Pub Date : 2022-07-11DOI: 10.1177/20413866221112427
J. Olenick, Christopher R. Dishop
Interventions backfire for many reasons, one being that the dynamics governing a system are not well-understood. To better explain organizational phenomena, and to intervene in ways that yield desired consequences, an appreciation of the core insights from dynamics may be necessary to include into a researcher's toolkit. Although substantial buzz surrounds the term dynamics in organizational science, conceptual missteps are present in the literature, ultimately limiting its application. We provide a coherent description of what dynamics encompasses by (1) advancing a definition and of dynamics and comparing it to other longitudinal concepts, (2) proposing theoretical principles to help researchers apply dynamics concepts to their own research, and (3) demonstrating how dynamics may refine our ability to explain organizational phenomena and devise practical implications. Plain Language Summary Organizational researchers and practitioners are faced with many complex issues and understanding how they unfold over time is difficult. Those difficulties often lead to unexpected results when we try to address those issues. Viewing organizations from a more dynamic lens can shed light on how phenomena evolve over time as governed by the iterative application of mathematical rules. Illumination of dynamics can assist with better targeting interventions and understanding their potential effects. A dynamics lens also emphasizes continuing needs to improve research methods, such as collecting longitudinal data and engaging in computational modeling. To illustrate these points, we discuss how diversity interventions in organizations may be better understood once dynamics are applied. For example, organizations wishing to improve the diversity of their work forces must focus both on why underrepresented groups enter the organization and why they might leave. Focus on only one or the other is unlikely to generate the desired effect. Once identifying the drivers of both entering and leaving and how those factors might reinforce each other, interventions to improve diversity might be better targeted.
{"title":"Clarifying dynamics for organizational research and interventions: A diversity example","authors":"J. Olenick, Christopher R. Dishop","doi":"10.1177/20413866221112427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221112427","url":null,"abstract":"Interventions backfire for many reasons, one being that the dynamics governing a system are not well-understood. To better explain organizational phenomena, and to intervene in ways that yield desired consequences, an appreciation of the core insights from dynamics may be necessary to include into a researcher's toolkit. Although substantial buzz surrounds the term dynamics in organizational science, conceptual missteps are present in the literature, ultimately limiting its application. We provide a coherent description of what dynamics encompasses by (1) advancing a definition and of dynamics and comparing it to other longitudinal concepts, (2) proposing theoretical principles to help researchers apply dynamics concepts to their own research, and (3) demonstrating how dynamics may refine our ability to explain organizational phenomena and devise practical implications. \u0000 Plain Language Summary\u0000 Organizational researchers and practitioners are faced with many complex issues and understanding how they unfold over time is difficult. Those difficulties often lead to unexpected results when we try to address those issues. Viewing organizations from a more dynamic lens can shed light on how phenomena evolve over time as governed by the iterative application of mathematical rules. Illumination of dynamics can assist with better targeting interventions and understanding their potential effects. A dynamics lens also emphasizes continuing needs to improve research methods, such as collecting longitudinal data and engaging in computational modeling. To illustrate these points, we discuss how diversity interventions in organizations may be better understood once dynamics are applied. For example, organizations wishing to improve the diversity of their work forces must focus both on why underrepresented groups enter the organization and why they might leave. Focus on only one or the other is unlikely to generate the desired effect. Once identifying the drivers of both entering and leaving and how those factors might reinforce each other, interventions to improve diversity might be better targeted.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"365 - 386"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43574398","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 : 2022-07-11DOI: 10.1177/20413866221112386
A. Bazzoli, T. Probst
We collected the abstracts of manuscripts examining job insecurity published between 1984 and 2019 and carried out a textual analysis to investigate the defining clusters, their development over time, and whether there was evidence of siloed knowledge. Results suggested that job insecurity research seems to be fragmented into disciplinary foci (organizational psychology, public health, economics, and sociology). Further analyses on the organizational psychology corpus, revealed 25 topics with distinct temporal trajectories: some were increasing (analytical advances and differentiation between cognitive and affective job insecurity) while other were decreasing (scale development). The remaining abstracts revealed 15 topics with more stable trajectories. Based on these results, we identified five areas for future organizational research on job insecurity: the changing labor market, the need to better understand the experiences of marginalized workers and non-work outcomes of job insecurity, the added-value of qualitative research, and the need to critically evaluate our assumptions as researchers. Plain Language Summary Since the paper by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, research on job insecurity has burgeoned. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we collected the abstracts of all peer-reviewed manuscripts examining job insecurity published between 1984 and 2019 and carried out a textual analysis using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation and the Reinert method to investigate (a) the defining clusters of job insecurity research, (b) the development of such clusters over time, and (c) whether there was any evidence of siloed knowledge. Results suggested that indeed job insecurity research seems to be fragmented into four main disciplinary foci (organizational psychology, public health, economics, and sociology) with relatively little cross-fertilization. We conducted further analyses of the abstracts stemming from organizational research on job insecurity, revealing 25 topics with distinct temporal trajectories (e.g., “hot” topics including the increasing use of advanced analytic techniques and differentiation between cognitive and affective job insecurity) and “cold” topics including the development of job insecurity measures). The remaining abstracts revealed 15 topics with more stable research interests over time (e.g., a continued reliance on appraisal theories). Based on these results, we identified five areas for future organizational research on job insecurity based on: the changing labor market, the need to better understand the experiences of marginalized workers and non-work outcomes of job insecurity, the added-value of qualitative research, and finally the need to critically evaluate our assumptions as researchers.
{"title":"Taking stock and moving forward: A textual statistics approach to synthesizing four decades of job insecurity research","authors":"A. Bazzoli, T. Probst","doi":"10.1177/20413866221112386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221112386","url":null,"abstract":"We collected the abstracts of manuscripts examining job insecurity published between 1984 and 2019 and carried out a textual analysis to investigate the defining clusters, their development over time, and whether there was evidence of siloed knowledge. Results suggested that job insecurity research seems to be fragmented into disciplinary foci (organizational psychology, public health, economics, and sociology). Further analyses on the organizational psychology corpus, revealed 25 topics with distinct temporal trajectories: some were increasing (analytical advances and differentiation between cognitive and affective job insecurity) while other were decreasing (scale development). The remaining abstracts revealed 15 topics with more stable trajectories. Based on these results, we identified five areas for future organizational research on job insecurity: the changing labor market, the need to better understand the experiences of marginalized workers and non-work outcomes of job insecurity, the added-value of qualitative research, and the need to critically evaluate our assumptions as researchers. \u0000 Plain Language Summary\u0000 Since the paper by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, research on job insecurity has burgeoned. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, we collected the abstracts of all peer-reviewed manuscripts examining job insecurity published between 1984 and 2019 and carried out a textual analysis using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation and the Reinert method to investigate (a) the defining clusters of job insecurity research, (b) the development of such clusters over time, and (c) whether there was any evidence of siloed knowledge. Results suggested that indeed job insecurity research seems to be fragmented into four main disciplinary foci (organizational psychology, public health, economics, and sociology) with relatively little cross-fertilization. We conducted further analyses of the abstracts stemming from organizational research on job insecurity, revealing 25 topics with distinct temporal trajectories (e.g., “hot” topics including the increasing use of advanced analytic techniques and differentiation between cognitive and affective job insecurity) and “cold” topics including the development of job insecurity measures). The remaining abstracts revealed 15 topics with more stable research interests over time (e.g., a continued reliance on appraisal theories). Based on these results, we identified five areas for future organizational research on job insecurity based on: the changing labor market, the need to better understand the experiences of marginalized workers and non-work outcomes of job insecurity, the added-value of qualitative research, and finally the need to critically evaluate our assumptions as researchers.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"507 - 544"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42378396","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 : 2022-05-20DOI: 10.1177/20413866221101341
Anita L. Blanchard, Joseph A. Allen
As more employees work in different locations, meetings become the primary opportunity for workgroup interactions. We explore how workgroup entitativity develops within successful meetings and grou...
{"title":"The entitativity underlying meetings: Meetings as key in the lifecycle of effective workgroups","authors":"Anita L. Blanchard, Joseph A. Allen","doi":"10.1177/20413866221101341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221101341","url":null,"abstract":"As more employees work in different locations, meetings become the primary opportunity for workgroup interactions. We explore how workgroup entitativity develops within successful meetings and grou...","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"94 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513569","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 : 2022-05-11DOI: 10.1177/20413866221097570
Jonathan R. Flinchum, Liana M. Kreamer, S. Rogelberg, Janaki Gooty
Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings. Meeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report.
{"title":"One-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports: A new opportunity for meeting science","authors":"Jonathan R. Flinchum, Liana M. Kreamer, S. Rogelberg, Janaki Gooty","doi":"10.1177/20413866221097570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221097570","url":null,"abstract":"Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings. Meeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41936733","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 : 2022-05-09DOI: 10.1177/20413866221097571
Niels Van Quaquebeke, Mojtaba Salem, Marius van Dijke, Ramon Wenzel
Conducting organizational research via online surveys and experiments offers a host of advantages over traditional forms of data collection when it comes to sampling for more advanced study designs, while also ensuring data quality. To draw attention to these advantages and encourage researchers to fully leverage them, the present paper is structured into two parts. First, along a structure of commonly used research designs, we showcase select organizational psychology (OP) and organizational behavior (OB) research and explain how the Internet makes it feasible to conduct research not only with larger and more representative samples, but also with more complex research designs than circumstances usually allow in offline settings. Subsequently, because online data collections often also come with some data quality concerns, in the second section, we synthesize the methodological literature to outline three improvement areas and several accompanying strategies for bolstering data quality. Plain Language Summary: These days, many theories from the fields of organizational psychology and organizational behavior are tested online simply because it is easier. The point of this paper is to illustrate the unique advantages of the Internet beyond mere convenience—specifically, how the related technologies offer more than simply the ability to mirror offline studies. Accordingly, our paper first guides readers through examples of more ambitious online survey and experimental research designs within the organizational domain. Second, we address the potential data quality drawbacks of these approaches by outlining three concrete areas of improvement. Each comes with specific recommendations that can ensure higher data quality when conducting organizational survey or experimental research online.
{"title":"Conducting organizational survey and experimental research online: From convenient to ambitious in study designs, recruiting, and data quality","authors":"Niels Van Quaquebeke, Mojtaba Salem, Marius van Dijke, Ramon Wenzel","doi":"10.1177/20413866221097571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221097571","url":null,"abstract":"Conducting organizational research via online surveys and experiments offers a host of advantages over traditional forms of data collection when it comes to sampling for more advanced study designs, while also ensuring data quality. To draw attention to these advantages and encourage researchers to fully leverage them, the present paper is structured into two parts. First, along a structure of commonly used research designs, we showcase select organizational psychology (OP) and organizational behavior (OB) research and explain how the Internet makes it feasible to conduct research not only with larger and more representative samples, but also with more complex research designs than circumstances usually allow in offline settings. Subsequently, because online data collections often also come with some data quality concerns, in the second section, we synthesize the methodological literature to outline three improvement areas and several accompanying strategies for bolstering data quality. Plain Language Summary: These days, many theories from the fields of organizational psychology and organizational behavior are tested online simply because it is easier. The point of this paper is to illustrate the unique advantages of the Internet beyond mere convenience—specifically, how the related technologies offer more than simply the ability to mirror offline studies. Accordingly, our paper first guides readers through examples of more ambitious online survey and experimental research designs within the organizational domain. Second, we address the potential data quality drawbacks of these approaches by outlining three concrete areas of improvement. Each comes with specific recommendations that can ensure higher data quality when conducting organizational survey or experimental research online.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"268 - 305"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46044646","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 : 2022-05-09DOI: 10.1177/20413866221100200
S. Reh, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Christian Tröster, S. Giessner
This paper seeks to explain when and why people respond to status threat at work with behaviors oriented toward either self-improvement or interpersonal harming. To that end, we extend the established static social comparison perspective on status threat. Specifically, we introduce the notion of temporal proximity of status threat, which is informed by five temporal social comparison markers. We argue that people construe distal future status gaps as a challenge (and thus show self-improvement-oriented responses), but construe a more proximal status gap as a threat (and thus engage in negative interpersonal behaviors). Further, we introduce three factors of uncertainty that may render the underlying temporal comparison less reliable, and thereby less useful for guiding one's response. Overall, our temporal social comparison theory integrates and extends current theorizing on status threat in organizations by fully acknowledging the dynamic nature of social comparisons. Plain Language Summary Employees often compare themselves to others to evaluate their status. If they perceive that their status is at threat or risk losing status, they engage in behaviors to prevent status loss. These behaviors can be positive, aimed at improving one's position or they can be negative, aimed at harming others. This paper develops a theoretical framework to examine when employees engage in more challenge- vs. threat-oriented behaviors. We argue that an important question how employees react to status threat is its temporal proximity—will an employee's status be threatened in the near versus distal future? We propose that the more distal (vs. proximate) the status threat is, the more employees gravitate towards challenge- and less threat-oriented behaviors. But how do employees know when a status threat occurs in the future? We argue that employees will compare their past status trajectories to co-workers’ status trajectories to mentally extrapolate the temporal proximity of such a threat. More specifically, we propose five characteristics (temporal markers) of social comparison trajectories that inform employees about the temporal proximity: their relative current position, the relative velocity and acceleration of their status trajectory, their relative mean status level, and their relative minimum and maximum status. Moreover, we suggest that employees’ conclusions from these markers are weakened by uncertainty in the “data stream” of social comparison information over time, that is, the length of the time span available, the amount of interruptions in this data stream, and the number of fluctuations in their own and others’ status trajectories.
{"title":"When and why does status threat at work bring out the best and the worst in us? A temporal social comparison theory","authors":"S. Reh, Niels Van Quaquebeke, Christian Tröster, S. Giessner","doi":"10.1177/20413866221100200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221100200","url":null,"abstract":"This paper seeks to explain when and why people respond to status threat at work with behaviors oriented toward either self-improvement or interpersonal harming. To that end, we extend the established static social comparison perspective on status threat. Specifically, we introduce the notion of temporal proximity of status threat, which is informed by five temporal social comparison markers. We argue that people construe distal future status gaps as a challenge (and thus show self-improvement-oriented responses), but construe a more proximal status gap as a threat (and thus engage in negative interpersonal behaviors). Further, we introduce three factors of uncertainty that may render the underlying temporal comparison less reliable, and thereby less useful for guiding one's response. Overall, our temporal social comparison theory integrates and extends current theorizing on status threat in organizations by fully acknowledging the dynamic nature of social comparisons. Plain Language Summary Employees often compare themselves to others to evaluate their status. If they perceive that their status is at threat or risk losing status, they engage in behaviors to prevent status loss. These behaviors can be positive, aimed at improving one's position or they can be negative, aimed at harming others. This paper develops a theoretical framework to examine when employees engage in more challenge- vs. threat-oriented behaviors. We argue that an important question how employees react to status threat is its temporal proximity—will an employee's status be threatened in the near versus distal future? We propose that the more distal (vs. proximate) the status threat is, the more employees gravitate towards challenge- and less threat-oriented behaviors. But how do employees know when a status threat occurs in the future? We argue that employees will compare their past status trajectories to co-workers’ status trajectories to mentally extrapolate the temporal proximity of such a threat. More specifically, we propose five characteristics (temporal markers) of social comparison trajectories that inform employees about the temporal proximity: their relative current position, the relative velocity and acceleration of their status trajectory, their relative mean status level, and their relative minimum and maximum status. Moreover, we suggest that employees’ conclusions from these markers are weakened by uncertainty in the “data stream” of social comparison information over time, that is, the length of the time span available, the amount of interruptions in this data stream, and the number of fluctuations in their own and others’ status trajectories.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"241 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43941955","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 : 2022-05-03DOI: 10.1177/20413866221097409
A. Meinecke, Lisa Handke
This article offers initial theorizing on an understudied phenomenon in the workplace: the meeting after the meeting (MATM). As an informal and unscheduled event, the MATM takes place outside managerial control and has potentially far-reaching consequences. However, our current knowledge of the MATM relies primarily on practitioner observations, and conceptual work that integrates the MATM into the larger meeting science literature is missing. This article fills this gap by outlining key defining features of the MATM that can be used to structure future research. Moreover, and based on theorizing concerning the affect-generating nature of meetings, we develop an affect-based process model that focuses on the antecedents and boundary conditions of the MATM at the episodic level and shines light on meetings as a sequential phenomenon. Plain Language Summary This article sheds light on an understudied but rather common phenomenon in the workplace: The meeting after the meeting (MATM). Defined as an unscheduled, informal and confidential communication event, the MATM has the potential to create new structures in everyday organizational life. Yet, our current knowledge of this particular meeting type is very limited and largely based on anecdotal accounts by practitioners. To guide future research, this article first outlines key features of the MATM, focusing on when the MATM occurs, where it takes place, how it takes place, why it takes place, and who is involved in the MATM. Next, this article presents an affect-based process model of the MATM. To this end, antecedents and boundary conditions at the episodic level are outlined, highlighting that meetings should be seen as interconnected, sequential events.
{"title":"The meeting after the meeting: A conceptualization and process model","authors":"A. Meinecke, Lisa Handke","doi":"10.1177/20413866221097409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221097409","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers initial theorizing on an understudied phenomenon in the workplace: the meeting after the meeting (MATM). As an informal and unscheduled event, the MATM takes place outside managerial control and has potentially far-reaching consequences. However, our current knowledge of the MATM relies primarily on practitioner observations, and conceptual work that integrates the MATM into the larger meeting science literature is missing. This article fills this gap by outlining key defining features of the MATM that can be used to structure future research. Moreover, and based on theorizing concerning the affect-generating nature of meetings, we develop an affect-based process model that focuses on the antecedents and boundary conditions of the MATM at the episodic level and shines light on meetings as a sequential phenomenon. Plain Language Summary This article sheds light on an understudied but rather common phenomenon in the workplace: The meeting after the meeting (MATM). Defined as an unscheduled, informal and confidential communication event, the MATM has the potential to create new structures in everyday organizational life. Yet, our current knowledge of this particular meeting type is very limited and largely based on anecdotal accounts by practitioners. To guide future research, this article first outlines key features of the MATM, focusing on when the MATM occurs, where it takes place, how it takes place, why it takes place, and who is involved in the MATM. Next, this article presents an affect-based process model of the MATM. To this end, antecedents and boundary conditions at the episodic level are outlined, highlighting that meetings should be seen as interconnected, sequential events.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48690892","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 : 2022-04-26DOI: 10.1177/20413866221093512
Boram Do, Matthew C. B. Lyle
Scholars have suggested that individual change recipients affectively respond to change events but have yet to examine how change recipients’ memories influence those affective responses. Drawing from prior scholarship on memory, we propose that two theoretically distinct forms of memory – explicit and schematic – produce different forms of affective and behavioral responses when recipients process change events consciously or non-consciously. Given this proposed importance of memory to affective and behavioral responses, we then develop a stage model of memory-based change management, which we define as the managing of change recipients’ responses to change events through memory work. We theorize four discrete strategies – guided consolidating, schematic re-framing, contextual delimiting, and selective re-instating – that, based on recipients’ memory-based actions during particular stages of a change, would be likely to enhance positive affective responses and support for change. Plain Language Summary This paper explains how memories of organizational change influence affective and behavioral responses to ongoing change initiatives. We identify two types of memories related to change contexts: 1) abstracted, comprehensive schematic memory (i.e., “change is chaotic”) and 2) anecdotal, specific explicit memory (i.e., “I was demoted in a restructuring process last year”). We suggest that, when change events are highly ambiguous, schematic memories non-consciously influence employees’ general moods and a broad range of work behaviors which may or may not relate to the change (i.e., feeling unpleasant for an unknown reason and becoming less cooperative with coworkers than usual). When change events are less ambiguous, explicit memories play a larger role by eliciting discrete emotions triggering change-targeted behaviors (i.e., feeling angry at a change agent and confronting them about it). Since these responses are rooted in memory, we further suggest how change agents can manage affective and behavioral responses through four types of memory-based change management. We explain how during four stages of change – gestation, preparation, implementation, and aftermath – change agents can engage in guided consolidating (i.e., having recipients behaviorally engage in sharing positive experiences of change), schematic re-framing (i.e., framing a change as a continuation of past precedent), contextual delimiting (i.e., generalizing positive memories of change while isolating negative ones) and selective reinstating (i.e., having recipients selectively recall positive experiences in the recent change initiative), respectively. Our model complements existing studies focusing on the conscious, future-oriented processing of change events to provide an alternative view of change management.
{"title":"Memory-based change management: Using the past to guide the future","authors":"Boram Do, Matthew C. B. Lyle","doi":"10.1177/20413866221093512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221093512","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have suggested that individual change recipients affectively respond to change events but have yet to examine how change recipients’ memories influence those affective responses. Drawing from prior scholarship on memory, we propose that two theoretically distinct forms of memory – explicit and schematic – produce different forms of affective and behavioral responses when recipients process change events consciously or non-consciously. Given this proposed importance of memory to affective and behavioral responses, we then develop a stage model of memory-based change management, which we define as the managing of change recipients’ responses to change events through memory work. We theorize four discrete strategies – guided consolidating, schematic re-framing, contextual delimiting, and selective re-instating – that, based on recipients’ memory-based actions during particular stages of a change, would be likely to enhance positive affective responses and support for change. Plain Language Summary This paper explains how memories of organizational change influence affective and behavioral responses to ongoing change initiatives. We identify two types of memories related to change contexts: 1) abstracted, comprehensive schematic memory (i.e., “change is chaotic”) and 2) anecdotal, specific explicit memory (i.e., “I was demoted in a restructuring process last year”). We suggest that, when change events are highly ambiguous, schematic memories non-consciously influence employees’ general moods and a broad range of work behaviors which may or may not relate to the change (i.e., feeling unpleasant for an unknown reason and becoming less cooperative with coworkers than usual). When change events are less ambiguous, explicit memories play a larger role by eliciting discrete emotions triggering change-targeted behaviors (i.e., feeling angry at a change agent and confronting them about it). Since these responses are rooted in memory, we further suggest how change agents can manage affective and behavioral responses through four types of memory-based change management. We explain how during four stages of change – gestation, preparation, implementation, and aftermath – change agents can engage in guided consolidating (i.e., having recipients behaviorally engage in sharing positive experiences of change), schematic re-framing (i.e., framing a change as a continuation of past precedent), contextual delimiting (i.e., generalizing positive memories of change while isolating negative ones) and selective reinstating (i.e., having recipients selectively recall positive experiences in the recent change initiative), respectively. Our model complements existing studies focusing on the conscious, future-oriented processing of change events to provide an alternative view of change management.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"306 - 331"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48673290","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 : 2022-02-24DOI: 10.1177/20413866221082128
N. Milstein, Yarin Striet, M. Lavidor, David Anaki, Ilanit Gordon
Rivalry, a relational competition, is known to increase motivation and performance. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis that examines the effect sizes is lacking. Further, most research on this topic has not considered the type of rivalry (individual versus collective) and the research field as potential moderators. We conducted a wide-scale search, looking for rivalry and performance studies, which yielded 22 papers (k = 35) with 27,771 observations that were systematically reviewed. Eighteen papers (k = 28) were eligible for a further meta-analysis, including a total of 26,215 observations. The systematic review indicated that rivalry is usually positively related to performance. Results of the meta-analysis revealed that this effect is significant and that the relationship between rivalry and performance is more robust for individual rivalry compared to group rivalry. Further analyses indicated that for group rivalry, correlations are positive and significant only in the domains of sports and donation-raising. Plain Text Abstract Rivalry is a unique and common type of competition in which the competing parties have longstanding relationships. When rivalry is present, the competing actors have an increased desire to win and invest extra effort into the competition, leading to enhanced performance. However, an integration of studies that examine the effects of rivalry, as a relational competition, is lacking. Here, we scanned studies from diverse research fields that claimed to measure rivalry and actor's performance. We considered only research that specifically measured rivalry as a relational competition and its association with performance. We systematically reviewed eligible studies and found that, generally, rivalry is positively related to performance. We then performed a meta-analysis that confirmed that this relationship is statistically significant. We further found that this relationship is more robust for rivalries in the context of individuals compared to groups. The association between rivalry and performance is most prominent in certain domains, such as sports rivalry. These findings can guide scholars in designing research on rivalry. Specifically, considering the various effect sizes found here in different contexts of rivalry will allow researchers to plan for more appropriate sample sizes designed to reveal the relationship between rivalry and performance in a targeted domain. Further, these results can inform managers about the effects of rivalries in or between their organizations, distinguishing among the different contexts of rivalries and their specific outcomes.
{"title":"Rivalry and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"N. Milstein, Yarin Striet, M. Lavidor, David Anaki, Ilanit Gordon","doi":"10.1177/20413866221082128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221082128","url":null,"abstract":"Rivalry, a relational competition, is known to increase motivation and performance. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis that examines the effect sizes is lacking. Further, most research on this topic has not considered the type of rivalry (individual versus collective) and the research field as potential moderators. We conducted a wide-scale search, looking for rivalry and performance studies, which yielded 22 papers (k = 35) with 27,771 observations that were systematically reviewed. Eighteen papers (k = 28) were eligible for a further meta-analysis, including a total of 26,215 observations. The systematic review indicated that rivalry is usually positively related to performance. Results of the meta-analysis revealed that this effect is significant and that the relationship between rivalry and performance is more robust for individual rivalry compared to group rivalry. Further analyses indicated that for group rivalry, correlations are positive and significant only in the domains of sports and donation-raising. Plain Text Abstract Rivalry is a unique and common type of competition in which the competing parties have longstanding relationships. When rivalry is present, the competing actors have an increased desire to win and invest extra effort into the competition, leading to enhanced performance. However, an integration of studies that examine the effects of rivalry, as a relational competition, is lacking. Here, we scanned studies from diverse research fields that claimed to measure rivalry and actor's performance. We considered only research that specifically measured rivalry as a relational competition and its association with performance. We systematically reviewed eligible studies and found that, generally, rivalry is positively related to performance. We then performed a meta-analysis that confirmed that this relationship is statistically significant. We further found that this relationship is more robust for rivalries in the context of individuals compared to groups. The association between rivalry and performance is most prominent in certain domains, such as sports rivalry. These findings can guide scholars in designing research on rivalry. Specifically, considering the various effect sizes found here in different contexts of rivalry will allow researchers to plan for more appropriate sample sizes designed to reveal the relationship between rivalry and performance in a targeted domain. Further, these results can inform managers about the effects of rivalries in or between their organizations, distinguishing among the different contexts of rivalries and their specific outcomes.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"332 - 361"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43535884","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 : 2022-02-21DOI: 10.1177/20413866221080629
Herman Aguinis, M. Cronin
To the complex question of “What is the number one issue on which we should focus as producers, evaluators, and consumers of research?” our simple and blunt answer is: It's the theory, stupid. Accordingly, we offer guidance on how to produce, test, and use theory by answering the following questions: (1) Why is theory so critical and for whom? (2) What does a good theory look like? (3) What does it mean to have too much or too many theories? (4) When don’t we need a theory? (5) How does falsification work with theory? and (6) Is good theory compatible with current publication pressures? Our answers are useful to current and future scholars and journal editors and reviewers, as well as consumers of research including other researchers, organization decision makers, and policy makers, and other stakeholders in the theory production and testing process including deans and other university administrators.
{"title":"It's the Theory, Stupid","authors":"Herman Aguinis, M. Cronin","doi":"10.1177/20413866221080629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221080629","url":null,"abstract":"To the complex question of “What is the number one issue on which we should focus as producers, evaluators, and consumers of research?” our simple and blunt answer is: It's the theory, stupid. Accordingly, we offer guidance on how to produce, test, and use theory by answering the following questions: (1) Why is theory so critical and for whom? (2) What does a good theory look like? (3) What does it mean to have too much or too many theories? (4) When don’t we need a theory? (5) How does falsification work with theory? and (6) Is good theory compatible with current publication pressures? Our answers are useful to current and future scholars and journal editors and reviewers, as well as consumers of research including other researchers, organization decision makers, and policy makers, and other stakeholders in the theory production and testing process including deans and other university administrators.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44974038","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：