Pub Date : 2022-01-21DOI: 10.1146/annurev-op-09-110221-100001
F. Morgeson
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"F. Morgeson","doi":"10.1146/annurev-op-09-110221-100001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-op-09-110221-100001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48137354","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 : 2022-01-21DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091040
U. Stephan
How can culture help explain persistent cross-country differences in innovation and entrepreneurship? This overview of cross-cultural innovation/entrepreneurship research draws on the most prominent cultural frameworks (by Hofstede, Schwartz, GLOBE, and Gelfand and colleagues). After outlining similarities and differences between these frameworks, I discuss theoretical perspectives of how culture shapes innovation/entrepreneurship (culture fit, culture misfit, cultural social support, and culture as a boundary condition) and give an overview of empirical research on culture and innovation/entrepreneurship. I conclude by outlining opportunities and best practices for future research and practical implications.
{"title":"Cross-Cultural Innovation and Entrepreneurship","authors":"U. Stephan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091040","url":null,"abstract":"How can culture help explain persistent cross-country differences in innovation and entrepreneurship? This overview of cross-cultural innovation/entrepreneurship research draws on the most prominent cultural frameworks (by Hofstede, Schwartz, GLOBE, and Gelfand and colleagues). After outlining similarities and differences between these frameworks, I discuss theoretical perspectives of how culture shapes innovation/entrepreneurship (culture fit, culture misfit, cultural social support, and culture as a boundary condition) and give an overview of empirical research on culture and innovation/entrepreneurship. I conclude by outlining opportunities and best practices for future research and practical implications.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43505105","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 : 2022-01-21DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506
G. Gigerenzer, J. Reb, S. Luan
Heuristics are fast, frugal, and accurate strategies that enable rather than limit decision making under uncertainty. Uncertainty, as opposed to calculable risk, is characteristic of most organizational contexts. We review existing research and offer a descriptive and prescriptive theoretical framework to integrate the current patchwork of heuristics scattered across various areas of organizational studies. Research on the adaptive toolbox is descriptive, identifying the repertoire of heuristics on which individuals, teams, and organizations rely. Research on ecological rationality is prescriptive, specifying the conditions under which a given heuristic performs well, that is, when it is smart. Our review finds a relatively small but rapidly developing field. We identify promising future research directions, including research on how culture shapes the use of heuristics and how heuristics shape organizational culture. We also outline an educational program for managers and leaders that follows the general approach of “Don't avoid heuristics—learn how to use them.”
{"title":"Smart Heuristics for Individuals, Teams, and Organizations","authors":"G. Gigerenzer, J. Reb, S. Luan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506","url":null,"abstract":"Heuristics are fast, frugal, and accurate strategies that enable rather than limit decision making under uncertainty. Uncertainty, as opposed to calculable risk, is characteristic of most organizational contexts. We review existing research and offer a descriptive and prescriptive theoretical framework to integrate the current patchwork of heuristics scattered across various areas of organizational studies. Research on the adaptive toolbox is descriptive, identifying the repertoire of heuristics on which individuals, teams, and organizations rely. Research on ecological rationality is prescriptive, specifying the conditions under which a given heuristic performs well, that is, when it is smart. Our review finds a relatively small but rapidly developing field. We identify promising future research directions, including research on how culture shapes the use of heuristics and how heuristics shape organizational culture. We also outline an educational program for managers and leaders that follows the general approach of “Don't avoid heuristics—learn how to use them.”","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44822255","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 : 2021-11-16DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055523
H. Bowles, Bobbi Thomason, Inmaculada Macias-Alonso
A person's gender is not a reliable predictor of their negotiation behavior or outcomes, because the degree and character of gender dynamics in negotiation vary across situations. Systematic effects of gender on negotiation are best predicted by situational characteristics that cue gendered behavior or increase reliance on gendered standards for agreement. In this review, we illuminate two levers that heighten or constrain the potential for gender effects in organizational negotiations: ( a) the salience and relevance of gender within the negotiating context and ( b) the degree of ambiguity (i.e., lack of objective standards or information) with regard to what is negotiable, how to negotiate, or who the parties are as negotiators. In our summary, we review practical implications of this research for organizational leaders and individuals who are motivated to reduce gender-based inequities in negotiation outcomes. In conclusion, we suggest future directions for research on gender in organizational negotiations. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"When Gender Matters in Organizational Negotiations","authors":"H. Bowles, Bobbi Thomason, Inmaculada Macias-Alonso","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055523","url":null,"abstract":"A person's gender is not a reliable predictor of their negotiation behavior or outcomes, because the degree and character of gender dynamics in negotiation vary across situations. Systematic effects of gender on negotiation are best predicted by situational characteristics that cue gendered behavior or increase reliance on gendered standards for agreement. In this review, we illuminate two levers that heighten or constrain the potential for gender effects in organizational negotiations: ( a) the salience and relevance of gender within the negotiating context and ( b) the degree of ambiguity (i.e., lack of objective standards or information) with regard to what is negotiable, how to negotiate, or who the parties are as negotiators. In our summary, we review practical implications of this research for organizational leaders and individuals who are motivated to reduce gender-based inequities in negotiation outcomes. In conclusion, we suggest future directions for research on gender in organizational negotiations. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41357352","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 : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091227
A. Carton
I review the empirical literature on leadership, focusing on papers published since 2010. To do so, I introduce a framework composed of two features: whether theories ( a) involve the study of leaders or leading (i.e., the person versus the process) and ( b) conceptualize leadership as a cause or a consequence (i.e., an independent versus dependent variable). This framework can enable future research to accumulate in a more programmatic fashion and help scholars determine where their own studies are located within the landscape of leadership research. I end the review by critically evaluating existing work, arguing that the most popular subcategory of leadership research—lumped conceptualizations of leading, in which scholars examine multiple leader behaviors within a single construct—has significant limitations and may need to be replaced by a greater focus on split conceptualizations of leading, wherein scholars isolate single leader behaviors. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"The Science of Leadership: A Theoretical Model and Research Agenda","authors":"A. Carton","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091227","url":null,"abstract":"I review the empirical literature on leadership, focusing on papers published since 2010. To do so, I introduce a framework composed of two features: whether theories ( a) involve the study of leaders or leading (i.e., the person versus the process) and ( b) conceptualize leadership as a cause or a consequence (i.e., an independent versus dependent variable). This framework can enable future research to accumulate in a more programmatic fashion and help scholars determine where their own studies are located within the landscape of leadership research. I end the review by critically evaluating existing work, arguing that the most popular subcategory of leadership research—lumped conceptualizations of leading, in which scholars examine multiple leader behaviors within a single construct—has significant limitations and may need to be replaced by a greater focus on split conceptualizations of leading, wherein scholars isolate single leader behaviors. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47981784","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 : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062016
T. Simons, H. Leroy, L. Nishii
Behavioral integrity (BI) describes the extent to which an observer believes that an actor's words tend to align with their actions. It considers whether the actor is seen as keeping promises and enacting the same values they espouse. Although the construct of BI was introduced in 1999 and developed more fully in 2002, it builds on the work of earlier scholars that discussed related notions of hypocrisy, credibility, and gaps between espousal and enactment. Since the 2002 paper, a growing literature has established the BI construct, largely but not exclusively in the leadership realm, as a critical antecedent to positive attitudes such as trust and commitment, positive behaviors such as turnover and performance, and as a moderator of the effectiveness of leadership initiatives. BI is by definition subjectively assessed, and perceptions of BI are susceptible to various forms of perceptual biases. A variety of factors appear to affect whether observers interpret a particular word-action alignment or gap as an indication of the actor's high or low BI. In this article, we examine and synthesize this literature and suggest directions for future research. We discuss the early history of BI research and then examine contemporary research at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. We assess what we have learned and what methodological challenges and theoretical questions remain to be addressed. We hope in this way to stimulate further research on this consequential construct. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Revisiting Behavioral Integrity: Progress and New Directions After 20 Years","authors":"T. Simons, H. Leroy, L. Nishii","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062016","url":null,"abstract":"Behavioral integrity (BI) describes the extent to which an observer believes that an actor's words tend to align with their actions. It considers whether the actor is seen as keeping promises and enacting the same values they espouse. Although the construct of BI was introduced in 1999 and developed more fully in 2002, it builds on the work of earlier scholars that discussed related notions of hypocrisy, credibility, and gaps between espousal and enactment. Since the 2002 paper, a growing literature has established the BI construct, largely but not exclusively in the leadership realm, as a critical antecedent to positive attitudes such as trust and commitment, positive behaviors such as turnover and performance, and as a moderator of the effectiveness of leadership initiatives. BI is by definition subjectively assessed, and perceptions of BI are susceptible to various forms of perceptual biases. A variety of factors appear to affect whether observers interpret a particular word-action alignment or gap as an indication of the actor's high or low BI. In this article, we examine and synthesize this literature and suggest directions for future research. We discuss the early history of BI research and then examine contemporary research at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. We assess what we have learned and what methodological challenges and theoretical questions remain to be addressed. We hope in this way to stimulate further research on this consequential construct. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48474979","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 : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083120
Christopher D. Nye
Recent research has re-emphasized the importance of vocational interests for understanding workplace attitudes and behavior. As a result, there is a renewed interest in the assessment of vocational interests in organizations. Numerous interest assessments have been developed over the past century, and they are now administered to millions of people throughout the world. Nevertheless, there is still work to be done, particularly as interest assessments are increasingly being used in organizational settings. This article reviews developments in interest assessments and discusses the implications of their use for both research and practice. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of examining vocational interests in organizational contexts and proposes future research directions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Assessing Interests in the Twenty-First-Century Workforce: Building on a Century of Interest Measurement","authors":"Christopher D. Nye","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-083120","url":null,"abstract":"Recent research has re-emphasized the importance of vocational interests for understanding workplace attitudes and behavior. As a result, there is a renewed interest in the assessment of vocational interests in organizations. Numerous interest assessments have been developed over the past century, and they are now administered to millions of people throughout the world. Nevertheless, there is still work to be done, particularly as interest assessments are increasingly being used in organizational settings. This article reviews developments in interest assessments and discusses the implications of their use for both research and practice. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of examining vocational interests in organizational contexts and proposes future research directions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42016500","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 : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090657
Frank Bosco
In some fields, research findings are rigorously curated in a common language and made available to enable future use and large-scale, robust insights. Organizational researchers have begun such efforts [e.g., metaBUS ( http://metabus.org/ )] but are far from the efficient, comprehensive curation seen in areas such as cognitive neuroscience or genetics. This review provides a sample of insights from research curation efforts in organizational research, psychology, and beyond—insights not possible by even large-scale, substantive meta-analyses. Efforts are classified as either science-of-science research or large-scale, substantive research. The various methods used for information extraction (e.g., from PDF files) and classification (e.g., using consensus ontologies) is reviewed. The review concludes with a series of recommendations for developing and leveraging the available corpus of organizational research to speed scientific progress. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Accumulating Knowledge in the Organizational Sciences","authors":"Frank Bosco","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090657","url":null,"abstract":"In some fields, research findings are rigorously curated in a common language and made available to enable future use and large-scale, robust insights. Organizational researchers have begun such efforts [e.g., metaBUS ( http://metabus.org/ )] but are far from the efficient, comprehensive curation seen in areas such as cognitive neuroscience or genetics. This review provides a sample of insights from research curation efforts in organizational research, psychology, and beyond—insights not possible by even large-scale, substantive meta-analyses. Efforts are classified as either science-of-science research or large-scale, substantive research. The various methods used for information extraction (e.g., from PDF files) and classification (e.g., using consensus ontologies) is reviewed. The review concludes with a series of recommendations for developing and leveraging the available corpus of organizational research to speed scientific progress. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44751870","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 : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091122
Ayelet Fishbach, Kaitlin Woolley
Intrinsic motivation (IM) is key for persistence at work. When they are intrinsically motivated, people experience work activities as an end in itself, such that the activity and its goal collide. The result is increased interest and enjoyment of work activities. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge on IM, including studies within organizational, cognitive, and social psychology. We distinguish our structural perspective, which defines IM as the overlap between means and ends (e.g., the means-ends fusion model), from content-based approaches to study IM. We specifically discuss three questions: ( a) What is IM and why does it matter, ( b) how can individuals and organizations increase IM, and ( c) what biases and misconceptions do employees and managers hold about IM? Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"The Structure of Intrinsic Motivation","authors":"Ayelet Fishbach, Kaitlin Woolley","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091122","url":null,"abstract":"Intrinsic motivation (IM) is key for persistence at work. When they are intrinsically motivated, people experience work activities as an end in itself, such that the activity and its goal collide. The result is increased interest and enjoyment of work activities. In this article, we review the current state of knowledge on IM, including studies within organizational, cognitive, and social psychology. We distinguish our structural perspective, which defines IM as the overlap between means and ends (e.g., the means-ends fusion model), from content-based approaches to study IM. We specifically discuss three questions: ( a) What is IM and why does it matter, ( b) how can individuals and organizations increase IM, and ( c) what biases and misconceptions do employees and managers hold about IM? Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41295157","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 : 2021-11-04DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091423
Glen E. Kreiner, C. A. Mihelcic, Sven Mikolon
Stigmas pervade organizational life. A stigma is a discrediting social evaluation that devalues an individual or group. We review research on stigmatized work and stigmatized workers, with a particular emphasis on how people become stigmatized and what they (and others) do about it. To do so, we connect stigma to other concepts in its nomological net and compare multiple models of stigma dynamics. We consider the intertwining nature of stigma and identity/image, how context affects stigma, and how stigma is managed by both the stigmatized and the nonstigmatized. We also offer critiques of key blind spots in workplace stigma research and point toward future research in this area that is more interconnected with other literatures and more inclusive of overlooked populations. Our vantage point is that workplace stigma continues to be an exciting domain of research with a high potential for theoretical discoveries and practical applications. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Stigmatized Work and Stigmatized Workers","authors":"Glen E. Kreiner, C. A. Mihelcic, Sven Mikolon","doi":"10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091423","url":null,"abstract":"Stigmas pervade organizational life. A stigma is a discrediting social evaluation that devalues an individual or group. We review research on stigmatized work and stigmatized workers, with a particular emphasis on how people become stigmatized and what they (and others) do about it. To do so, we connect stigma to other concepts in its nomological net and compare multiple models of stigma dynamics. We consider the intertwining nature of stigma and identity/image, how context affects stigma, and how stigma is managed by both the stigmatized and the nonstigmatized. We also offer critiques of key blind spots in workplace stigma research and point toward future research in this area that is more interconnected with other literatures and more inclusive of overlooked populations. Our vantage point is that workplace stigma continues to be an exciting domain of research with a high potential for theoretical discoveries and practical applications. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":48019,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46416624","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：