adaptive methods that enable insight into how they work. Clarity about the dimensions of deviation from ideal team forms, along with shared terminology, will help researchers make and discuss tough methodological choices and assist reviewers in evaluating them.
{"title":"Into the fray: Adaptive approaches to studying novel teamwork forms","authors":"M. Kerrissey, Patricia Satterstrom, A. Edmondson","doi":"10.1177/2041386620912833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620912833","url":null,"abstract":"Novel forms of teamwork—created by rapid change and growing diversity among collaborators—are increasingly common, and they present substantial methodological challenges for research. We highlight two aspects of new team forms that challenge conventional methods. Factors pertaining to change (e.g., in membership) create entitativity challenges such as whom to count as team members, while factors pertaining to difference (e.g., in expertise) create concordance challenges such as how to interpret disagreement in groups. We review research methods that are well-suited to each of these specific challenges. We identify the particular challenges of studying teams that exhibit high difference and change simultaneously and call for adaptive methods that enable insight into how they work. Clarity about the dimensions of deviation from ideal team forms, along with shared terminology, will help researchers make and discuss tough methodological choices and assist reviewers in evaluating them.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620912833","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45114169","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 : 2020-02-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620908954
M. Cronin, A. Homan
We are honored to assume the helm at Organizational Psychology Review (OPR). Of course we want to thank our Associate Editor (AE) team: Claudia Buengeler, Karen Niven, Jennifer Overbeck, Jana Raver, Marissa Shuffler, Chester Spell, Maria Tims, and Mary Waller, all of whom we are delighted to have, and who were enthusiastic about joining our adventure. On our inaugural issue, we wanted to provide a sneak peek at our vision for the journal.
{"title":"From the (new) editors","authors":"M. Cronin, A. Homan","doi":"10.1177/2041386620908954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620908954","url":null,"abstract":"We are honored to assume the helm at Organizational Psychology Review (OPR). Of course we want to thank our Associate Editor (AE) team: Claudia Buengeler, Karen Niven, Jennifer Overbeck, Jana Raver, Marissa Shuffler, Chester Spell, Maria Tims, and Mary Waller, all of whom we are delighted to have, and who were enthusiastic about joining our adventure. On our inaugural issue, we wanted to provide a sneak peek at our vision for the journal.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620908954","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41460797","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 : 2020-02-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619897618
D. van Knippenberg
The core role of leadership in organizations is to motivate the pursuit of the organization’s purpose (i.e., the reason the organization exists and does what it does). Yet, there currently is no leadership theory that revolves around this notion of purpose pursuit. Addressing this issue, I propose the concept of meaning-based leadership, defined as leader advocacy of an understanding of organizational purpose and why this purpose is meaningful in an appeal to motivate members to contribute to the pursuit of that purpose. I advance a model of the core process through which meaning-based leadership motivates purpose pursuit and the contingencies of this process. I identify key implications for the empirical study of this model as well as directions for the further conceptual and empirical development of important implications of the model.
{"title":"Meaning-based leadership","authors":"D. van Knippenberg","doi":"10.1177/2041386619897618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619897618","url":null,"abstract":"The core role of leadership in organizations is to motivate the pursuit of the organization’s purpose (i.e., the reason the organization exists and does what it does). Yet, there currently is no leadership theory that revolves around this notion of purpose pursuit. Addressing this issue, I propose the concept of meaning-based leadership, defined as leader advocacy of an understanding of organizational purpose and why this purpose is meaningful in an appeal to motivate members to contribute to the pursuit of that purpose. I advance a model of the core process through which meaning-based leadership motivates purpose pursuit and the contingencies of this process. I identify key implications for the empirical study of this model as well as directions for the further conceptual and empirical development of important implications of the model.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619897618","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48770805","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 : 2019-12-30DOI: 10.1177/2041386619896087
M. Tims, S. Parker
Job crafting, or proactive changes that individuals make in their job design, can influence and be influenced by coworkers. Although considerable research has emerged on this topic, overall, the way job crafting is responded to by coworkers has received little theoretical attention. The goal of this article is to develop a model that allows for a better understanding of job crafting in interdependent contexts. Drawing on attribution and social information theories, we propose that when job crafting has a negative or positive impact on coworkers, coworkers will make an attribution about the crafter’s prosocial motive. This attribution in turn influences whether coworkers respond in an antagonistic or a supportive way toward job crafters. Ultimately, coworkers’ reactions shape the experienced affective work outcomes of job crafters. We also theorize the factors that moderate coworkers’ reactions to job crafting behaviors and the job crafter’s susceptibility to coworker influence.
{"title":"How coworkers attribute, react to, and shape job crafting","authors":"M. Tims, S. Parker","doi":"10.1177/2041386619896087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619896087","url":null,"abstract":"Job crafting, or proactive changes that individuals make in their job design, can influence and be influenced by coworkers. Although considerable research has emerged on this topic, overall, the way job crafting is responded to by coworkers has received little theoretical attention. The goal of this article is to develop a model that allows for a better understanding of job crafting in interdependent contexts. Drawing on attribution and social information theories, we propose that when job crafting has a negative or positive impact on coworkers, coworkers will make an attribution about the crafter’s prosocial motive. This attribution in turn influences whether coworkers respond in an antagonistic or a supportive way toward job crafters. Ultimately, coworkers’ reactions shape the experienced affective work outcomes of job crafters. We also theorize the factors that moderate coworkers’ reactions to job crafting behaviors and the job crafter’s susceptibility to coworker influence.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619896087","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43811323","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 : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619892262
S. Waring
Multiteam systems (MTSs) are comprised of two or more teams working toward shared superordinate goals but with unique subgoals. In large MTSs operating in extreme environments, coordination difficulties have repeatedly been found, which compromise response effectiveness. Research is needed that examines MTSs in situ within extreme environments to develop temporal theories of inter-team processes and understanding of how coordination may be improved within these challenging contexts. Live disaster exercises replicate the complexities of extreme environments, providing a valuable avenue for observing inter-team processes in situ. This article seeks to contribute to MTS research by highlighting (i) a mixed-method framework for collecting data during live disaster exercises that uses both inductive and deductive approaches to promote methodological and measurement fit; (ii) ways in which data can be collected and combined to meet the appropriate standards of their methodological class; and (iii) a case example of a National exercise.
{"title":"Using live disaster exercises to study large multiteam systems in extreme environments: Methodological and measurement fit","authors":"S. Waring","doi":"10.1177/2041386619892262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619892262","url":null,"abstract":"Multiteam systems (MTSs) are comprised of two or more teams working toward shared superordinate goals but with unique subgoals. In large MTSs operating in extreme environments, coordination difficulties have repeatedly been found, which compromise response effectiveness. Research is needed that examines MTSs in situ within extreme environments to develop temporal theories of inter-team processes and understanding of how coordination may be improved within these challenging contexts. Live disaster exercises replicate the complexities of extreme environments, providing a valuable avenue for observing inter-team processes in situ. This article seeks to contribute to MTS research by highlighting (i) a mixed-method framework for collecting data during live disaster exercises that uses both inductive and deductive approaches to promote methodological and measurement fit; (ii) ways in which data can be collected and combined to meet the appropriate standards of their methodological class; and (iii) a case example of a National exercise.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619892262","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47244960","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 : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619886674
Florian E. Klonek, Fabiola H. Gerpott, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, S. Parker
Team processes are interdependent activities among team members that transform inputs into outputs, vary over time, and are critical for team effectiveness. Understanding the temporal dynamics of team processes and related team phenomena with a high-resolution lens (i.e., methods with high sampling rates) is particularly challenging when going “into the wild” (i.e., studying teams operating in their full situated context). We review quantitative field studies using high-resolution methods (e.g., video, chat/text data, archival, wearables) and map out the various temporal lenses for studying team dynamics. We synthesize these different lenses and present an integrated temporal framework that is of help in theorizing about team dynamics. We also provide readers with a “how to” guide that summarizes four essential steps along with analytical methods (e.g., sequential and pattern analyses, mixed-methods research, abductive reasoning) that are applicable to the broad scope of high-resolution methods.
{"title":"Time to go wild: How to conceptualize and measure process dynamics in real teams with high-resolution","authors":"Florian E. Klonek, Fabiola H. Gerpott, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, S. Parker","doi":"10.1177/2041386619886674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619886674","url":null,"abstract":"Team processes are interdependent activities among team members that transform inputs into outputs, vary over time, and are critical for team effectiveness. Understanding the temporal dynamics of team processes and related team phenomena with a high-resolution lens (i.e., methods with high sampling rates) is particularly challenging when going “into the wild” (i.e., studying teams operating in their full situated context). We review quantitative field studies using high-resolution methods (e.g., video, chat/text data, archival, wearables) and map out the various temporal lenses for studying team dynamics. We synthesize these different lenses and present an integrated temporal framework that is of help in theorizing about team dynamics. We also provide readers with a “how to” guide that summarizes four essential steps along with analytical methods (e.g., sequential and pattern analyses, mixed-methods research, abductive reasoning) that are applicable to the broad scope of high-resolution methods.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619886674","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41355991","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 : 2019-11-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620901884
Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin
Teams are ubiquitous in organizations, yet work contexts now make traditional teams—those that have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, and members who belong only to that single team—a rarity. Teamwork has evolved along with work itself, making the traditional means of studying and validating team experiences (e.g., agreement statistics) inadequate. Yet it is not merely that current measures are antiquated, many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct. We felt that rather than simply trying to further exploit our traditional approaches to studying teams, the field should explore new or different ways to capture the team experience. New ideas about how to study teams will necessarily start out as theoretical—arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. If those who study new forms of teams can then validate these theories, then such new approaches expand the field’s capabilities. Thus, over the next few issues of OPR, we will be featuring papers that present new stances on how to study real teams. Such papers will provide arguments as to why these approaches are legitimate and necessary, to hopefully help bring these new approaches to future empirical work on teams in the real world.
{"title":"The challenges of working with “real” teams: Challenges, needs, and opportunities","authors":"Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin","doi":"10.1177/2041386620901884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620901884","url":null,"abstract":"Teams are ubiquitous in organizations, yet work contexts now make traditional teams—those that have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, and members who belong only to that single team—a rarity. Teamwork has evolved along with work itself, making the traditional means of studying and validating team experiences (e.g., agreement statistics) inadequate. Yet it is not merely that current measures are antiquated, many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct. We felt that rather than simply trying to further exploit our traditional approaches to studying teams, the field should explore new or different ways to capture the team experience. New ideas about how to study teams will necessarily start out as theoretical—arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. If those who study new forms of teams can then validate these theories, then such new approaches expand the field’s capabilities. Thus, over the next few issues of OPR, we will be featuring papers that present new stances on how to study real teams. Such papers will provide arguments as to why these approaches are legitimate and necessary, to hopefully help bring these new approaches to future empirical work on teams in the real world.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620901884","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47394044","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 : 2019-08-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620962554
E. Liao, A. Wang, Cheryl Qianru Zhang
We adopt a multi-foci perspective to provide a theory-driven quantitative review of employee counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) by meta-analyzing the relationships between CWB and four groups of antecedents. Specifically, CWB antecedents stemming from four sources—supervisors, organization, coworkers, and private life—were included to investigate differences in their relationships with employee CWB. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, we argue that favorable and unfavorable correlates relate to employee CWB to different degrees. The meta-analysis included 181 field studies with 223 independent samples. Results indicated that unfavorable antecedents correlate more strongly with CWB than favorable antecedents. We also found that supervisor- and organization-related antecedents have stronger relationships with CWB than those from the two other groups. Implications include a deeper understanding of which situational factors relate the most—or least—to CWB which can help better address CWB in the workplace.
{"title":"Who influences employees’ dark side: A multi-foci meta-analysis of counterproductive workplace behaviors","authors":"E. Liao, A. Wang, Cheryl Qianru Zhang","doi":"10.1177/2041386620962554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962554","url":null,"abstract":"We adopt a multi-foci perspective to provide a theory-driven quantitative review of employee counterproductive workplace behaviors (CWBs) by meta-analyzing the relationships between CWB and four groups of antecedents. Specifically, CWB antecedents stemming from four sources—supervisors, organization, coworkers, and private life—were included to investigate differences in their relationships with employee CWB. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, we argue that favorable and unfavorable correlates relate to employee CWB to different degrees. The meta-analysis included 181 field studies with 223 independent samples. Results indicated that unfavorable antecedents correlate more strongly with CWB than favorable antecedents. We also found that supervisor- and organization-related antecedents have stronger relationships with CWB than those from the two other groups. Implications include a deeper understanding of which situational factors relate the most—or least—to CWB which can help better address CWB in the workplace.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620962554","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47405283","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 : 2019-06-09DOI: 10.1177/2041386619846948
D. Kong, Cecily D. Cooper, John J. Sosik
During the past two decades, the burgeoning literature on leader humor has documented various ways that humor enables leadership effectiveness. Yet there are problems of construct clarity and measurement associated with leader humor, as well as unanswered questions related to the theoretical frameworks and predictive value of leader humor. We provide a systematic review on leader humor, in which we address the issues of constructs—trait humor versus (behavioral) humor expression—and associated measures, discuss the main and emerging theoretical frameworks, assess the empirical literature via a meta-analysis and path analyses, and offer directions for future research. Our review not only offers theoretical insights for this research area, but also presents empirical gaps and opportunities through a quantitative summary.
{"title":"The state of research on leader humor","authors":"D. Kong, Cecily D. Cooper, John J. Sosik","doi":"10.1177/2041386619846948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619846948","url":null,"abstract":"During the past two decades, the burgeoning literature on leader humor has documented various ways that humor enables leadership effectiveness. Yet there are problems of construct clarity and measurement associated with leader humor, as well as unanswered questions related to the theoretical frameworks and predictive value of leader humor. We provide a systematic review on leader humor, in which we address the issues of constructs—trait humor versus (behavioral) humor expression—and associated measures, discuss the main and emerging theoretical frameworks, assess the empirical literature via a meta-analysis and path analyses, and offer directions for future research. Our review not only offers theoretical insights for this research area, but also presents empirical gaps and opportunities through a quantitative summary.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619846948","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43915835","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：