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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2023-05-24DOI: 10.1177/20413866231177682
Neha Bellamkonda, R. Sheel
Service sector employees often deal with mistreatment in their interactions with the customers. Mistreatment during the service interaction varies in severity and intensity ranging from incivility to bullying. However, the current reviews in this domain focus only on certain aspects of mistreatment, rather than looking at customer mistreatment as a holistic phenomenon encompassing a wide range of behaviors. This review provides a thematic synthesis of the literature on customer mistreatment outcomes on employees, identifies boundary conditions of these relationships as well as explains the underlying mechanisms. The review advances the customer mistreatment literature by providing a conceptual framework to explain how reactions towards mistreatment lead to various employee outcomes. Further, the review highlights significant methodological issues and gaps in the existing literature by organizing the customer mistreatment literature and providing agendas for future research.
{"title":"Reactions and Underlying Mechanisms of Customer Mistreatment: An Integrative Review","authors":"Neha Bellamkonda, R. Sheel","doi":"10.1177/20413866231177682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231177682","url":null,"abstract":"Service sector employees often deal with mistreatment in their interactions with the customers. Mistreatment during the service interaction varies in severity and intensity ranging from incivility to bullying. However, the current reviews in this domain focus only on certain aspects of mistreatment, rather than looking at customer mistreatment as a holistic phenomenon encompassing a wide range of behaviors. This review provides a thematic synthesis of the literature on customer mistreatment outcomes on employees, identifies boundary conditions of these relationships as well as explains the underlying mechanisms. The review advances the customer mistreatment literature by providing a conceptual framework to explain how reactions towards mistreatment lead to various employee outcomes. Further, the review highlights significant methodological issues and gaps in the existing literature by organizing the customer mistreatment literature and providing agendas for future research.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44455324","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 : 2023-03-31DOI: 10.1177/20413866231166151
Sharath Baburaj, G. Marathe
This article explores existential meaning-making from work using the cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). To start with, we use the tenets of CEST to elaborate on how the cues from archetype work environments—a realization facilitating work environment (RfWE) and justification facilitating work environment (JfWE)—are interpreted by information-processing systems to imbue meaning in life (MiL) as internal or external manifestations of coherence, purpose, and significance. Next, we explain how individual differences in work centrality and proactive meaning-crafting ability moderate the impact of JfWE, but not of RfWE, on MiL. Finally, we create a nomological network of existential meaning states emerging from the simultaneous presence or absence of RfWE and JfWE. In summary, by applying the information-processing lens of CEST, we develop an integrated model that explains how work drives MiL, elucidates the resultant existential states, and assesses the role of individual differences in meaning-making. Plain Language Summary This article develops an integrated model that outlines how work environments can augur human well-being by fostering a sense of meaning in life (MiL). Based on the cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST), expounding parallel-competitive processing of information through the working of the experiential and rational system, we explore how the cues from archetype work environments—a realization facilitating work environment (RfWE) and justification facilitating work environment (JfWE)—influence the varied flavors of MiL and meaninglessness in life. We build the argument that RfWE activates the functioning of the experiential system to induce a feeling of internal MiL as internal coherence, internal purpose, and internal value significance. At the same time, JfWE triggers the functioning of the rational system to construct a judgment of external MiL as external coherence, external worthy purpose, and external value significance. However, the interaction between RfWE and JfWE can result in intricate scenarios, including favorable states such as holistic meaning, positive existential feelings, and positive existential narratives. Still, it can also lead individuals into meaninglessness in life through existential fatigue, existential cocoon, or existential futility. Nonetheless, individual differences in work centrality and proactive behavior to craft meaning can act as moderators to alter the intensity of work’s impact on MiL in a JfWE but not in an RfWE.
{"title":"Meaning in life through work: A cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST) perspective","authors":"Sharath Baburaj, G. Marathe","doi":"10.1177/20413866231166151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231166151","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores existential meaning-making from work using the cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). To start with, we use the tenets of CEST to elaborate on how the cues from archetype work environments—a realization facilitating work environment (RfWE) and justification facilitating work environment (JfWE)—are interpreted by information-processing systems to imbue meaning in life (MiL) as internal or external manifestations of coherence, purpose, and significance. Next, we explain how individual differences in work centrality and proactive meaning-crafting ability moderate the impact of JfWE, but not of RfWE, on MiL. Finally, we create a nomological network of existential meaning states emerging from the simultaneous presence or absence of RfWE and JfWE. In summary, by applying the information-processing lens of CEST, we develop an integrated model that explains how work drives MiL, elucidates the resultant existential states, and assesses the role of individual differences in meaning-making. Plain Language Summary This article develops an integrated model that outlines how work environments can augur human well-being by fostering a sense of meaning in life (MiL). Based on the cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST), expounding parallel-competitive processing of information through the working of the experiential and rational system, we explore how the cues from archetype work environments—a realization facilitating work environment (RfWE) and justification facilitating work environment (JfWE)—influence the varied flavors of MiL and meaninglessness in life. We build the argument that RfWE activates the functioning of the experiential system to induce a feeling of internal MiL as internal coherence, internal purpose, and internal value significance. At the same time, JfWE triggers the functioning of the rational system to construct a judgment of external MiL as external coherence, external worthy purpose, and external value significance. However, the interaction between RfWE and JfWE can result in intricate scenarios, including favorable states such as holistic meaning, positive existential feelings, and positive existential narratives. Still, it can also lead individuals into meaninglessness in life through existential fatigue, existential cocoon, or existential futility. Nonetheless, individual differences in work centrality and proactive behavior to craft meaning can act as moderators to alter the intensity of work’s impact on MiL in a JfWE but not in an RfWE.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43750927","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 : 2023-02-07DOI: 10.1177/20413866231153098
F. Emmerling, C. Peus, J. Lobbestael
Due to its devastating consequences, research needs to theoretically and empirically disentangle different sub-types of destructive leadership. Based on concepts derived from aggression research distinguishing re- and proactive aggression, we provide a process model differentiating abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. High versus low arousal negative affect is installed as the central mediating factor determining (1) whether perceived goal-blockage (leadership antecedents) leads to abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership and (2) whether a specific leadership behavior leads to active versus passive follower behavior (leadership consequence). Further, theoretical anchoring of individual and contextual moderators onto the model's process paths is provided and exemplary hypotheses for concrete moderation effects are deduced. Based on the provided process model, we highlight four recommendations to facilitate process-based construct differentiation in future research on destructive leadership. To precisely understand the differences and commonalities in different forms of destructive leadership will ultimately enable custom-tailored inter- and prevention. Plain Language Summary Negative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their antecedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded” form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated “cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggression and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arousal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can help us to better predict leaders' and followers' behavior. We also outline how individual characteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context interact w
{"title":"The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of arousal in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership","authors":"F. Emmerling, C. Peus, J. Lobbestael","doi":"10.1177/20413866231153098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231153098","url":null,"abstract":"Due to its devastating consequences, research needs to theoretically and empirically disentangle different sub-types of destructive leadership. Based on concepts derived from aggression research distinguishing re- and proactive aggression, we provide a process model differentiating abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. High versus low arousal negative affect is installed as the central mediating factor determining (1) whether perceived goal-blockage (leadership antecedents) leads to abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership and (2) whether a specific leadership behavior leads to active versus passive follower behavior (leadership consequence). Further, theoretical anchoring of individual and contextual moderators onto the model's process paths is provided and exemplary hypotheses for concrete moderation effects are deduced. Based on the provided process model, we highlight four recommendations to facilitate process-based construct differentiation in future research on destructive leadership. To precisely understand the differences and commonalities in different forms of destructive leadership will ultimately enable custom-tailored inter- and prevention. Plain Language Summary Negative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their antecedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded” form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated “cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggression and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arousal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can help us to better predict leaders' and followers' behavior. We also outline how individual characteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context interact w","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46620233","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 : 2023-02-01Epub Date: 2022-11-10DOI: 10.1177/20413866221134972
Christopher W Wiese, Charles Calderwood
In this introduction to the special issue about commuting, we invite readers to consider how this frequently occurring worker activity should be integrated and investigated within the organizational sciences. Commuting is ubiquitous in organizational life. Yet, despite this centrality, it remains one of the most understudied topics in the organizational sciences. This special issue seeks to remedy this oversight by introducing seven articles that review the literature, identify knowledge gaps, theorize through an organization science lens, and provide directions for future research. We introduce these seven articles by discussing how they address three cross-cutting themes (Challenging the Status Quo, Insights into the Commuting Experience, The Future of Commuting). We hope that the work within this special issue informs and inspires organizational scholars to engage in meaningful interdisciplinary research on commuting going forward.
{"title":"Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Commuting in the 2020s and Beyond.","authors":"Christopher W Wiese, Charles Calderwood","doi":"10.1177/20413866221134972","DOIUrl":"10.1177/20413866221134972","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this introduction to the special issue about commuting, we invite readers to consider how this frequently occurring worker activity should be integrated and investigated within the organizational sciences. Commuting is ubiquitous in organizational life. Yet, despite this centrality, it remains one of the most understudied topics in the organizational sciences. This special issue seeks to remedy this oversight by introducing seven articles that review the literature, identify knowledge gaps, theorize through an organization science lens, and provide directions for future research. We introduce these seven articles by discussing how they address three cross-cutting themes (Challenging the Status Quo, Insights into the Commuting Experience, The Future of Commuting). We hope that the work within this special issue informs and inspires organizational scholars to engage in meaningful interdisciplinary research on commuting going forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10285682/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9716716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.1177/20413866231153102
Christopher R. Dishop, Nikhil Awasty
Employees often feel that the help they receive at work is inadequate. Whereas previous research explains this empirical finding by referencing stereotypes or poor communication, we suggest an alternative that does not rely on biased agents: disappointment with received help may arise due to self-selection and regression to the mean. Before asking for help, employees assess whether their co-workers have the time and ability to respond. Consistent with regression to the mean, extreme beliefs are often followed by less extreme outcomes. However, employees with inflated beliefs are more likely to ask for help than employees with low or modest beliefs. Therefore, the subset of employees who act will have overly optimistic expectations, expectations that are unlikely to be met once co-workers respond. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed. This article presents a theory explaining the following empirical regularity: employees often feel let down with the help they receive at work. Prior research explains this effect by referencing errors in communication or cognition. We propose a simple, alternative mechanism, such that cognitive biases or communication mishaps need not be present for the pattern to emerge. Suppose employees ask for help based on a noisy signal of colleague potential—that is, a perception of whether co-workers have the motivation and ability to resolve the issue. Employees who believe potential is high will be more likely to ask for help than employees who believe potential is low. Due to regression to the mean, extreme beliefs will likely be followed by less extreme received help (in either direction). But not every employee asks for help. Only those with sufficiently high beliefs send a request—and it is those employees who have a greater chance of holding inflated assessments. Among those who ask, then, received help will appear underwhelming. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed.
{"title":"A Noisy Theory of Asking for Help That Explains why Many Feel Underwhelmed With the Help They Receive","authors":"Christopher R. Dishop, Nikhil Awasty","doi":"10.1177/20413866231153102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231153102","url":null,"abstract":"Employees often feel that the help they receive at work is inadequate. Whereas previous research explains this empirical finding by referencing stereotypes or poor communication, we suggest an alternative that does not rely on biased agents: disappointment with received help may arise due to self-selection and regression to the mean. Before asking for help, employees assess whether their co-workers have the time and ability to respond. Consistent with regression to the mean, extreme beliefs are often followed by less extreme outcomes. However, employees with inflated beliefs are more likely to ask for help than employees with low or modest beliefs. Therefore, the subset of employees who act will have overly optimistic expectations, expectations that are unlikely to be met once co-workers respond. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed. This article presents a theory explaining the following empirical regularity: employees often feel let down with the help they receive at work. Prior research explains this effect by referencing errors in communication or cognition. We propose a simple, alternative mechanism, such that cognitive biases or communication mishaps need not be present for the pattern to emerge. Suppose employees ask for help based on a noisy signal of colleague potential—that is, a perception of whether co-workers have the motivation and ability to resolve the issue. Employees who believe potential is high will be more likely to ask for help than employees who believe potential is low. Due to regression to the mean, extreme beliefs will likely be followed by less extreme received help (in either direction). But not every employee asks for help. Only those with sufficiently high beliefs send a request—and it is those employees who have a greater chance of holding inflated assessments. Among those who ask, then, received help will appear underwhelming. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42062579","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 : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.1177/20413866221143369
Vignesh R. Murugavel, Roni Reiter‐Palmon
Expanding existing meeting typologies, this paper introduces a model of the team creative process in meetings to better capture and study the full breath of meeting activity that results in creative outcomes. The primary goal of this work is to describe the processes that occur in the team creative process in meetings at the individual and team levels. A multi-level model that depicts the emergence of team creative cognitive processes from individual-level cognitions is presented. The nature of emergence of team creative processes is detailed. Research on creativity and meetings is integrated to better understand how meeting design characteristics influence creative output. This review of research is distilled to provide practical recommendations to best construct meetings to facilitate individual and team creativity. Additionally, the role of related team states in creative processes meetings is outlined. Finally, paths for future research on creativity in meetings are discussed. This article explores how individuals and teams think creatively in meetings. A model of meetings that have goals to produce creative outcomes is presented. The association between individual thinking processes and group thinking processes is presented alongside a discussion of relevant surrounding influences. Research on creative thinking and workplace meetings is used to better understand how meetings can be used to improve creativity. Practical recommendations to improve the production of creative outcomes in meetings are also provided.
{"title":"Integrating workplace meetings and team creative process literature: A multi-level perspective","authors":"Vignesh R. Murugavel, Roni Reiter‐Palmon","doi":"10.1177/20413866221143369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221143369","url":null,"abstract":"Expanding existing meeting typologies, this paper introduces a model of the team creative process in meetings to better capture and study the full breath of meeting activity that results in creative outcomes. The primary goal of this work is to describe the processes that occur in the team creative process in meetings at the individual and team levels. A multi-level model that depicts the emergence of team creative cognitive processes from individual-level cognitions is presented. The nature of emergence of team creative processes is detailed. Research on creativity and meetings is integrated to better understand how meeting design characteristics influence creative output. This review of research is distilled to provide practical recommendations to best construct meetings to facilitate individual and team creativity. Additionally, the role of related team states in creative processes meetings is outlined. Finally, paths for future research on creativity in meetings are discussed. This article explores how individuals and teams think creatively in meetings. A model of meetings that have goals to produce creative outcomes is presented. The association between individual thinking processes and group thinking processes is presented alongside a discussion of relevant surrounding influences. Research on creative thinking and workplace meetings is used to better understand how meetings can be used to improve creativity. Practical recommendations to improve the production of creative outcomes in meetings are also provided.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41896577","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：