Pub Date : 2025-09-16DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094329
Bradley L. Kirkman, Troy A. Smith
As business environments remain increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, both team empowerment and team resilience have increased in importance for teams in organizations worldwide. We review the literatures on both team empowerment and team resilience over the past 15 years to uncover what has been learned about these two important team constructs. We discuss patterns and advancements in each area followed by a brief review of their intersection, including both commonalities and important differences. We then highlight directions for future research for each, followed by practical implications emanating from our review. In doing so, we provide a crucial roadmap for theoretical and empirical advancements for team empowerment and team resilience over the next decade.
{"title":"Team Empowerment and Team Resilience","authors":"Bradley L. Kirkman, Troy A. Smith","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094329","url":null,"abstract":"As business environments remain increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, both team empowerment and team resilience have increased in importance for teams in organizations worldwide. We review the literatures on both team empowerment and team resilience over the past 15 years to uncover what has been learned about these two important team constructs. We discuss patterns and advancements in each area followed by a brief review of their intersection, including both commonalities and important differences. We then highlight directions for future research for each, followed by practical implications emanating from our review. In doing so, we provide a crucial roadmap for theoretical and empirical advancements for team empowerment and team resilience over the next decade.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145072444","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 : 2025-09-09DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094951
Martin Kilduff, Kun Wang, Stefano Tasselli
Self-monitoring research poses a challenge to conventional treatments of personality due to its focus on the extent to which people adapt their self-presentations to the demands of social situations. The adaptable self, characteristic of a high self-monitoring orientation, contrasts with the principled self, characteristic of a low self-monitoring orientation. We review research linking self-monitoring to careers, leadership, workplace social networks, authenticity, and deception. We outline future research paths related to agency, top management, and cross-cultural outcomes. We conclude with practical suggestions for how low self-monitors can enhance their workplace outcomes, how high self-monitors can avoid overengagement in projects, and how managers can facilitate people's careers in light of self-monitoring differences. The self-monitoring research program opens avenues of exploration on vital issues concerned with careers, leadership, status, and performance in workplace settings.
{"title":"Self-Monitoring at Work: State of the Science","authors":"Martin Kilduff, Kun Wang, Stefano Tasselli","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094951","url":null,"abstract":"Self-monitoring research poses a challenge to conventional treatments of personality due to its focus on the extent to which people adapt their self-presentations to the demands of social situations. The adaptable self, characteristic of a high self-monitoring orientation, contrasts with the principled self, characteristic of a low self-monitoring orientation. We review research linking self-monitoring to careers, leadership, workplace social networks, authenticity, and deception. We outline future research paths related to agency, top management, and cross-cultural outcomes. We conclude with practical suggestions for how low self-monitors can enhance their workplace outcomes, how high self-monitors can avoid overengagement in projects, and how managers can facilitate people's careers in light of self-monitoring differences. The self-monitoring research program opens avenues of exploration on vital issues concerned with careers, leadership, status, and performance in workplace settings.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145043731","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 : 2025-09-02DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-071358
Margaret E. Beier, Gwenith G. Fisher
Demographic shifts in population aging and disruption caused by technology and automation are rapidly changing the landscape of work across the globe. The current review provides a focused, forward-looking perspective on key issues relevant to workplace aging and new realities of the workplace, namely workplace learning and development, an age-diverse workforce, and retirement. Our review provides a multilevel perspective on these issues, including the macro (societal/cultural), meso (job design/organizational climate and HR practices), and micro (individual health, wealth, traits, and motivation) factors that influence workplace aging. We also apply lifespan development theories that describe normative and individual influences on aging to the work context, particularly regarding socio-emotional selectivity theory, and process models of successful aging at work. We conclude by providing practical implications and presenting areas of future research that are the most pressing in the workplace of the twenty-first century, including specific research questions at multiple levels (i.e., macro, meso, and micro).
{"title":"Aging, Work, and Retirement: Twenty-First-Century Issues in an Interdisciplinary Context","authors":"Margaret E. Beier, Gwenith G. Fisher","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-071358","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-071358","url":null,"abstract":"Demographic shifts in population aging and disruption caused by technology and automation are rapidly changing the landscape of work across the globe. The current review provides a focused, forward-looking perspective on key issues relevant to workplace aging and new realities of the workplace, namely workplace learning and development, an age-diverse workforce, and retirement. Our review provides a multilevel perspective on these issues, including the macro (societal/cultural), meso (job design/organizational climate and HR practices), and micro (individual health, wealth, traits, and motivation) factors that influence workplace aging. We also apply lifespan development theories that describe normative and individual influences on aging to the work context, particularly regarding socio-emotional selectivity theory, and process models of successful aging at work. We conclude by providing practical implications and presenting areas of future research that are the most pressing in the workplace of the twenty-first century, including specific research questions at multiple levels (i.e., macro, meso, and micro).","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144930750","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 : 2025-08-27DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-072127
Paul R. Sackett, Filip Lievens, Richard N. Landers
Here we review recent work in the personnel selection field. We open with two sections, the first focusing on meta-analytic validity research on well-established predictors and the second on new measurement approaches. These include moving from a holistic to a modular view of predictors; from face-to-face to asynchronous video interviews; from resumes to social media assessments; from multiple choice to constructed response; and to artificial intelligence to develop, administer, and score tests, among approaches. We then review developments in estimating validity, including issues in correcting validity estimates for error of measurement and restriction of range. We address technical issues on the topic of fairness and bias, including Pareto optimization, effect size measures for predictive bias, and approaches to algorithmic bias mitigation, and offer insight into addressing the validity-diversity dilemma. We then discuss insights into applicant reactions to selection systems and perspectives of other stakeholders in the selection process.
{"title":"Hiring People in Organizations: The State and Future of the Science","authors":"Paul R. Sackett, Filip Lievens, Richard N. Landers","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-072127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-072127","url":null,"abstract":"Here we review recent work in the personnel selection field. We open with two sections, the first focusing on meta-analytic validity research on well-established predictors and the second on new measurement approaches. These include moving from a holistic to a modular view of predictors; from face-to-face to asynchronous video interviews; from resumes to social media assessments; from multiple choice to constructed response; and to artificial intelligence to develop, administer, and score tests, among approaches. We then review developments in estimating validity, including issues in correcting validity estimates for error of measurement and restriction of range. We address technical issues on the topic of fairness and bias, including Pareto optimization, effect size measures for predictive bias, and approaches to algorithmic bias mitigation, and offer insight into addressing the validity-diversity dilemma. We then discuss insights into applicant reactions to selection systems and perspectives of other stakeholders in the selection process.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"138 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144906389","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 : 2025-08-20DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-064249
René T. Proyer, Rebekka Sendatzki
Playfulness—the ability to frame or reframe situations in an engaging, intellectually stimulating, or entertaining way—is an emerging topic in organizational research. Traditionally seen as the opposite of work, play and playfulness are increasingly recognized for their potential to enhance creativity, motivation, and well-being in professional settings. This review synthesizes theoretical and empirical perspectives on workplace play and playfulness, distinguishing them from related concepts such as humor and creativity. We examine existing models, measurement approaches, and mechanisms through which playfulness may influence workplace outcomes. We highlight the need to consider contextual factors such as job type, organizational culture, and leadership. Open questions remain regarding the optimal level of playfulness, cultural differences, and its long-term impact. Finally, we discuss practical implications for organizations, emphasizing the importance of fostering playfulness through voluntary, context-sensitive approaches that complement meaningful work structures.
{"title":"Examining Play and Playfulness at Work: Current Knowledge, Practical Applications, and Future Research Directions","authors":"René T. Proyer, Rebekka Sendatzki","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-064249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-064249","url":null,"abstract":"Playfulness—the ability to frame or reframe situations in an engaging, intellectually stimulating, or entertaining way—is an emerging topic in organizational research. Traditionally seen as the opposite of work, play and playfulness are increasingly recognized for their potential to enhance creativity, motivation, and well-being in professional settings. This review synthesizes theoretical and empirical perspectives on workplace play and playfulness, distinguishing them from related concepts such as humor and creativity. We examine existing models, measurement approaches, and mechanisms through which playfulness may influence workplace outcomes. We highlight the need to consider contextual factors such as job type, organizational culture, and leadership. Open questions remain regarding the optimal level of playfulness, cultural differences, and its long-term impact. Finally, we discuss practical implications for organizations, emphasizing the importance of fostering playfulness through voluntary, context-sensitive approaches that complement meaningful work structures.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144899921","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 : 2025-08-08DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-064623
Shaul Oreg, Noga Sverdlik
In this review, we examine developments in how organization members’ responses to change have been conceptualized, measured, and predicted, and the outcomes they have been shown to produce. We focus on quantitative studies and use four conceptual lenses to analyze them: the tripartite approach, the change response circumplex model, change ambivalence, and levels of analysis. Drawing on established classifications of change response antecedents, we present current understandings of the factors and the mediating and moderating mechanisms that explain responses to change. Particular attention is given to the roles of national culture and time in shaping responses and our understanding of them. We end with directions for future research and practice, emphasizing the need to consider response activation, ambivalence, and timing in understanding and managing responses to organizational change.
{"title":"Responses to Organizational Change: Evolution of the Concept, Established Findings, and Future Directions","authors":"Shaul Oreg, Noga Sverdlik","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-064623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-064623","url":null,"abstract":"In this review, we examine developments in how organization members’ responses to change have been conceptualized, measured, and predicted, and the outcomes they have been shown to produce. We focus on quantitative studies and use four conceptual lenses to analyze them: the tripartite approach, the change response circumplex model, change ambivalence, and levels of analysis. Drawing on established classifications of change response antecedents, we present current understandings of the factors and the mediating and moderating mechanisms that explain responses to change. Particular attention is given to the roles of national culture and time in shaping responses and our understanding of them. We end with directions for future research and practice, emphasizing the need to consider response activation, ambivalence, and timing in understanding and managing responses to organizational change.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144850571","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 : 2025-08-04DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031925-091223
Steven Rogelberg, Liana M. Kreamer, Jon Gray
This review examines the development and evolution of meeting science over the past three decades. Drawing on diverse disciplinary foundations—including the organizational sciences, communication studies, and computer science—we provide a thematic discussion of meetings research. We organize the body of literature into five key areas of inquiry: (a) meetings as stressors and affective inducing events; (b) meetings as a communication technology that drives performance; (c) meetings as a platform for employee voice, participation, and inclusion; (d) meetings as a stage for leadership and power dynamics; and (e) meetings as an expression of culture and identity. We present illustrative findings from each research stream and conclude by outlining a research agenda that addresses how to build upon what we know around meetings as well as new frontiers.
{"title":"Thirty Years of Meeting Science: Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead","authors":"Steven Rogelberg, Liana M. Kreamer, Jon Gray","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031925-091223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031925-091223","url":null,"abstract":"This review examines the development and evolution of meeting science over the past three decades. Drawing on diverse disciplinary foundations—including the organizational sciences, communication studies, and computer science—we provide a thematic discussion of meetings research. We organize the body of literature into five key areas of inquiry: (<jats:italic>a</jats:italic>) meetings as stressors and affective inducing events; (<jats:italic>b</jats:italic>) meetings as a communication technology that drives performance; (<jats:italic>c</jats:italic>) meetings as a platform for employee voice, participation, and inclusion; (<jats:italic>d</jats:italic>) meetings as a stage for leadership and power dynamics; and (<jats:italic>e</jats:italic>) meetings as an expression of culture and identity. We present illustrative findings from each research stream and conclude by outlining a research agenda that addresses how to build upon what we know around meetings as well as new frontiers.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144778526","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 : 2025-07-31DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-065909
Ernest H. O'Boyle, Martin Götz
Star performers—individuals who make exceptionally significant contributions to their organizations—are increasingly capturing the attention of both researchers and practitioners alike. However, studies on these uber-performers often employ disparate definitions, theoretical foundations and assumptions, and methods and analyses, which creates significant tension and confusion in the comparison of findings and the formation of a clear understanding of what star performance truly entails and its impact on individuals, teams, and organizations. This review aims to clarify these issues by presenting a framework for identifying stars based on four key factors: type of performance, comparison group, duration of observation, and threshold for stardom. We summarize current research on the emergence of stars, their productivity over time, and the spillover effect on nonstars. We also address the unique challenges of studying stars—such as their rarity and the skewed nature of their performance—and offer guidance on research designs and analytical tools that can more effectively capture these dynamics. We conclude with a roadmap for future research aimed at developing a more consistent and useful understanding of star performers.
{"title":"Rethinking Stardom: A Relativistic Approach to Studying the Absolute Best Performers","authors":"Ernest H. O'Boyle, Martin Götz","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-065909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-065909","url":null,"abstract":"Star performers—individuals who make exceptionally significant contributions to their organizations—are increasingly capturing the attention of both researchers and practitioners alike. However, studies on these uber-performers often employ disparate definitions, theoretical foundations and assumptions, and methods and analyses, which creates significant tension and confusion in the comparison of findings and the formation of a clear understanding of what star performance truly entails and its impact on individuals, teams, and organizations. This review aims to clarify these issues by presenting a framework for identifying stars based on four key factors: type of performance, comparison group, duration of observation, and threshold for stardom. We summarize current research on the emergence of stars, their productivity over time, and the spillover effect on nonstars. We also address the unique challenges of studying stars—such as their rarity and the skewed nature of their performance—and offer guidance on research designs and analytical tools that can more effectively capture these dynamics. We conclude with a roadmap for future research aimed at developing a more consistent and useful understanding of star performers.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144755869","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 : 2025-07-29DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094816
Ryan Fehr, Yu Tse Heng, Ashley Fulmer
In this review, we distill existing research on gratitude and its role in organizations. We begin by examining how gratitude is conceptualized and defined, considering its manifestations as an emotion, an expression, and a feature of a collective. We next develop a model arguing that gratitude is best understood as a phenomenon that begins within the self but has the potential to cascade beyond the self and emerge at higher levels of analysis. After reviewing the key theories that underpin gratitude scholarship, we explore existing research on gratitude's functions. We follow with a consideration of gratitude's antecedents. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of promising trajectories for future research, emphasizing important directions for both theory and practice.
{"title":"The Psychology of Gratitude: Implications for Organizations","authors":"Ryan Fehr, Yu Tse Heng, Ashley Fulmer","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031424-094816","url":null,"abstract":"In this review, we distill existing research on gratitude and its role in organizations. We begin by examining how gratitude is conceptualized and defined, considering its manifestations as an emotion, an expression, and a feature of a collective. We next develop a model arguing that gratitude is best understood as a phenomenon that begins within the self but has the potential to cascade beyond the self and emerge at higher levels of analysis. After reviewing the key theories that underpin gratitude scholarship, we explore existing research on gratitude's functions. We follow with a consideration of gratitude's antecedents. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of promising trajectories for future research, emphasizing important directions for both theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144736764","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 : 2025-07-29DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-070545
Benjamin Schneider, Mark G. Ehrhart, William H. Macey
This article first reviews the history of the research on organizational climate and then organizational culture with definitions of each. The research approaches to both constructs are explicated in some detail, with climate being characterized by survey/quantitative approaches and culture by qualitative methods. Early climate struggles with levels and validity issues are followed by summaries of research since the 1980s on specific outcomes such as service and safety. Culture research has pursued the deeper meanings employees attach to organizational norms and values without attention to specific outcomes. As these different approaches to understanding organizations yield different learnings, we propose integrating research on the two constructs as a useful basis for understanding how people in organizations interpret decisions, actions, and what is important for organization effectiveness. We conclude by exploring the potential benefits of such an integrative approach for understanding and facilitating organizational change and effectiveness.
{"title":"Organizational Climate and Culture: History, Current Status, Integration, and Change","authors":"Benjamin Schneider, Mark G. Ehrhart, William H. Macey","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-070545","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020924-070545","url":null,"abstract":"This article first reviews the history of the research on organizational climate and then organizational culture with definitions of each. The research approaches to both constructs are explicated in some detail, with climate being characterized by survey/quantitative approaches and culture by qualitative methods. Early climate struggles with levels and validity issues are followed by summaries of research since the 1980s on specific outcomes such as service and safety. Culture research has pursued the deeper meanings employees attach to organizational norms and values without attention to specific outcomes. As these different approaches to understanding organizations yield different learnings, we propose integrating research on the two constructs as a useful basis for understanding how people in organizations interpret decisions, actions, and what is important for organization effectiveness. We conclude by exploring the potential benefits of such an integrative approach for understanding and facilitating organizational change and effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144736765","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：