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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2021-12-15DOI: 10.1177/20413866211061362
Fabiola H. Gerpott, Rudolf Kerschreiter
In this conceptual paper, we define a person's meeting mindset as the individual belief that meetings represent opportunities to realize goals falling into one of three categories: personal, relational, and collective. We propose that in alignment with their respective meeting mindsets, managers use specific leadership claiming behaviors in team meetings and express these behaviors in alignment with the meeting setting (virtual or face-to-face) and their prior experiences with their employees. Employees’ responses, however, are also influenced by their meeting mindsets, the meeting setting, and prior experiences with their managers. The interplay between managers’ leadership claiming behavior and their employees’ responses shapes leader–follower relations. Embedded in the team context, the emerging leader–follower relations impact the meaning of meetings. We outline match/mismatch combinations of manager–employee meeting mindsets and discuss the influence that a manager and employee can have on each other's meeting mindset through their behavior in a meeting. Plain Language Summary Have you ever had the experience of entering a team meeting and quickly realizing that your idea of how the meeting conversation should be approached did not align with your boss's understanding of the meeting purpose? This is indeed a common experience in meetings between managers and their employees. While we understand much about the communication dynamics that occur in meetings, we know less about what motivates people to communicate in certain ways in meetings. In this conceptual paper, we classify people's understanding of meetings as being driven by one of three purposes: [1] to strategically position and promote themselves (which reflects a personal meeting mindset), [2] to shape collaborations and to ensure reciprocation (which reflects a relational meeting mindset), or [3] to strengthen the team identity and increase the willingness to go the extra mile for the team (which reflects a collective meeting mindset). Meeting mindsets shape how people enact their leader or follower role in meetings—that is, how a manager exhibits leadership and how employees react. However, managers’ and employees’ meeting mindsets may not necessarily match, which can trigger tensions and may ultimately change the way in which managers or employees define the meaning of meetings. Our research helps managers to comprehend the reasoning behind their own and other people's meeting behavior and may promote reflection on one's leadership approach, particularly in a team meeting context. It can also help employees to grasp the power they can have in terms of actively shaping their managers’ meeting mindsets.
{"title":"A Conceptual Framework of How Meeting Mindsets Shape and Are Shaped by Leader–Follower Interactions in Meetings","authors":"Fabiola H. Gerpott, Rudolf Kerschreiter","doi":"10.1177/20413866211061362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211061362","url":null,"abstract":"In this conceptual paper, we define a person's meeting mindset as the individual belief that meetings represent opportunities to realize goals falling into one of three categories: personal, relational, and collective. We propose that in alignment with their respective meeting mindsets, managers use specific leadership claiming behaviors in team meetings and express these behaviors in alignment with the meeting setting (virtual or face-to-face) and their prior experiences with their employees. Employees’ responses, however, are also influenced by their meeting mindsets, the meeting setting, and prior experiences with their managers. The interplay between managers’ leadership claiming behavior and their employees’ responses shapes leader–follower relations. Embedded in the team context, the emerging leader–follower relations impact the meaning of meetings. We outline match/mismatch combinations of manager–employee meeting mindsets and discuss the influence that a manager and employee can have on each other's meeting mindset through their behavior in a meeting. Plain Language Summary Have you ever had the experience of entering a team meeting and quickly realizing that your idea of how the meeting conversation should be approached did not align with your boss's understanding of the meeting purpose? This is indeed a common experience in meetings between managers and their employees. While we understand much about the communication dynamics that occur in meetings, we know less about what motivates people to communicate in certain ways in meetings. In this conceptual paper, we classify people's understanding of meetings as being driven by one of three purposes: [1] to strategically position and promote themselves (which reflects a personal meeting mindset), [2] to shape collaborations and to ensure reciprocation (which reflects a relational meeting mindset), or [3] to strengthen the team identity and increase the willingness to go the extra mile for the team (which reflects a collective meeting mindset). Meeting mindsets shape how people enact their leader or follower role in meetings—that is, how a manager exhibits leadership and how employees react. However, managers’ and employees’ meeting mindsets may not necessarily match, which can trigger tensions and may ultimately change the way in which managers or employees define the meaning of meetings. Our research helps managers to comprehend the reasoning behind their own and other people's meeting behavior and may promote reflection on one's leadership approach, particularly in a team meeting context. It can also help employees to grasp the power they can have in terms of actively shaping their managers’ meeting mindsets.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47085169","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 : 2021-12-13DOI: 10.1177/20413866211061364
H. Kehr, Julian Voigt, M. Rawolle
An unresolved question in visionary leadership research is, why must visions be high in imagery to cause affective reactions and be motivationally effective? Research in motivation psychology has shown that pictorial cues arouse implicit motives. Thus, pictorial cues from vision-induced imagery should arouse a follower’s implicit motives just like a real image. Hence, our fundamental proposition is that follower implicit motives and follower approach motivation serially mediate the relationship between leader vision and followers’ vision pursuit. We also examine the case of negative leader visions, with the central propositions that a negative leader vision arouses a follower’s implicit fear motives and that the follower’s implicit fear motives and follower avoidance motivation serially mediate the relationship between negative leader vision and the follower’s fear-related behaviors. Lastly, we assert that multiple implicit follower motives aroused by a multithematic leader vision exert additive as well as interaction effects on the follower’s vision pursuit. Plain Language Summary An unresolved question in leader vision research concerns why visions need to be high in imagery in order to elicit affective reactions in followers and be motivationally effective? Research in motivation psychology has shown that pictorial cues can arouse a person's implicit motives. It would thus be reasonable to expect that pictorial cues from leader vision-induced imagery arouse a follower's implicit motives just like a real image. Based on this reasoning, our key proposition is that follower implicit motives and follower approach motivation serially mediate the relationship between leader vision and followers' vision pursuit. We also integrate the special case of negative leader visions into our theorizing, with the central propositions that a negative leader vision arouses a follower's implicit fear motives, and that the follower's implicit fear motives and follower avoidance motivation serially mediate the relationship between negative leader vision and the follower's fear-related behaviors. Lastly, based on the distinction between mono- and multithematic visions, the latter of which with the potential to arouse more than one implicit motive simultaneously, we assert that multiple implicit follower motives aroused by a multithematic leader vision exert additive as well as interaction effects on the follower's vision pursuit.
{"title":"Implicit motives as the missing link between visionary leadership, approach and avoidance motivation, and vision pursuit","authors":"H. Kehr, Julian Voigt, M. Rawolle","doi":"10.1177/20413866211061364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211061364","url":null,"abstract":"An unresolved question in visionary leadership research is, why must visions be high in imagery to cause affective reactions and be motivationally effective? Research in motivation psychology has shown that pictorial cues arouse implicit motives. Thus, pictorial cues from vision-induced imagery should arouse a follower’s implicit motives just like a real image. Hence, our fundamental proposition is that follower implicit motives and follower approach motivation serially mediate the relationship between leader vision and followers’ vision pursuit. We also examine the case of negative leader visions, with the central propositions that a negative leader vision arouses a follower’s implicit fear motives and that the follower’s implicit fear motives and follower avoidance motivation serially mediate the relationship between negative leader vision and the follower’s fear-related behaviors. Lastly, we assert that multiple implicit follower motives aroused by a multithematic leader vision exert additive as well as interaction effects on the follower’s vision pursuit. Plain Language Summary An unresolved question in leader vision research concerns why visions need to be high in imagery in order to elicit affective reactions in followers and be motivationally effective? Research in motivation psychology has shown that pictorial cues can arouse a person's implicit motives. It would thus be reasonable to expect that pictorial cues from leader vision-induced imagery arouse a follower's implicit motives just like a real image. Based on this reasoning, our key proposition is that follower implicit motives and follower approach motivation serially mediate the relationship between leader vision and followers' vision pursuit. We also integrate the special case of negative leader visions into our theorizing, with the central propositions that a negative leader vision arouses a follower's implicit fear motives, and that the follower's implicit fear motives and follower avoidance motivation serially mediate the relationship between negative leader vision and the follower's fear-related behaviors. Lastly, based on the distinction between mono- and multithematic visions, the latter of which with the potential to arouse more than one implicit motive simultaneously, we assert that multiple implicit follower motives aroused by a multithematic leader vision exert additive as well as interaction effects on the follower's vision pursuit.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44607620","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 : 2021-11-12DOI: 10.1177/20413866211054201
M. Jawad
Innovations are not always adopted due to their expected economic impact but often due to bandwagon pressure. Fueled by economic uncertainty, these “bandwagon innovations” are adopted once the bandwagon pressure reaches a certain threshold. Existing literature, however, has not examined this threshold’s sources nor considered the effect of a bandwagon adoption decision on threshold. Therefore, building on current knowledge about the bandwagon effect, organizational attention, and legitimacy, this paper develops a theoretical model to help understand the factors affecting threshold and making organizations more or less likely to adopt bandwagon innovations. The novel dynamic threshold model proposed here explains how attention to social or economic factors can affect an organization’s threshold. The model shows that the threshold may change such that an organization may be more likely to adopt a bandwagon innovation after prior resistance or resist one after prior adoption. Implications for organizational decision-makers and future research avenues are also discussed. Plain Language Summary The paper proposes a dynamic threshold model of bandwagon innovations, which illuminates the outcomes of the decision involving bandwagon innovations. If the bandwagon pressure does not exceed the threshold level (or the propensity to adopt a bandwagon innovation), then the organization resists the bandwagon, which increases legitimacy concerns. On the other hand, if the bandwagon pressure exceeds the threshold level, the organization adopts the bandwagon innovation. The primary determinant of this threshold is attention. Attention can be of two types; attention to social factors, which decreases the threshold level, and attention to economic factors, which increases the threshold level. The allocation of attention to the two factors varies based on the outcomes of the bandwagon innovation decision. The increased legitimacy concerns (in case of resisting a bandwagon innovation) lead the organization to allocate more attention to the social factors, thereby reducing the threshold level for the subsequent bandwagon innovation. In case of adopting a bandwagon innovation, the legitimacy concerns are reduced, and the organization's attention is redirected to assimilating the innovation and justifying the adoption costs, which makes the economic factors of any subsequent bandwagon innovation more salient and increases the threshold level until the current innovation is assimilated.
{"title":"The dynamic threshold model of bandwagon innovations: Role of organizational attention and legitimacy","authors":"M. Jawad","doi":"10.1177/20413866211054201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211054201","url":null,"abstract":"Innovations are not always adopted due to their expected economic impact but often due to bandwagon pressure. Fueled by economic uncertainty, these “bandwagon innovations” are adopted once the bandwagon pressure reaches a certain threshold. Existing literature, however, has not examined this threshold’s sources nor considered the effect of a bandwagon adoption decision on threshold. Therefore, building on current knowledge about the bandwagon effect, organizational attention, and legitimacy, this paper develops a theoretical model to help understand the factors affecting threshold and making organizations more or less likely to adopt bandwagon innovations. The novel dynamic threshold model proposed here explains how attention to social or economic factors can affect an organization’s threshold. The model shows that the threshold may change such that an organization may be more likely to adopt a bandwagon innovation after prior resistance or resist one after prior adoption. Implications for organizational decision-makers and future research avenues are also discussed. Plain Language Summary The paper proposes a dynamic threshold model of bandwagon innovations, which illuminates the outcomes of the decision involving bandwagon innovations. If the bandwagon pressure does not exceed the threshold level (or the propensity to adopt a bandwagon innovation), then the organization resists the bandwagon, which increases legitimacy concerns. On the other hand, if the bandwagon pressure exceeds the threshold level, the organization adopts the bandwagon innovation. The primary determinant of this threshold is attention. Attention can be of two types; attention to social factors, which decreases the threshold level, and attention to economic factors, which increases the threshold level. The allocation of attention to the two factors varies based on the outcomes of the bandwagon innovation decision. The increased legitimacy concerns (in case of resisting a bandwagon innovation) lead the organization to allocate more attention to the social factors, thereby reducing the threshold level for the subsequent bandwagon innovation. In case of adopting a bandwagon innovation, the legitimacy concerns are reduced, and the organization's attention is redirected to assimilating the innovation and justifying the adoption costs, which makes the economic factors of any subsequent bandwagon innovation more salient and increases the threshold level until the current innovation is assimilated.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43512908","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 : 2021-09-09DOI: 10.1177/20413866211041157
R. Grossman, Kevin P. Nolan, Zachary Rosch, David Mazer, Eduardo Salas
Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams is also changing, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship (k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. More proximal measures –task cohesion, referent-shift, and behaviorally-focused– show stronger relationships compared to social cohesion, direct consensus, and attitudinally-focused, which are more distal. Differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also distal. Second, group pride is more predictive than expected. Third, the cohesion-performance relationship and predictive capacity of different measures are changing in modern contexts, but findings pertaining to optimal measurement approaches largely generalized. Lastly, important nuances across modern characteristics warrant attention in research and practice. Plain Language Summary Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams has also changed over time, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship (k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing between modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights for both research and practice. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. Measures that are more proximal to what a team does – those assessing task cohesion, utilizing referent shift items, and capturing behavioral manifestations of cohesion – show stronger relationships with performance compared to those assessing social cohesion, utilizing direct consensus items, and capturing attitudinal manifestations of cohesion, which are more distal. These differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also more distal. Second, despite being understudied, the group pride-performance relationship was stronger than expected. Third, modern team characteristics are changing both the overall cohesion-performance relationship and the predictive capacity of different measurement approaches, but findings pertaining to the most optimal measurement approaches largely generalized in that these approaches were less susceptible to the influence of modern characteristics. However, in some contexts, distal cohesion metrics are just as predictive as their more proximal counterparts. Lastly, there are important nuances across different characteristics of modern teams that warrant additional research attention and should be considered in practi
{"title":"The team cohesion-performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring measurement approaches and the changing team landscape","authors":"R. Grossman, Kevin P. Nolan, Zachary Rosch, David Mazer, Eduardo Salas","doi":"10.1177/20413866211041157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211041157","url":null,"abstract":"Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams is also changing, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship (k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. More proximal measures –task cohesion, referent-shift, and behaviorally-focused– show stronger relationships compared to social cohesion, direct consensus, and attitudinally-focused, which are more distal. Differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also distal. Second, group pride is more predictive than expected. Third, the cohesion-performance relationship and predictive capacity of different measures are changing in modern contexts, but findings pertaining to optimal measurement approaches largely generalized. Lastly, important nuances across modern characteristics warrant attention in research and practice. Plain Language Summary Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams has also changed over time, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship (k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing between modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights for both research and practice. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. Measures that are more proximal to what a team does – those assessing task cohesion, utilizing referent shift items, and capturing behavioral manifestations of cohesion – show stronger relationships with performance compared to those assessing social cohesion, utilizing direct consensus items, and capturing attitudinal manifestations of cohesion, which are more distal. These differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also more distal. Second, despite being understudied, the group pride-performance relationship was stronger than expected. Third, modern team characteristics are changing both the overall cohesion-performance relationship and the predictive capacity of different measurement approaches, but findings pertaining to the most optimal measurement approaches largely generalized in that these approaches were less susceptible to the influence of modern characteristics. However, in some contexts, distal cohesion metrics are just as predictive as their more proximal counterparts. Lastly, there are important nuances across different characteristics of modern teams that warrant additional research attention and should be considered in practi","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42639183","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 : 2021-08-16DOI: 10.1177/20413866211038044
G. Islam, Zoe Sanderson
This paper argues that critical perspectives have constituted a marginal yet continued presence in work and organizational (W-O) psychology and calls for a reflexive taking stock of these perspectives to ground a critical research agenda. We argue that critical W-O psychology has been positioned between a psychology literature with limited development of critical perspectives, and an emergent critical management literature that has allowed their selective development. This in-between position has allowed critical W-O psychology to persist, albeit in a fragmented form, while limiting its potential for theoretical and applied impact. We use this diagnosis to reflect on how critical perspectives can best develop from within W-O psychology. We end with a call for developing a critical movement unique to the current historical moment, drawing upon without repeating the experiences of its home disciplines, in a future oriented and reflexive psychology research agenda.
{"title":"Critical positions: Situating critical perspectives in work and organizational psychology","authors":"G. Islam, Zoe Sanderson","doi":"10.1177/20413866211038044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211038044","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that critical perspectives have constituted a marginal yet continued presence in work and organizational (W-O) psychology and calls for a reflexive taking stock of these perspectives to ground a critical research agenda. We argue that critical W-O psychology has been positioned between a psychology literature with limited development of critical perspectives, and an emergent critical management literature that has allowed their selective development. This in-between position has allowed critical W-O psychology to persist, albeit in a fragmented form, while limiting its potential for theoretical and applied impact. We use this diagnosis to reflect on how critical perspectives can best develop from within W-O psychology. We end with a call for developing a critical movement unique to the current historical moment, drawing upon without repeating the experiences of its home disciplines, in a future oriented and reflexive psychology research agenda.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44327681","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 : 2021-08-04DOI: 10.1177/20413866211036930
Ellen Choi, Jamie A. Gruman, Craig Leonard
Mindfulness has grown from an obscure subject to an immensely popular topic that is associated with numerous performance, health, and well-being benefits in organizations. However, this growth in popularity has generated a number of criticisms of mindfulness and a rather piecemeal approach to organizational research and practice on the subject. To advance both investigation and application, the present paper applies The Balance Framework to serve as an integrative scaffolding for considering mindfulness in organizations, helping to address some of the criticisms leveled against it. The Balance Framework specifies five forms of balance: 1) balance as tempered view, 2) balance as mid-range, 3) balance as complementarity, 4) balance as contextual sensitivity, and 5) balance among different levels of consciousness. Each form is applied to mindfulness at work with a discussion of relevant conceptual issues in addition to implications for research and practice. In order to appreciate the value of mindfulness at work researchers and practitioners might want to consider both the benefits and potential drawbacks of mindfulness. This paper presents a discussion of both the advantages and possible disadvantages of mindfulness at work organized in terms of the five dimensions of an organizing structure called The Balance Framework.
{"title":"A balanced view of mindfulness at work","authors":"Ellen Choi, Jamie A. Gruman, Craig Leonard","doi":"10.1177/20413866211036930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211036930","url":null,"abstract":"Mindfulness has grown from an obscure subject to an immensely popular topic that is associated with numerous performance, health, and well-being benefits in organizations. However, this growth in popularity has generated a number of criticisms of mindfulness and a rather piecemeal approach to organizational research and practice on the subject. To advance both investigation and application, the present paper applies The Balance Framework to serve as an integrative scaffolding for considering mindfulness in organizations, helping to address some of the criticisms leveled against it. The Balance Framework specifies five forms of balance: 1) balance as tempered view, 2) balance as mid-range, 3) balance as complementarity, 4) balance as contextual sensitivity, and 5) balance among different levels of consciousness. Each form is applied to mindfulness at work with a discussion of relevant conceptual issues in addition to implications for research and practice. In order to appreciate the value of mindfulness at work researchers and practitioners might want to consider both the benefits and potential drawbacks of mindfulness. This paper presents a discussion of both the advantages and possible disadvantages of mindfulness at work organized in terms of the five dimensions of an organizing structure called The Balance Framework.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48680625","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：