Pub Date : 2024-03-06DOI: 10.1177/20413866231225064
Sherry M.B. Thatcher, Bertolt Meyer, Youngsang Kim, Pankaj C. Patel
Reviewing over 20 years of faultlines research, we conducted a meta-analysis based on 168 studies from 162 papers with a sample size of 24,953 teams. Dormant faultlines are positively and significantly related to conflict and activated faultlines, but contrary to widespread beliefs, not directly related to team performance or team satisfaction. Further, the negative effects of dormant faultlines hinge on their activation; activated faultlines mediate the relationship between dormant faultlines on the one hand, and conflict, information elaboration, team performance, and team satisfaction on the other. However, when controlling for the effect of activated faultlines, there are positive effects of dormant faultlines on information elaboration. The relationship between dormant faultlines and activated faultlines was more pronounced when dormant faultlines were based on demographic attributes. Additionally, dormant faultlines were negatively related to team performance when teams were not top management or board teams and when studies were conducted in labs. We synthesize these results to provide a robust agenda for future research on team faultlines.
{"title":"A meta-analytic integration of the faultlines literature","authors":"Sherry M.B. Thatcher, Bertolt Meyer, Youngsang Kim, Pankaj C. Patel","doi":"10.1177/20413866231225064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231225064","url":null,"abstract":"Reviewing over 20 years of faultlines research, we conducted a meta-analysis based on 168 studies from 162 papers with a sample size of 24,953 teams. Dormant faultlines are positively and significantly related to conflict and activated faultlines, but contrary to widespread beliefs, not directly related to team performance or team satisfaction. Further, the negative effects of dormant faultlines hinge on their activation; activated faultlines mediate the relationship between dormant faultlines on the one hand, and conflict, information elaboration, team performance, and team satisfaction on the other. However, when controlling for the effect of activated faultlines, there are positive effects of dormant faultlines on information elaboration. The relationship between dormant faultlines and activated faultlines was more pronounced when dormant faultlines were based on demographic attributes. Additionally, dormant faultlines were negatively related to team performance when teams were not top management or board teams and when studies were conducted in labs. We synthesize these results to provide a robust agenda for future research on team faultlines.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"156 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140099856","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 : 2024-01-09DOI: 10.1177/20413866231225165
Deborah E. Rupp, Niti Pandey, Dale S. Rothman
In this paper, we respond to the call by Brockner and Bobocel for leveraging justice research to address critical social issues. Pulling from research within the areas of policy studies and liberal philosophy, we make three major arguments: a) Critical social issues are “wicked problems,” which combine high decision stakes, high diversity of actors, and high uncertainty, and therefore require the simultaneous and coordinated expertise of multiple disciplines for effective intervention; b) to tackle more far-reaching issues such as these requires a broadening of what is considered “just;” and c) those working within the policy realm are aware of and actively applying many of the justice principles outlined by Brockner and Bobocel. We conclude by converting Brockner and Bobocel's evidence-based insights (along with our extensions) into a consultative framework with which policy makers can audit their progress, decisions, and actions. We argue that it is through this sort of application of justice principles that uncertainty can be managed, durable agreements can be reached, and positive social change can be achieved.
{"title":"Justice theory as a framework for policy-making consultation","authors":"Deborah E. Rupp, Niti Pandey, Dale S. Rothman","doi":"10.1177/20413866231225165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231225165","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we respond to the call by Brockner and Bobocel for leveraging justice research to address critical social issues. Pulling from research within the areas of policy studies and liberal philosophy, we make three major arguments: a) Critical social issues are “wicked problems,” which combine high decision stakes, high diversity of actors, and high uncertainty, and therefore require the simultaneous and coordinated expertise of multiple disciplines for effective intervention; b) to tackle more far-reaching issues such as these requires a broadening of what is considered “just;” and c) those working within the policy realm are aware of and actively applying many of the justice principles outlined by Brockner and Bobocel. We conclude by converting Brockner and Bobocel's evidence-based insights (along with our extensions) into a consultative framework with which policy makers can audit their progress, decisions, and actions. We argue that it is through this sort of application of justice principles that uncertainty can be managed, durable agreements can be reached, and positive social change can be achieved.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"56 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139442122","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 : 2023-12-19DOI: 10.1177/20413866231220505
Tianyue Xu, M. B. Evans, Alex J. Benson
Members of small groups fundamentally desire status as status underpins members’ self-concept and dictates behavior in groups. Moreover, group members readily orient and update status perceptions that index the social standing of themselves and other members. Yet, our understanding is obscured by variability in how researchers study status. In the current review, we crystallize knowledge regarding the nature of status by characterizing variability in definitions, measures, and analytic frameworks. We advocate a definition of status that draws together attributes of respect, admiration, and voluntary deference. We also distinguish reputational and relational status operationalizations and address implications pertaining to measurement along with downstream decisions involving data management and analysis. We encourage a deliberate approach to ensure congruency in how status is defined, measured, and analyzed within a research program. This review also guides theory and hypothesis generation regarding how status-related processes may vary based on different forms of status or differing contexts.
{"title":"The nature of status: Navigating the varied approaches to conceptualizing and measuring status","authors":"Tianyue Xu, M. B. Evans, Alex J. Benson","doi":"10.1177/20413866231220505","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231220505","url":null,"abstract":"Members of small groups fundamentally desire status as status underpins members’ self-concept and dictates behavior in groups. Moreover, group members readily orient and update status perceptions that index the social standing of themselves and other members. Yet, our understanding is obscured by variability in how researchers study status. In the current review, we crystallize knowledge regarding the nature of status by characterizing variability in definitions, measures, and analytic frameworks. We advocate a definition of status that draws together attributes of respect, admiration, and voluntary deference. We also distinguish reputational and relational status operationalizations and address implications pertaining to measurement along with downstream decisions involving data management and analysis. We encourage a deliberate approach to ensure congruency in how status is defined, measured, and analyzed within a research program. This review also guides theory and hypothesis generation regarding how status-related processes may vary based on different forms of status or differing contexts.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"105 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138959428","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 : 2023-10-30DOI: 10.1177/20413866231208048
Markus Groth, Uta K. Bindl, Karyn Wang, Gerben A. van Kleef
Individuals often attempt to influence the affective states of others in the workplace. Such interpersonal affect regulation (IAR) occurs across social settings that are characterized by distinct roles and relationships between actors and targets. However, it is unclear whether and how IAR processes and outcomes differ across settings as pertinent research has developed in separate organizational literatures with different research traditions that have thus far not been compared or integrated. In addition, despite the social nature of IAR, the types of relationships between the actor engaging in IAR and the target of IAR have rarely been considered in prior research. Here, we present an integrative framework to establish why and how social roles at work shape motivation, strategies, and affective outcomes of IAR across three core actor-target configurations in organizations. Specifically, we theorize how internal-vertical, internal-horizontal, and external social role configurations influence IAR. We provide integrative insights into the nature and implications of IAR in organizations and generate a comprehensive agenda for future research on IAR.
{"title":"How social roles shape interpersonal affect regulation at work","authors":"Markus Groth, Uta K. Bindl, Karyn Wang, Gerben A. van Kleef","doi":"10.1177/20413866231208048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231208048","url":null,"abstract":"Individuals often attempt to influence the affective states of others in the workplace. Such interpersonal affect regulation (IAR) occurs across social settings that are characterized by distinct roles and relationships between actors and targets. However, it is unclear whether and how IAR processes and outcomes differ across settings as pertinent research has developed in separate organizational literatures with different research traditions that have thus far not been compared or integrated. In addition, despite the social nature of IAR, the types of relationships between the actor engaging in IAR and the target of IAR have rarely been considered in prior research. Here, we present an integrative framework to establish why and how social roles at work shape motivation, strategies, and affective outcomes of IAR across three core actor-target configurations in organizations. Specifically, we theorize how internal-vertical, internal-horizontal, and external social role configurations influence IAR. We provide integrative insights into the nature and implications of IAR in organizations and generate a comprehensive agenda for future research on IAR.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"8 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136068112","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 : 2023-10-19DOI: 10.1177/20413866231207001
Jean M. Bartunek, Chelsea Y. Lei
Theorizing in management and organizational psychology that has a generative capacity challenges guiding assumptions, addresses fundamental questions, fosters reconsideration of existing knowledge, and stimulates new approaches to scholarship and/or practice (Gergen, 1994). Its generativity is shown in its use by others. Theorizing that has a generative capacity is crucial for true advances in understanding. While truly generative theorizing is very difficult to accomplish, it is a worthwhile aspiration. In this paper, we discuss foundational characteristics of generative theorizing and processes that interfere with and facilitate its development. Facilitating processes include cultivating both doubt and imagination, involvement in diverse communities, and working with multiple, perhaps contradictory, theoretical directions and assumptions. We provide examples of theorizing that has been generative for both scholarship and practice. Finally, we suggest implications for doctoral education.
{"title":"Creating theory that is generative for scholarship and practice","authors":"Jean M. Bartunek, Chelsea Y. Lei","doi":"10.1177/20413866231207001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231207001","url":null,"abstract":"Theorizing in management and organizational psychology that has a generative capacity challenges guiding assumptions, addresses fundamental questions, fosters reconsideration of existing knowledge, and stimulates new approaches to scholarship and/or practice (Gergen, 1994). Its generativity is shown in its use by others. Theorizing that has a generative capacity is crucial for true advances in understanding. While truly generative theorizing is very difficult to accomplish, it is a worthwhile aspiration. In this paper, we discuss foundational characteristics of generative theorizing and processes that interfere with and facilitate its development. Facilitating processes include cultivating both doubt and imagination, involvement in diverse communities, and working with multiple, perhaps contradictory, theoretical directions and assumptions. We provide examples of theorizing that has been generative for both scholarship and practice. Finally, we suggest implications for doctoral education.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135730590","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 : 2023-09-14DOI: 10.1177/20413866231202031
Johnathan R. Cromwell
Research suggests that extreme levels of constraint can push people to use different types of creative problem solving, but this conflicts with recent theory arguing that individuals are most creative under a moderate level of constraint. To resolve this issue, this paper proposes a combinatorial theory of constraints that argues it is necessary to understand how multiple dimensions of constraint (e.g., on problems and resources) work together to influence creativity, rather than study them in isolation. Accordingly, two conditions can enhance creativity—either through divergent problem solving or emergent problem solving—because they produce an overall balanced combination of constraint that improves important psychological mechanisms of creativity such as intrinsic motivation and creative search. Alternatively, two other conditions can hinder creativity—either due to ambiguous opportunity or futile effort—because they produce a combined low or high level of constraint on a task.
{"title":"How combinations of constraint affect creativity: A new typology of creative problem solving in organizations","authors":"Johnathan R. Cromwell","doi":"10.1177/20413866231202031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231202031","url":null,"abstract":"Research suggests that extreme levels of constraint can push people to use different types of creative problem solving, but this conflicts with recent theory arguing that individuals are most creative under a moderate level of constraint. To resolve this issue, this paper proposes a combinatorial theory of constraints that argues it is necessary to understand how multiple dimensions of constraint (e.g., on problems and resources) work together to influence creativity, rather than study them in isolation. Accordingly, two conditions can enhance creativity—either through divergent problem solving or emergent problem solving—because they produce an overall balanced combination of constraint that improves important psychological mechanisms of creativity such as intrinsic motivation and creative search. Alternatively, two other conditions can hinder creativity—either due to ambiguous opportunity or futile effort—because they produce a combined low or high level of constraint on a task.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135552728","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 : 2023-09-08DOI: 10.1177/20413866231197519
J. Pletzer, Kimberley Breevaart, Arnold B. Bakker
Integrating the leadership literature with Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, we conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis of the relations of different leadership behaviors with followers’ work engagement and burnout. We found that constructive leadership relates positively to followers’ work engagement ( k = 588, [Formula: see text] =.467) and negatively to followers’ burnout ( k = 346, [Formula: see text] =−.327), whereas destructive leadership relates negatively to followers’ work engagement ( k = 72, [Formula: see text] =−.220) and positively to followers’ burnout ( k = 122, [Formula: see text] =.381). We furthermore demonstrated that both followers’ work engagement and burnout partially mediate the relations of both constructive and destructive leadership with followers’ job performance. However, the indirect relation of constructive leadership with followers’ job performance via followers’ work engagement is clearly the strongest, suggesting that leaders stimulate followers’ job performance primarily because they motivate followers. We discuss how the findings of this theory-driven meta-analysis help to integrate leadership research in JD-R theory and generate important insights for leadership behavior and training.
{"title":"Constructive and destructive leadership in job demands-resources theory: A meta-analytic test of the motivational and health-impairment pathways","authors":"J. Pletzer, Kimberley Breevaart, Arnold B. Bakker","doi":"10.1177/20413866231197519","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231197519","url":null,"abstract":"Integrating the leadership literature with Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, we conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis of the relations of different leadership behaviors with followers’ work engagement and burnout. We found that constructive leadership relates positively to followers’ work engagement ( k = 588, [Formula: see text] =.467) and negatively to followers’ burnout ( k = 346, [Formula: see text] =−.327), whereas destructive leadership relates negatively to followers’ work engagement ( k = 72, [Formula: see text] =−.220) and positively to followers’ burnout ( k = 122, [Formula: see text] =.381). We furthermore demonstrated that both followers’ work engagement and burnout partially mediate the relations of both constructive and destructive leadership with followers’ job performance. However, the indirect relation of constructive leadership with followers’ job performance via followers’ work engagement is clearly the strongest, suggesting that leaders stimulate followers’ job performance primarily because they motivate followers. We discuss how the findings of this theory-driven meta-analysis help to integrate leadership research in JD-R theory and generate important insights for leadership behavior and training.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43194978","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 : 2023-09-06DOI: 10.1177/20413866231199068
M. Bashshur, Laurie J. Barclay, Marion Fortin
How do people perceive fairness? Recently, fairness scholars have raised important theoretical questions related to what information is used in fairness perceptions, why this information is emphasized, and how fairness perceptions can change over time. Integrating the Brunswikian lens approach with a motivated cognition perspective, we develop the Motivated Perceptual Approach (MPA) to highlight how people can be motivated to selectively perceive and weight cues to form fairness perceptions that align with their motives. However, these motives can change over time and through interaction with motivated others. By illuminating the dynamic and dialectic processes underlying fairness perceptions, the MPA sheds light on how people's fairness perceptions can be influenced by their own motives as well as socially constructed and negotiated through interactions with motivated others. Practical insights include how to effectively manage fairness perceptions over time and across perspectives. We conclude with a research agenda for advancing the fairness literature. Whether or not people perceive they (or others) have been treated fairly or are treating others fairly at work, has implications for a variety of important outcomes ranging from helping others (when people perceive fairness) to undermining supervisors, making plans to quit or punishing bad actors (when people perceive unfairness). Important questions remain, however, around how people come to these perceptions in the first place. How do they decide what is fair? A long time assumption has been that these perceptions are subjective and motivated; that “fairness is in the eye of the beholder.” Based on this assumption, two people who experience the same event may come away with very different fairness perceptions. This is a crucial insight that helps explain the significant disparities in perceptions of fairness between people. However, as a field, we seem to have strayed from that foundational assumption. In this paper, we revisit this premise to develop an approach describing how people collect and integrate information to inform their fairness perceptions, highlighting the particular role that their motives (what they want to perceive, e.g., that they are fair actors, that they are treated well by important others) shape what information they attend to and use in arriving at their perceptions of fairness. From this perspective we explain how fairness perceptions can change over time, explain and predict differences between perspectives (e.g., managers and employees), and provide guidance for developing practical interventions that can reduce these differences before they become intractable.
{"title":"Of headlamps and marbles: A motivated perceptual approach to the dynamic and dialectic nature of fairness","authors":"M. Bashshur, Laurie J. Barclay, Marion Fortin","doi":"10.1177/20413866231199068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231199068","url":null,"abstract":"How do people perceive fairness? Recently, fairness scholars have raised important theoretical questions related to what information is used in fairness perceptions, why this information is emphasized, and how fairness perceptions can change over time. Integrating the Brunswikian lens approach with a motivated cognition perspective, we develop the Motivated Perceptual Approach (MPA) to highlight how people can be motivated to selectively perceive and weight cues to form fairness perceptions that align with their motives. However, these motives can change over time and through interaction with motivated others. By illuminating the dynamic and dialectic processes underlying fairness perceptions, the MPA sheds light on how people's fairness perceptions can be influenced by their own motives as well as socially constructed and negotiated through interactions with motivated others. Practical insights include how to effectively manage fairness perceptions over time and across perspectives. We conclude with a research agenda for advancing the fairness literature. Whether or not people perceive they (or others) have been treated fairly or are treating others fairly at work, has implications for a variety of important outcomes ranging from helping others (when people perceive fairness) to undermining supervisors, making plans to quit or punishing bad actors (when people perceive unfairness). Important questions remain, however, around how people come to these perceptions in the first place. How do they decide what is fair? A long time assumption has been that these perceptions are subjective and motivated; that “fairness is in the eye of the beholder.” Based on this assumption, two people who experience the same event may come away with very different fairness perceptions. This is a crucial insight that helps explain the significant disparities in perceptions of fairness between people. However, as a field, we seem to have strayed from that foundational assumption. In this paper, we revisit this premise to develop an approach describing how people collect and integrate information to inform their fairness perceptions, highlighting the particular role that their motives (what they want to perceive, e.g., that they are fair actors, that they are treated well by important others) shape what information they attend to and use in arriving at their perceptions of fairness. From this perspective we explain how fairness perceptions can change over time, explain and predict differences between perspectives (e.g., managers and employees), and provide guidance for developing practical interventions that can reduce these differences before they become intractable.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44751384","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：