Pub Date : 2020-05-05DOI: 10.1177/2041386620921931
E. A. Locke, G. Latham
This article discusses the development of goal setting theory through induction. The processes such as formulating concepts and definitions, measurement issues, data gathering, data integration and presentation, identifying moderators and mediators, resolving contradictions, noting issues in application, expansions and extensions, and the role of induction in deduction are explained. A multi-decade effort that involves these processes led to a useful theory that has withstood the test of time.
{"title":"Building a theory by induction: The example of goal setting theory","authors":"E. A. Locke, G. Latham","doi":"10.1177/2041386620921931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620921931","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the development of goal setting theory through induction. The processes such as formulating concepts and definitions, measurement issues, data gathering, data integration and presentation, identifying moderators and mediators, resolving contradictions, noting issues in application, expansions and extensions, and the role of induction in deduction are explained. A multi-decade effort that involves these processes led to a useful theory that has withstood the test of time.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"223 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620921931","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44775344","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 : 2020-05-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620923165
Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin
We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.
{"title":"The challenges of working with “real” teams: Introduction to the second installment","authors":"Marissa L. Shuffler, M. Cronin","doi":"10.1177/2041386620923165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620923165","url":null,"abstract":"We introduce the next two papers in our running special section on the challenges studying modern teams—those that may not have identifiable boundaries, stable membership, or members who belong only to that single team. Our perspective is that many of the assumptions about teams themselves are no longer correct, so rather than further exploiting our traditional approaches, the field should explore new or different ways to analyze the team experience. Thus, in these special sections, we present theoretical arguments made based on disciplined imagination and actual experience for why such new approaches are credible. This installment presents two papers that should enrich researchers’ sophistication in their ontological assumptions about teams. They are excellent complements to each other, as both are about questions of meaning and both have clear methodological implications for research design, but one zooms in to the nature of teams and the other zooms out to the nature of knowledge itself.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"57 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620923165","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44477756","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 : 2020-04-27DOI: 10.1177/2041386620919785
Tiffany D. Johnson, Aparna Joshi, T. Hogan
An important yet understudied element of the stigma disclosure calculus is the response of individuals who are the recipients of stigmatizing information—individuals who are essentially on the front lines of disclosure. Stigma disclosure recipients (SDRs) have a profound influence on disclosers’ workplace experience, yet there is a minimal understanding of how SDRs manage their responses during disclosure encounters. This article contributes to stigma identity management and workplace diversity research by focusing on the antecedents and outcomes of SDRs’ responses in organizations. We apply a novel event systems perspective to disclosure events, which allows us to develop a generalizable framework to understand the psychological and behavioral responses of SDRs across different types of stigmas. Our framework offers a unique perspective on how disclosure events trigger stigma-induced identity threat, which underlies a range of SDRs’ hostile and supportive behaviors. Overall, we propose that these responses of SDRs have important implications for the perpetuation and dismantling of stigma in the workplace. We offer implications for research and practice.
{"title":"On the front lines of disclosure: A conceptual framework of disclosure events","authors":"Tiffany D. Johnson, Aparna Joshi, T. Hogan","doi":"10.1177/2041386620919785","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620919785","url":null,"abstract":"An important yet understudied element of the stigma disclosure calculus is the response of individuals who are the recipients of stigmatizing information—individuals who are essentially on the front lines of disclosure. Stigma disclosure recipients (SDRs) have a profound influence on disclosers’ workplace experience, yet there is a minimal understanding of how SDRs manage their responses during disclosure encounters. This article contributes to stigma identity management and workplace diversity research by focusing on the antecedents and outcomes of SDRs’ responses in organizations. We apply a novel event systems perspective to disclosure events, which allows us to develop a generalizable framework to understand the psychological and behavioral responses of SDRs across different types of stigmas. Our framework offers a unique perspective on how disclosure events trigger stigma-induced identity threat, which underlies a range of SDRs’ hostile and supportive behaviors. Overall, we propose that these responses of SDRs have important implications for the perpetuation and dismantling of stigma in the workplace. We offer implications for research and practice.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"201 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620919785","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47322174","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 : 2020-04-22DOI: 10.1177/2041386620919476
Angelique Hartwig, S. Clarke, Sheena Johnson, S. Willis
Workplace team resilience has been proposed as a potential asset for work teams to maintain performance in the face of adverse events. Nonetheless, the research on team resilience has been conceptually and methodologically inconsistent. Taking a multilevel perspective, we present an integrative review of the workplace team resilience literature to identify the conceptual nature of team resilience and its unique value over and above personal resilience as well as other team concepts. We advance resilience research by providing a new multilevel model of team resilience that offers conceptual clarification regarding the relationship between individual-level and team-level resilience. The results of our review may form the basis for the development of a common operationalization of team resilience, which facilitates new empirical research examining ways that teams can improve their adversity management in the workplace.
{"title":"Workplace team resilience: A systematic review and conceptual development","authors":"Angelique Hartwig, S. Clarke, Sheena Johnson, S. Willis","doi":"10.1177/2041386620919476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620919476","url":null,"abstract":"Workplace team resilience has been proposed as a potential asset for work teams to maintain performance in the face of adverse events. Nonetheless, the research on team resilience has been conceptually and methodologically inconsistent. Taking a multilevel perspective, we present an integrative review of the workplace team resilience literature to identify the conceptual nature of team resilience and its unique value over and above personal resilience as well as other team concepts. We advance resilience research by providing a new multilevel model of team resilience that offers conceptual clarification regarding the relationship between individual-level and team-level resilience. The results of our review may form the basis for the development of a common operationalization of team resilience, which facilitates new empirical research examining ways that teams can improve their adversity management in the workplace.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"169 - 200"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620919476","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48231740","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 : 2020-04-15DOI: 10.1177/2041386620915593
Kyi Phyu Nyein, Jesse R. Caylor, Ngoc S. Duong, T. Fry, Jessica L. Wildman
To conduct sound research on organizational teams while overcoming the difficulties inherent in studying teams in situ, it is essential for researchers to consider all possible methodologies at their disposal. However, in the science of teams, published research is primarily driven by a positivist paradigm and quantitative methodology. This research offers an important perspective but fails to capitalize on the wide array of paradigms and methodologies outside of this perspective. Accordingly, we advocate for a pluralistic approach to studying real-world teams that utilizes qualitative methodologies to complement and enhance quantitative findings. We summarize philosophical assumptions, research paradigms, and qualitative methodologies not commonly used in research on teams. We then highlight existing qualitative research within several exemplar topic areas (team conflict, membership change, team adaptation, shared leadership, and inclusion in teams) and offer propositions for how qualitative methodologies can be used to develop a better understanding of real teams in organizations.
{"title":"Beyond positivism: Toward a pluralistic approach to studying “real” teams","authors":"Kyi Phyu Nyein, Jesse R. Caylor, Ngoc S. Duong, T. Fry, Jessica L. Wildman","doi":"10.1177/2041386620915593","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620915593","url":null,"abstract":"To conduct sound research on organizational teams while overcoming the difficulties inherent in studying teams in situ, it is essential for researchers to consider all possible methodologies at their disposal. However, in the science of teams, published research is primarily driven by a positivist paradigm and quantitative methodology. This research offers an important perspective but fails to capitalize on the wide array of paradigms and methodologies outside of this perspective. Accordingly, we advocate for a pluralistic approach to studying real-world teams that utilizes qualitative methodologies to complement and enhance quantitative findings. We summarize philosophical assumptions, research paradigms, and qualitative methodologies not commonly used in research on teams. We then highlight existing qualitative research within several exemplar topic areas (team conflict, membership change, team adaptation, shared leadership, and inclusion in teams) and offer propositions for how qualitative methodologies can be used to develop a better understanding of real teams in organizations.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"112 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620915593","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41969313","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 : 2020-04-06DOI: 10.1177/2041386620914707
Jeremy M. Beus, S. Solomon, Erik C. Taylor, Candace A. Esken
Organizational climate research has surged recently, but the disbursement of research contributions across domains has made it difficult to draw conclusions about climate and its connections with performance. To make sense of the climate literature, we used the competing values framework (CVF) to classify domain-specific climates into four climate types (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market climates). We did so by conceptually linking domain-specific climates that are manifestations of the same underlying strategic values. We then conducted meta-analyses to examine the magnitudes, mechanisms, and moderators of the individual and group-level associations between the CVF climates and performance. These meta-analyses revealed positive climate–performance associations for each climate type and supported job attitudes as a common mediator. We also examined several methodological moderators of climate–performance relationships, testing the source of climate and performance measures, the temporal assessment of these constructs, and the level of within-group agreement in climate measures as possible boundary conditions.
{"title":"Making sense of climate: A meta-analytic extension of the competing values framework","authors":"Jeremy M. Beus, S. Solomon, Erik C. Taylor, Candace A. Esken","doi":"10.1177/2041386620914707","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620914707","url":null,"abstract":"Organizational climate research has surged recently, but the disbursement of research contributions across domains has made it difficult to draw conclusions about climate and its connections with performance. To make sense of the climate literature, we used the competing values framework (CVF) to classify domain-specific climates into four climate types (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market climates). We did so by conceptually linking domain-specific climates that are manifestations of the same underlying strategic values. We then conducted meta-analyses to examine the magnitudes, mechanisms, and moderators of the individual and group-level associations between the CVF climates and performance. These meta-analyses revealed positive climate–performance associations for each climate type and supported job attitudes as a common mediator. We also examined several methodological moderators of climate–performance relationships, testing the source of climate and performance measures, the temporal assessment of these constructs, and the level of within-group agreement in climate measures as possible boundary conditions.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"136 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620914707","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47160615","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 : 2020-03-24DOI: 10.1177/2041386620912833
M. Kerrissey, Patricia Satterstrom, A. Edmondson
Novel forms of teamwork—created by rapid change and growing diversity among collaborators—are increasingly common, and they present substantial methodological challenges for research. We highlight two aspects of new team forms that challenge conventional methods. Factors pertaining to change (e.g., in membership) create entitativity challenges such as whom to count as team members, while factors pertaining to difference (e.g., in expertise) create concordance challenges such as how to interpret disagreement in groups. We review research methods that are well-suited to each of these specific challenges. We identify the particular challenges of studying teams that exhibit high difference and change simultaneously and call for adaptive methods that enable insight into how they work. Clarity about the dimensions of deviation from ideal team forms, along with shared terminology, will help researchers make and discuss tough methodological choices and assist reviewers in evaluating them.
{"title":"Into the fray: Adaptive approaches to studying novel teamwork forms","authors":"M. Kerrissey, Patricia Satterstrom, A. Edmondson","doi":"10.1177/2041386620912833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620912833","url":null,"abstract":"Novel forms of teamwork—created by rapid change and growing diversity among collaborators—are increasingly common, and they present substantial methodological challenges for research. We highlight two aspects of new team forms that challenge conventional methods. Factors pertaining to change (e.g., in membership) create entitativity challenges such as whom to count as team members, while factors pertaining to difference (e.g., in expertise) create concordance challenges such as how to interpret disagreement in groups. We review research methods that are well-suited to each of these specific challenges. We identify the particular challenges of studying teams that exhibit high difference and change simultaneously and call for adaptive methods that enable insight into how they work. Clarity about the dimensions of deviation from ideal team forms, along with shared terminology, will help researchers make and discuss tough methodological choices and assist reviewers in evaluating them.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"62 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620912833","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45114169","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 : 2020-02-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386620908954
M. Cronin, A. Homan
We are honored to assume the helm at Organizational Psychology Review (OPR). Of course we want to thank our Associate Editor (AE) team: Claudia Buengeler, Karen Niven, Jennifer Overbeck, Jana Raver, Marissa Shuffler, Chester Spell, Maria Tims, and Mary Waller, all of whom we are delighted to have, and who were enthusiastic about joining our adventure. On our inaugural issue, we wanted to provide a sneak peek at our vision for the journal.
{"title":"From the (new) editors","authors":"M. Cronin, A. Homan","doi":"10.1177/2041386620908954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620908954","url":null,"abstract":"We are honored to assume the helm at Organizational Psychology Review (OPR). Of course we want to thank our Associate Editor (AE) team: Claudia Buengeler, Karen Niven, Jennifer Overbeck, Jana Raver, Marissa Shuffler, Chester Spell, Maria Tims, and Mary Waller, all of whom we are delighted to have, and who were enthusiastic about joining our adventure. On our inaugural issue, we wanted to provide a sneak peek at our vision for the journal.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"3 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620908954","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41460797","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 : 2020-02-01DOI: 10.1177/2041386619897618
D. van Knippenberg
The core role of leadership in organizations is to motivate the pursuit of the organization’s purpose (i.e., the reason the organization exists and does what it does). Yet, there currently is no leadership theory that revolves around this notion of purpose pursuit. Addressing this issue, I propose the concept of meaning-based leadership, defined as leader advocacy of an understanding of organizational purpose and why this purpose is meaningful in an appeal to motivate members to contribute to the pursuit of that purpose. I advance a model of the core process through which meaning-based leadership motivates purpose pursuit and the contingencies of this process. I identify key implications for the empirical study of this model as well as directions for the further conceptual and empirical development of important implications of the model.
{"title":"Meaning-based leadership","authors":"D. van Knippenberg","doi":"10.1177/2041386619897618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619897618","url":null,"abstract":"The core role of leadership in organizations is to motivate the pursuit of the organization’s purpose (i.e., the reason the organization exists and does what it does). Yet, there currently is no leadership theory that revolves around this notion of purpose pursuit. Addressing this issue, I propose the concept of meaning-based leadership, defined as leader advocacy of an understanding of organizational purpose and why this purpose is meaningful in an appeal to motivate members to contribute to the pursuit of that purpose. I advance a model of the core process through which meaning-based leadership motivates purpose pursuit and the contingencies of this process. I identify key implications for the empirical study of this model as well as directions for the further conceptual and empirical development of important implications of the model.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"28 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619897618","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48770805","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 : 2019-12-30DOI: 10.1177/2041386619896087
M. Tims, S. Parker
Job crafting, or proactive changes that individuals make in their job design, can influence and be influenced by coworkers. Although considerable research has emerged on this topic, overall, the way job crafting is responded to by coworkers has received little theoretical attention. The goal of this article is to develop a model that allows for a better understanding of job crafting in interdependent contexts. Drawing on attribution and social information theories, we propose that when job crafting has a negative or positive impact on coworkers, coworkers will make an attribution about the crafter’s prosocial motive. This attribution in turn influences whether coworkers respond in an antagonistic or a supportive way toward job crafters. Ultimately, coworkers’ reactions shape the experienced affective work outcomes of job crafters. We also theorize the factors that moderate coworkers’ reactions to job crafting behaviors and the job crafter’s susceptibility to coworker influence.
{"title":"How coworkers attribute, react to, and shape job crafting","authors":"M. Tims, S. Parker","doi":"10.1177/2041386619896087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619896087","url":null,"abstract":"Job crafting, or proactive changes that individuals make in their job design, can influence and be influenced by coworkers. Although considerable research has emerged on this topic, overall, the way job crafting is responded to by coworkers has received little theoretical attention. The goal of this article is to develop a model that allows for a better understanding of job crafting in interdependent contexts. Drawing on attribution and social information theories, we propose that when job crafting has a negative or positive impact on coworkers, coworkers will make an attribution about the crafter’s prosocial motive. This attribution in turn influences whether coworkers respond in an antagonistic or a supportive way toward job crafters. Ultimately, coworkers’ reactions shape the experienced affective work outcomes of job crafters. We also theorize the factors that moderate coworkers’ reactions to job crafting behaviors and the job crafter’s susceptibility to coworker influence.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"29 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2019-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386619896087","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43811323","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：