Pub Date : 2021-04-07DOI: 10.1177/20413866211006173
A. van den Broeck, Joshua L. Howard, Yves Van Vaerenbergh, H. Leroy, Marylène Gagné
This meta-analysis aims to shed light on the added value of the complex multidimensional view on motivation of Self-determination theory (SDT). We assess the unique and incremental validity of each of SDT’s types of motivation in predicting organizational behavior, and examine SDT’s core proposition that increasing self-determined types of motivation should have increasingly positive outcomes. Meta-analytic findings (124 samples) support SDT, but also adds precision to its predictions: Intrinsic motivation is the most important type of motivation for employee well-being, attitudes and behavior, yet identified regulation is more powerful in predicting performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, introjection has both positive and negative consequences, while external regulation has limited associations with employee behavior and has well-being costs. Amotivation only has negative consequences. We address conceptual and methodological implications arising from this research and exemplify how these results may inform and clarify lingering issues in the literature on employee motivation.
{"title":"Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation","authors":"A. van den Broeck, Joshua L. Howard, Yves Van Vaerenbergh, H. Leroy, Marylène Gagné","doi":"10.1177/20413866211006173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211006173","url":null,"abstract":"This meta-analysis aims to shed light on the added value of the complex multidimensional view on motivation of Self-determination theory (SDT). We assess the unique and incremental validity of each of SDT’s types of motivation in predicting organizational behavior, and examine SDT’s core proposition that increasing self-determined types of motivation should have increasingly positive outcomes. Meta-analytic findings (124 samples) support SDT, but also adds precision to its predictions: Intrinsic motivation is the most important type of motivation for employee well-being, attitudes and behavior, yet identified regulation is more powerful in predicting performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, introjection has both positive and negative consequences, while external regulation has limited associations with employee behavior and has well-being costs. Amotivation only has negative consequences. We address conceptual and methodological implications arising from this research and exemplify how these results may inform and clarify lingering issues in the literature on employee motivation.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"240 - 273"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20413866211006173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44790511","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 : 2021-03-09DOI: 10.1177/2041386621996424
C. Burke, Christopher W. Wiese, Lauren N. P. Campbell
The prevalence of teams in organizational settings has dramatically increased over the last 50 years, and as such, researchers have made much progress in understanding the conditions and intra-team dynamics that facilitate successful team performance. However, much remains to be learned due to the complexity of teams. This complexity often makes it difficult to study teams operating in context, especially when trying to examine longitudinal aspects of teams. Adding to this difficulty, studying teams in context is resource intensive and access is often a key barrier, especially if the focus is on teams that are elite or that operate in extreme environments. This drives a need to look outside the traditional methodological tools typically utilized to study teams. Thereby, the purpose of this manuscript is to highlight a method that while not typically utilized in the team literature can offer benefits when exploring team dynamics in context—historiometry.
{"title":"Leveraging historiometry to better understand teams in context","authors":"C. Burke, Christopher W. Wiese, Lauren N. P. Campbell","doi":"10.1177/2041386621996424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386621996424","url":null,"abstract":"The prevalence of teams in organizational settings has dramatically increased over the last 50 years, and as such, researchers have made much progress in understanding the conditions and intra-team dynamics that facilitate successful team performance. However, much remains to be learned due to the complexity of teams. This complexity often makes it difficult to study teams operating in context, especially when trying to examine longitudinal aspects of teams. Adding to this difficulty, studying teams in context is resource intensive and access is often a key barrier, especially if the focus is on teams that are elite or that operate in extreme environments. This drives a need to look outside the traditional methodological tools typically utilized to study teams. Thereby, the purpose of this manuscript is to highlight a method that while not typically utilized in the team literature can offer benefits when exploring team dynamics in context—historiometry.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"319 - 339"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386621996424","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44278437","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 : 2021-02-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620986597
M. Maynard, Samantha A. Conroy, C. Lacerenza, L. Y. Barnes
While there is no shortage of calls for research to study management concepts within organizations, there is far too little guidance on how to accomplish this feat. Conducting research in the field is especially important within the domain of organizational team research. Accordingly, we seek to provide an understanding of the current state of the organizational team field research literature and highlight recommendations and best practices. As such, we identified 10 recommendations and 10 best practices through three methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a survey of individuals who have published team field research, as well as some of the most impactful scholars investigating organizational team phenomenon, and (3) a set of interviews with practitioners in positions that can grant field access to researchers. By implementing this multi-pronged approach, we were able to incorporate multiple stakeholder voices so as to fully understand the value and ideal process for scientist-practitioner endeavors.
{"title":"Teams in the wild are not extinct, but challenging to research: A guide for conducting impactful team field research with 10 recommendations and 10 best practices","authors":"M. Maynard, Samantha A. Conroy, C. Lacerenza, L. Y. Barnes","doi":"10.1177/2041386620986597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620986597","url":null,"abstract":"While there is no shortage of calls for research to study management concepts within organizations, there is far too little guidance on how to accomplish this feat. Conducting research in the field is especially important within the domain of organizational team research. Accordingly, we seek to provide an understanding of the current state of the organizational team field research literature and highlight recommendations and best practices. As such, we identified 10 recommendations and 10 best practices through three methods: (1) a literature review, (2) a survey of individuals who have published team field research, as well as some of the most impactful scholars investigating organizational team phenomenon, and (3) a set of interviews with practitioners in positions that can grant field access to researchers. By implementing this multi-pronged approach, we were able to incorporate multiple stakeholder voices so as to fully understand the value and ideal process for scientist-practitioner endeavors.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"274 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66133971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-24DOI: 10.1177/2041386620983419
Marvin Neumann, A. Niessen, Rob R. Meijer
In personnel- and educational selection, a substantial gap exists between research and practice, since evidence-based assessment instruments and decision-making procedures are underutilized. We provide an overview of studies that investigated interventions to encourage the use of evidence-based assessment methods, or factors related to their use. The most promising studies were grounded in self-determination theory. Training and autonomy in the design of evidence-based assessment methods were positively related to their use, while negative stakeholder perceptions decreased practitioners’ intentions to use evidence-based assessment methods. Use of evidence-based decision-making procedures was positively related to access to such procedures, information to use it, and autonomy over the procedure, but negatively related to receiving outcome feedback. A review of the professional selection literature showed that the implementation of evidence-based assessment was hardly discussed. We conclude with an agenda for future research on encouraging evidence-based assessment practice.
{"title":"Implementing evidence-based assessment and selection in organizations: A review and an agenda for future research","authors":"Marvin Neumann, A. Niessen, Rob R. Meijer","doi":"10.1177/2041386620983419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620983419","url":null,"abstract":"In personnel- and educational selection, a substantial gap exists between research and practice, since evidence-based assessment instruments and decision-making procedures are underutilized. We provide an overview of studies that investigated interventions to encourage the use of evidence-based assessment methods, or factors related to their use. The most promising studies were grounded in self-determination theory. Training and autonomy in the design of evidence-based assessment methods were positively related to their use, while negative stakeholder perceptions decreased practitioners’ intentions to use evidence-based assessment methods. Use of evidence-based decision-making procedures was positively related to access to such procedures, information to use it, and autonomy over the procedure, but negatively related to receiving outcome feedback. A review of the professional selection literature showed that the implementation of evidence-based assessment was hardly discussed. We conclude with an agenda for future research on encouraging evidence-based assessment practice.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"205 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620983419","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42719824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-03DOI: 10.1177/2041386620972112
Ashley A. Niler, Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Lindsay E. Larson, G. Plummer, Leslie A. DeChurch, N. Contractor
Abundant research supports a cognitive foundation to teamwork. Team cognition describes the mental states that enable team members to anticipate and to coordinate. Having been examined in hundreds of studies conducted in board rooms, cockpits, nuclear power plants, and locker rooms, to name a few, we turn to the question of moderators: Under which conditions is team cognition more and less strongly related to team performance? Random effects meta-analytic moderator analysis of 107 independent studies (N = 7,778) reveals meaningful variation in effect sizes conditioned on team composition and boundary factors. The overall effect of team cognition on performance is ρ = .35, though examining this effect by these moderators finds the effect can meaningfully vary between ρ = .22 and ρ = .42. This meta-analysis advances team effectiveness theory by moving past the question of “what is important?” to explore the question of “when and why is it important?” Results indicate team cognition is most strongly related to performance for teams with social category heterogeneity (ρ = .42), high external interdependence (ρ = .41), as well as low authority differentiation (ρ = .35), temporal dispersion (ρ = .36), and geographic dispersion (ρ = .35). Functional homogeneity and temporal stability (compositional factors) were not meaningful moderators of this relationship. The key takeaway of these findings is that team cognition matters most for team performance when—either by virtue of composition, leadership, structure, or technology—there are few substitute enabling conditions to otherwise promote performance.
{"title":"Conditioning team cognition: A meta-analysis","authors":"Ashley A. Niler, Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Lindsay E. Larson, G. Plummer, Leslie A. DeChurch, N. Contractor","doi":"10.1177/2041386620972112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620972112","url":null,"abstract":"Abundant research supports a cognitive foundation to teamwork. Team cognition describes the mental states that enable team members to anticipate and to coordinate. Having been examined in hundreds of studies conducted in board rooms, cockpits, nuclear power plants, and locker rooms, to name a few, we turn to the question of moderators: Under which conditions is team cognition more and less strongly related to team performance? Random effects meta-analytic moderator analysis of 107 independent studies (N = 7,778) reveals meaningful variation in effect sizes conditioned on team composition and boundary factors. The overall effect of team cognition on performance is ρ = .35, though examining this effect by these moderators finds the effect can meaningfully vary between ρ = .22 and ρ = .42. This meta-analysis advances team effectiveness theory by moving past the question of “what is important?” to explore the question of “when and why is it important?” Results indicate team cognition is most strongly related to performance for teams with social category heterogeneity (ρ = .42), high external interdependence (ρ = .41), as well as low authority differentiation (ρ = .35), temporal dispersion (ρ = .36), and geographic dispersion (ρ = .35). Functional homogeneity and temporal stability (compositional factors) were not meaningful moderators of this relationship. The key takeaway of these findings is that team cognition matters most for team performance when—either by virtue of composition, leadership, structure, or technology—there are few substitute enabling conditions to otherwise promote performance.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"144 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620972112","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49528066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-28DOI: 10.1177/2041386620962551
Hillary Anger Elfenbein
Intuition suggests that individual differences should play an important role in negotiation performance, and yet empirical results have been relatively weak. Because negotiations are inherently dyadic, the dyad needs to feature prominently in theorizing. In expanding the traditional treatment of individual differences to two systematically interconnected parties, a relational process model (RPM) emerges. The RPM illustrates how the individual differences of both negotiators spark complex behavioral dynamics through five distinct theoretical mechanisms. Individuals (a) select each other, (b) set expectancies for each other, (c) serve as behavioral triggers and affordances for each other, (d) reciprocate and complement each other’s behaviors, and (e) vary in their responses to identical behaviors. It also directs attention to new classes and dimensions of individual difference factors. The RPM helps explain why past research has been highly conservative. A more complete picture needs to incorporate the complex interplay starting with parties’ individual differences.
{"title":"Individual differences in negotiation: A relational process model","authors":"Hillary Anger Elfenbein","doi":"10.1177/2041386620962551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962551","url":null,"abstract":"Intuition suggests that individual differences should play an important role in negotiation performance, and yet empirical results have been relatively weak. Because negotiations are inherently dyadic, the dyad needs to feature prominently in theorizing. In expanding the traditional treatment of individual differences to two systematically interconnected parties, a relational process model (RPM) emerges. The RPM illustrates how the individual differences of both negotiators spark complex behavioral dynamics through five distinct theoretical mechanisms. Individuals (a) select each other, (b) set expectancies for each other, (c) serve as behavioral triggers and affordances for each other, (d) reciprocate and complement each other’s behaviors, and (e) vary in their responses to identical behaviors. It also directs attention to new classes and dimensions of individual difference factors. The RPM helps explain why past research has been highly conservative. A more complete picture needs to incorporate the complex interplay starting with parties’ individual differences.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"73 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620962551","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43004021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-28DOI: 10.1177/2041386620960526
Tina Urbach, Deanne N. den Hartog, D. Fay, S. Parker, K. Strauss
The objective of this conceptual article is to illustrate how differences in societal culture may affect employees’ proactive work behaviors (PWBs) and to develop a research agenda to guide future research on cross-cultural differences in PWBs. We propose that the societal cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism–collectivism, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance shape individuals’ implicit followership theories (IFTs). We discuss how these cross-cultural differences in individuals’ IFTs relate to differences in the mean-level of PWB individuals show (whether), in the motivational states driving individuals’ PWBs (why), in the way individuals’ enact PWBs (how), and in the evaluation of PWBs by others (at what cost). We recommend how future research can extend this theorizing and unpack the proposed cross-cultural differences in PWBs, for example, by exploring how culture and other contextual variables interact to affect PWBs.
{"title":"Cultural variations in whether, why, how, and at what cost people are proactive: A followership perspective","authors":"Tina Urbach, Deanne N. den Hartog, D. Fay, S. Parker, K. Strauss","doi":"10.1177/2041386620960526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620960526","url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this conceptual article is to illustrate how differences in societal culture may affect employees’ proactive work behaviors (PWBs) and to develop a research agenda to guide future research on cross-cultural differences in PWBs. We propose that the societal cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism–collectivism, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance shape individuals’ implicit followership theories (IFTs). We discuss how these cross-cultural differences in individuals’ IFTs relate to differences in the mean-level of PWB individuals show (whether), in the motivational states driving individuals’ PWBs (why), in the way individuals’ enact PWBs (how), and in the evaluation of PWBs by others (at what cost). We recommend how future research can extend this theorizing and unpack the proposed cross-cultural differences in PWBs, for example, by exploring how culture and other contextual variables interact to affect PWBs.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"3 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620960526","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49247312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-23DOI: 10.1177/2041386620962569
Niklas K. Steffens, K. Munt, M. Platow, A. Haslam
This research advances a social identity approach to leadership through a meta-analysis examining four novel hypotheses that clarify the nature and impact of leader group prototypicality (the extent to which a leader is perceived to embody shared social identity). A random-effects meta-analysis (k = 128, N = 32,834) reveals a moderate-to-large effect of prototypicality that holds across evaluative and behavioral outcomes. The effect is stronger (a) when prototypicality is conceptualized as the ideal-type rather than the average group member, (b) for stronger prototypes (indexed by group longevity), and (c) for group members in formal rather than nonformal leadership roles. The effect is not contingent on group prototypicality entailing differentiation from other (out)groups. Additionally, results provide meta-analytic evidence of widely examined key factors: follower group identification (which enhances the relationship) and leader group-serving behavior (which attenuates the relationship). Building on these findings, we outline the implications for the next wave of theoretical and empirical work.
{"title":"Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality","authors":"Niklas K. Steffens, K. Munt, M. Platow, A. Haslam","doi":"10.1177/2041386620962569","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620962569","url":null,"abstract":"This research advances a social identity approach to leadership through a meta-analysis examining four novel hypotheses that clarify the nature and impact of leader group prototypicality (the extent to which a leader is perceived to embody shared social identity). A random-effects meta-analysis (k = 128, N = 32,834) reveals a moderate-to-large effect of prototypicality that holds across evaluative and behavioral outcomes. The effect is stronger (a) when prototypicality is conceptualized as the ideal-type rather than the average group member, (b) for stronger prototypes (indexed by group longevity), and (c) for group members in formal rather than nonformal leadership roles. The effect is not contingent on group prototypicality entailing differentiation from other (out)groups. Additionally, results provide meta-analytic evidence of widely examined key factors: follower group identification (which enhances the relationship) and leader group-serving behavior (which attenuates the relationship). Building on these findings, we outline the implications for the next wave of theoretical and empirical work.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"11 1","pages":"35 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620962569","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45723656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-15DOI: 10.1177/2041386620930063
Hans van Dijk, D. Kooij, M. Karanika-Murray, Ans De Vos, Bertolt Meyer
Work plays a crucial role in rising social inequalities, which refer to unequal opportunities and rewards for different social groups. Whereas the conventional view of workplaces as meritocracies suggests that work is a conduit for social equality, we unveil the ways in which workplaces contribute to the accumulation of social inequality. In our cumulative social inequality in workplaces (CSI-W) model, we outline how initial differences in opportunities and rewards shape performance and/or subsequent opportunities and rewards, such that those who receive more initial opportunities and rewards tend to receive even more over time. These cumulative social inequality dynamics take place via nine different mechanisms spanning four different levels (individual, dyadic, network, and organizational). The CSI-W indicates that the mechanisms interact, such that the social inequality dynamics in workplaces tend to (a) exacerbate social inequalities over time, (b) legitimate social inequalities over time, and (c) manifest themselves through everyday occurrences and behaviors.
{"title":"Meritocracy a myth? A multilevel perspective of how social inequality accumulates through work","authors":"Hans van Dijk, D. Kooij, M. Karanika-Murray, Ans De Vos, Bertolt Meyer","doi":"10.1177/2041386620930063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620930063","url":null,"abstract":"Work plays a crucial role in rising social inequalities, which refer to unequal opportunities and rewards for different social groups. Whereas the conventional view of workplaces as meritocracies suggests that work is a conduit for social equality, we unveil the ways in which workplaces contribute to the accumulation of social inequality. In our cumulative social inequality in workplaces (CSI-W) model, we outline how initial differences in opportunities and rewards shape performance and/or subsequent opportunities and rewards, such that those who receive more initial opportunities and rewards tend to receive even more over time. These cumulative social inequality dynamics take place via nine different mechanisms spanning four different levels (individual, dyadic, network, and organizational). The CSI-W indicates that the mechanisms interact, such that the social inequality dynamics in workplaces tend to (a) exacerbate social inequalities over time, (b) legitimate social inequalities over time, and (c) manifest themselves through everyday occurrences and behaviors.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"240 - 269"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620930063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43000986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-22DOI: 10.1177/2041386620926037
Olivia Brown, N. Power, Stacey M. Conchie
Extreme teams (ETs) work in challenging, high pressured contexts, where poor performance can have severe consequences. These teams must coordinate their skill sets, align their goals, and develop shared awareness, all under stressful conditions. How best to research these teams poses unique challenges as researchers seek to provide applied recommendations while conducting rigorous research to test how teamwork models work in practice. In this article, we identify immersive simulations as one solution to this, outlining their advantages over existing methodologies and suggesting how researchers can best make use of recent advances in technology and analytical techniques when designing simulation studies. We conclude that immersive simulations are key to ensuring ecological validity and empirically reliable research with ETs.
{"title":"Immersive simulations with extreme teams","authors":"Olivia Brown, N. Power, Stacey M. Conchie","doi":"10.1177/2041386620926037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620926037","url":null,"abstract":"Extreme teams (ETs) work in challenging, high pressured contexts, where poor performance can have severe consequences. These teams must coordinate their skill sets, align their goals, and develop shared awareness, all under stressful conditions. How best to research these teams poses unique challenges as researchers seek to provide applied recommendations while conducting rigorous research to test how teamwork models work in practice. In this article, we identify immersive simulations as one solution to this, outlining their advantages over existing methodologies and suggesting how researchers can best make use of recent advances in technology and analytical techniques when designing simulation studies. We conclude that immersive simulations are key to ensuring ecological validity and empirically reliable research with ETs.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"115 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620926037","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41817579","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：