Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015212
J. Coyle-Shapiro, Sandra Costa, W. Doden, Chiachi Chang
We provide a review of psychological contract research, beginning with past conceptualizations and empirical evidence. We tailor this retrospective look by reviewing the antecedents and outcomes associated with psychological contract breach and discussing the dominant theoretical explanations for the breach-outcome relationship. This synthesis of past evidence provides the foundation for reviewing the present emerging and developing themes in psychological contract research. This discussion is organized around the expansion of resources exchanged and the antecedents of contract breach and outcomes, moving beyond reciprocity as an underpinning explanation. We highlight the practical implications of research to date on psychological contracts and end with directions for future research to include the need for greater attention given to ideological currency, employee health, polycontextual approaches, the role of psychological needs, and post-breach/violation.
{"title":"Psychological Contracts: Past, Present, and Future","authors":"J. Coyle-Shapiro, Sandra Costa, W. Doden, Chiachi Chang","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015212","url":null,"abstract":"We provide a review of psychological contract research, beginning with past conceptualizations and empirical evidence. We tailor this retrospective look by reviewing the antecedents and outcomes associated with psychological contract breach and discussing the dominant theoretical explanations for the breach-outcome relationship. This synthesis of past evidence provides the foundation for reviewing the present emerging and developing themes in psychological contract research. This discussion is organized around the expansion of resources exchanged and the antecedents of contract breach and outcomes, moving beyond reciprocity as an underpinning explanation. We highlight the practical implications of research to date on psychological contracts and end with directions for future research to include the need for greater attention given to ideological currency, employee health, polycontextual approaches, the role of psychological needs, and post-breach/violation.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015212","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46698779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-014955
M. Kleinmann, Pia V. Ingold
Assessment centers (ACs) are employed for selecting and developing employees and leaders. They are interpersonal at their core because they consist of interactive exercises. Minding this perspective, this review focuses on the role of the assessee, the assessor, and the AC design, as well as their interplay in the interpersonal situation of the AC. Therefore, it addresses which conceptual perspectives have increased our understanding of ACs in this context. Building on this, we review relevant empirical findings. On this basis, the review contributes to an empirically driven understanding of the interpersonal nature of ACs and provides directions for practice and future research avenues on this topic as well as on technology in ACs and cross-cultural applications.
{"title":"Toward a Better Understanding of Assessment Centers: A Conceptual Review","authors":"M. Kleinmann, Pia V. Ingold","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-014955","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-014955","url":null,"abstract":"Assessment centers (ACs) are employed for selecting and developing employees and leaders. They are interpersonal at their core because they consist of interactive exercises. Minding this perspective, this review focuses on the role of the assessee, the assessor, and the AC design, as well as their interplay in the interpersonal situation of the AC. Therefore, it addresses which conceptual perspectives have increased our understanding of ACs in this context. Building on this, we review relevant empirical findings. On this basis, the review contributes to an empirically driven understanding of the interpersonal nature of ACs and provides directions for practice and future research avenues on this topic as well as on technology in ACs and cross-cultural applications.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-014955","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42687480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015130
G. Stewart, S. Courtright, Charles C. Manz
This review focuses on the paradoxical concept of self-leadership—defined as a comprehensive self-influence process capturing how individuals motivate themselves to complete work that is naturally motivating or work that must be done but is not naturally motivating—as a fundamental process that challenges many traditional assumptions in organizational psychology and organizational behavior. We first present a historical review that traces the roots of self-leadership to early psychological theory and research. We next briefly summarize research related to self-leadership at both the individual and team levels of analysis. We then discuss four paradoxes associated with self-leadership: the paradox of self-leadership depletion and strengthening, the paradox of self-leadership through collaboration, the paradox of me-but-not-you self-leadership, and the paradox of needing self-leadership to improve self-leadership. We conclude with guidelines for future research and practice.
{"title":"Self-Leadership: A Paradoxical Core of Organizational Behavior","authors":"G. Stewart, S. Courtright, Charles C. Manz","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015130","url":null,"abstract":"This review focuses on the paradoxical concept of self-leadership—defined as a comprehensive self-influence process capturing how individuals motivate themselves to complete work that is naturally motivating or work that must be done but is not naturally motivating—as a fundamental process that challenges many traditional assumptions in organizational psychology and organizational behavior. We first present a historical review that traces the roots of self-leadership to early psychological theory and research. We next briefly summarize research related to self-leadership at both the individual and team levels of analysis. We then discuss four paradoxes associated with self-leadership: the paradox of self-leadership depletion and strengthening, the paradox of self-leadership through collaboration, the paradox of me-but-not-you self-leadership, and the paradox of needing self-leadership to improve self-leadership. We conclude with guidelines for future research and practice.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015130","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41692114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015106
J. Mathieu, P. Gallagher, Monique Alexandria Alvarez Domingo, Elizabeth A. Klock
We conceptualize organizational teams as dynamic systems evolving in response to their environments. We then review the past 10 years of team effectiveness research and summarize its implications by categorizing studies under three main overlapping and coevolving dimensions: compositional features, structural features, and mediating mechanisms. We highlight prominent work that focused on variables in each of these dimensions and discuss their key relationships with team outcomes. Furthermore, we review how contextual factors impact team effectiveness. On the basis of this review, we advocate that future research seek to examine team relationships through a dynamic, multilevel perspective, while incorporating new and novel measurement techniques. We submit that the future of teams research may benefit from a conceptualization of them as dynamic networks and modeling them as small complex systems.
{"title":"Embracing Complexity: Reviewing the Past Decade of Team Effectiveness Research","authors":"J. Mathieu, P. Gallagher, Monique Alexandria Alvarez Domingo, Elizabeth A. Klock","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015106","url":null,"abstract":"We conceptualize organizational teams as dynamic systems evolving in response to their environments. We then review the past 10 years of team effectiveness research and summarize its implications by categorizing studies under three main overlapping and coevolving dimensions: compositional features, structural features, and mediating mechanisms. We highlight prominent work that focused on variables in each of these dimensions and discuss their key relationships with team outcomes. Furthermore, we review how contextual factors impact team effectiveness. On the basis of this review, we advocate that future research seek to examine team relationships through a dynamic, multilevel perspective, while incorporating new and novel measurement techniques. We submit that the future of teams research may benefit from a conceptualization of them as dynamic networks and modeling them as small complex systems.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015106","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44262874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015221
G. R. Ferris, B. P. Ellen, Charn P. McAllister, Liam P. Maher
Organizational politics has been an oft-studied phenomenon for nearly four decades. Prior reviews have described research in this stream as aligning with one of three categories: perceptions of organizational politics (POPs), political behavior, or political skill. We suggest that because these categories are at the construct level research on organizational politics has been artificially constrained. Thus, we suggest a new framework with higher-level categories within which to classify organizational politics research: political characteristics, political actions, and political outcomes. We then provide a broad review of the literature applicable to these new categories and discuss the possibilities for future research within each expanded category. Finally, we close with a discussion of future directions for organizational politics research across the categories.
{"title":"Reorganizing Organizational Politics Research: A Review of the Literature and Identification of Future Research Directions","authors":"G. R. Ferris, B. P. Ellen, Charn P. McAllister, Liam P. Maher","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015221","url":null,"abstract":"Organizational politics has been an oft-studied phenomenon for nearly four decades. Prior reviews have described research in this stream as aligning with one of three categories: perceptions of organizational politics (POPs), political behavior, or political skill. We suggest that because these categories are at the construct level research on organizational politics has been artificially constrained. Thus, we suggest a new framework with higher-level categories within which to classify organizational politics research: political characteristics, political actions, and political outcomes. We then provide a broad review of the literature applicable to these new categories and discuss the possibilities for future research within each expanded category. Finally, we close with a discussion of future directions for organizational politics research across the categories.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015221","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45770019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015009
E. Pulakos, Rose A. Mueller-Hanson, Sharon Arad
This article reviews the history of performance management (PM), beginning with performance evaluation. We discuss various strategies that have been used to enable accurate ratings as well as cognitive processes and contextual factors that have been shown to significantly impact ratings. We raise questions about the concept of true performance and whether raters can be enabled and motivated to make accurate ratings. We progress to discussing more structured and comprehensive PM processes that typically involve cascading goals, goal setting, competency modeling, evaluation of behavior and results, and implementation. These systems have proven to be tedious and low-value, resulting in unprecedented, wide-spread experimentation with innovative practices to move companies away from heavy PM processes to simpler, cost-effective strategies that actually drive performance. These have ranged from abandoning ratings to implementing innovations in goal-setting, real-time feedback, coaching, and PM behavior change. Directions for future research and practice are discussed.
{"title":"The Evolution of Performance Management: Searching for Value","authors":"E. Pulakos, Rose A. Mueller-Hanson, Sharon Arad","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015009","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the history of performance management (PM), beginning with performance evaluation. We discuss various strategies that have been used to enable accurate ratings as well as cognitive processes and contextual factors that have been shown to significantly impact ratings. We raise questions about the concept of true performance and whether raters can be enabled and motivated to make accurate ratings. We progress to discussing more structured and comprehensive PM processes that typically involve cascading goals, goal setting, competency modeling, evaluation of behavior and results, and implementation. These systems have proven to be tedious and low-value, resulting in unprecedented, wide-spread experimentation with innovative practices to move companies away from heavy PM processes to simpler, cost-effective strategies that actually drive performance. These have ranged from abandoning ratings to implementing innovations in goal-setting, real-time feedback, coaching, and PM behavior change. Directions for future research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44454966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015302
S. Parker, Ying Wang, Jenny Liao
There is solid evidence that proactivity, defined as self-initiated and future-focused action to change oneself or the situation, can positively benefit individuals and organizations. However, this way of behaving can sometimes be ineffective or have negative consequences. We seek to understand what factors shape the effect of proactivity on individual-level outcomes. On the basis of a review of 95 articles, we identify three categories of factors that mitigate or exacerbate the effectiveness of proactive behavior: task and strategic considerations (e.g., situational judgment), social and relational considerations (e.g., having an open leader), and self-regulatory considerations (e.g., learning orientation). We then extrapolate from this review, and draw on psychological theories of wisdom, to suggest that individuals can be more or less “wise” in the proactive goals they set, and in how they pursue those goals. In closing, we identify further research directions that flow from the notion of wise proactivity.
{"title":"When Is Proactivity Wise? A Review of Factors That Influence the Individual Outcomes of Proactive Behavior","authors":"S. Parker, Ying Wang, Jenny Liao","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015302","url":null,"abstract":"There is solid evidence that proactivity, defined as self-initiated and future-focused action to change oneself or the situation, can positively benefit individuals and organizations. However, this way of behaving can sometimes be ineffective or have negative consequences. We seek to understand what factors shape the effect of proactivity on individual-level outcomes. On the basis of a review of 95 articles, we identify three categories of factors that mitigate or exacerbate the effectiveness of proactive behavior: task and strategic considerations (e.g., situational judgment), social and relational considerations (e.g., having an open leader), and self-regulatory considerations (e.g., learning orientation). We then extrapolate from this review, and draw on psychological theories of wisdom, to suggest that individuals can be more or less “wise” in the proactive goals they set, and in how they pursue those goals. In closing, we identify further research directions that flow from the notion of wise proactivity.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015302","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48158736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015019
E. Dierdorff
The notion of occupation has long played a vital role in understanding the psychology of individual behavior, choice, perceptions, and attitudes in work contexts. However, the centrality of occupation to research found within the broader organizational psychology and behavior literature has been largely supplanted in favor of a more organization-centric lens. The primary goal of this review is to build a case for renewing direct efforts to more meaningfully integrate occupation into organizational psychology and behavior scholarship. In doing so, this review outlines what it means, and why it matters, to once again take occupations more seriously in our theory and research. I discuss five essential ways occupations influence important organizational psychology and behavior phenomena and exemplifying evidence from previous research. The review concludes with illustrations of occupationally focused questions that could be investigated across several specific organizational psychology and behavior topics.
{"title":"Toward Reviving an Occupation with Occupations","authors":"E. Dierdorff","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015019","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of occupation has long played a vital role in understanding the psychology of individual behavior, choice, perceptions, and attitudes in work contexts. However, the centrality of occupation to research found within the broader organizational psychology and behavior literature has been largely supplanted in favor of a more organization-centric lens. The primary goal of this review is to build a case for renewing direct efforts to more meaningfully integrate occupation into organizational psychology and behavior scholarship. In doing so, this review outlines what it means, and why it matters, to once again take occupations more seriously in our theory and research. I discuss five essential ways occupations influence important organizational psychology and behavior phenomena and exemplifying evidence from previous research. The review concludes with illustrations of occupationally focused questions that could be investigated across several specific organizational psychology and behavior topics.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43123863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015117
David Chan
Studies of team-level constructs can produce new insights when researchers explicitly take into account several critical conceptual and methodological issues. This article explicates the conceptual bases for multilevel research on team constructs and discusses specific issues relating to conceptual frameworks, measurement, and data analysis. To advance programmatic research involving team-level constructs, several future research directions concerning issues of substantive content (i.e., changes in the nature of work and teams, member-team fit, linking team-level constructs to higher-level constructs) and strategic approaches (i.e., the construct's theoretical roles, dimensionality and specificity, malleability and changes over time, relationships with Big Data) are proposed.
{"title":"Team-Level Constructs","authors":"David Chan","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015117","url":null,"abstract":"Studies of team-level constructs can produce new insights when researchers explicitly take into account several critical conceptual and methodological issues. This article explicates the conceptual bases for multilevel research on team constructs and discusses specific issues relating to conceptual frameworks, measurement, and data analysis. To advance programmatic research involving team-level constructs, several future research directions concerning issues of substantive content (i.e., changes in the nature of work and teams, member-team fit, linking team-level constructs to higher-level constructs) and strategic approaches (i.e., the construct's theoretical roles, dimensionality and specificity, malleability and changes over time, relationships with Big Data) are proposed.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015117","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46422477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-21DOI: 10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015047
W. Baker
The concept of emotional energy generates increasing scholarly and popular interest. Research spans multiple disciplines (psychology, sociology, organization behavior, network science) and levels of analysis: micro (individual-level emotional energy), meso (dyadic or relational energy), and macro (group emotion, energy networks). I impose order on this sprawling and disparate literature by defining core concepts and conducting a broad but selective review with a focus on mechanisms. This review identifies key empirical findings but also reveals critical ambiguities and disagreements in the conceptualization (and therefore measurement) of energy. Theorizing has outpaced empirical testing. One implication is that practice may be unmoored from a solid empirical grounding. I offer a critique that points to several promising areas of empirical research. I conclude with practical implications for individuals and organizations, summary points, and future issues.
{"title":"Emotional Energy, Relational Energy, and Organizational Energy: Toward a Multilevel Model","authors":"W. Baker","doi":"10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015047","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of emotional energy generates increasing scholarly and popular interest. Research spans multiple disciplines (psychology, sociology, organization behavior, network science) and levels of analysis: micro (individual-level emotional energy), meso (dyadic or relational energy), and macro (group emotion, energy networks). I impose order on this sprawling and disparate literature by defining core concepts and conducting a broad but selective review with a focus on mechanisms. This review identifies key empirical findings but also reveals critical ambiguities and disagreements in the conceptualization (and therefore measurement) of energy. Theorizing has outpaced empirical testing. One implication is that practice may be unmoored from a solid empirical grounding. I offer a critique that points to several promising areas of empirical research. I conclude with practical implications for individuals and organizations, summary points, and future issues.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2019-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-012218-015047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42014206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","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：