Pub Date : 2024-05-07DOI: 10.1177/10596011241253088
Zhe Zhang, Xinyi Chen, Xingze Jia
Although prior studies have begun to focus on how employees recover from abusive supervision experiences, how leaders ruminate on and recover from their abusive supervision remains unclear. On the basis of cognitive theories of rumination, we propose that abusive supervision is linked to two forms of rumination after work (i.e., affect-focused rumination and problem-solving pondering), which subsequently influence leaders’ next-day work engagement. Specifically, we suggest that affect-focused rumination and problem-solving pondering will hinder and facilitate leaders’ next-day work engagement, respectively. We also identify the past focus and future focus of leaders as moderators in the relationship between abusive supervision and the two forms of rumination. Using an experience sampling methodology for 10 workdays with data from 59 leaders, we find that leaders’ abusive supervision hinders their next-day work engagement through affect-focused rumination, which is aggravated by past focus and mitigated by future focus. However, the problem-solving pondering path is not supported. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings and proposing future research directions.
{"title":"I Did Something Wrong: How and When Leaders Ruminate and Recover from Their Abusive Supervision","authors":"Zhe Zhang, Xinyi Chen, Xingze Jia","doi":"10.1177/10596011241253088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241253088","url":null,"abstract":"Although prior studies have begun to focus on how employees recover from abusive supervision experiences, how leaders ruminate on and recover from their abusive supervision remains unclear. On the basis of cognitive theories of rumination, we propose that abusive supervision is linked to two forms of rumination after work (i.e., affect-focused rumination and problem-solving pondering), which subsequently influence leaders’ next-day work engagement. Specifically, we suggest that affect-focused rumination and problem-solving pondering will hinder and facilitate leaders’ next-day work engagement, respectively. We also identify the past focus and future focus of leaders as moderators in the relationship between abusive supervision and the two forms of rumination. Using an experience sampling methodology for 10 workdays with data from 59 leaders, we find that leaders’ abusive supervision hinders their next-day work engagement through affect-focused rumination, which is aggravated by past focus and mitigated by future focus. However, the problem-solving pondering path is not supported. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of our findings and proposing future research directions.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140938084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-29DOI: 10.1177/10596011241253062
Yannick Griep
{"title":"Riddle Me This: What Do Leader Green Behaviors, Inclusion, and Workplace Gossip Have in Common? They are GOM’s 2024 Best Papers!","authors":"Yannick Griep","doi":"10.1177/10596011241253062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241253062","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140838086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-26DOI: 10.1177/10596011241249514
Candice L. Thomas, Haley R. Cobb, Ryszard J. Koziel, Christiane Spitzmueller
In this paper, we provide a fiery critique of the tendency for management research to adopt gender-blind perspectives and call on management scholars to step up and call workplaces what they are: gendered. Blending perspectives from diversity scholarship, organizational sciences, popular culture, feminism, etc., we provide a multifaceted argument for why ignoring gender in our work is harmful to our field and to gender equity efforts.
{"title":"Turning a Blind Eye to Gender at Work: A Call to Action for Management Scholarship","authors":"Candice L. Thomas, Haley R. Cobb, Ryszard J. Koziel, Christiane Spitzmueller","doi":"10.1177/10596011241249514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241249514","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we provide a fiery critique of the tendency for management research to adopt gender-blind perspectives and call on management scholars to step up and call workplaces what they are: gendered. Blending perspectives from diversity scholarship, organizational sciences, popular culture, feminism, etc., we provide a multifaceted argument for why ignoring gender in our work is harmful to our field and to gender equity efforts.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140804752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-15DOI: 10.1177/10596011241246655
Jeremy L. Schoen, Marieke C. Schilpzand, Jennifer L. Bowler, Thomas A. O’Neill
We develop theory using a novel conceptualization of creative personality to explain how implicit creative personality predicts the development of conflict in teams. Specifically, we contend that implicit creative personality is useful for predicting differing profiles of team conflict that subsequently predict important team outcomes, including performance. Informed by the complexity perspective on conflict, we demonstrate that higher team average levels of implicit creative personality are associated with functional profiles of team conflict that are indicative of team norms of ‘lively debate’ and a robust work ethic, both of which are ultimately beneficial to multiple aspects of team effectiveness. The findings from two samples (including more than 900 individuals in over 240 teams) of undergraduate students largely support our theory. This investigation of the influence of implicit aspects of creative personality on team effectiveness through team conflict offers clarity regarding the way in which creative personality affects team processes and team outcomes. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
{"title":"Creative Personality, Team Conflict Profiles, and Team Outcomes","authors":"Jeremy L. Schoen, Marieke C. Schilpzand, Jennifer L. Bowler, Thomas A. O’Neill","doi":"10.1177/10596011241246655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241246655","url":null,"abstract":"We develop theory using a novel conceptualization of creative personality to explain how implicit creative personality predicts the development of conflict in teams. Specifically, we contend that implicit creative personality is useful for predicting differing profiles of team conflict that subsequently predict important team outcomes, including performance. Informed by the complexity perspective on conflict, we demonstrate that higher team average levels of implicit creative personality are associated with functional profiles of team conflict that are indicative of team norms of ‘lively debate’ and a robust work ethic, both of which are ultimately beneficial to multiple aspects of team effectiveness. The findings from two samples (including more than 900 individuals in over 240 teams) of undergraduate students largely support our theory. This investigation of the influence of implicit aspects of creative personality on team effectiveness through team conflict offers clarity regarding the way in which creative personality affects team processes and team outcomes. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140563831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-08DOI: 10.1177/10596011241246303
Jurgen Willems, Kenn Meyfroodt
{"title":"Group Research: Why are we Throwing Away the Best of our Observations?","authors":"Jurgen Willems, Kenn Meyfroodt","doi":"10.1177/10596011241246303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241246303","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140563660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-03DOI: 10.1177/10596011241238492
Agustín Molina, Víctor Valls, Vicente Martínez-Tur, Russell Cropanzano
Team justice climate refers to group-level perceptions of fairness that teammates display toward one another. Despite its potential to promote performance, available empirical evidence is inconsistent and has remained in conceptual isolation from research on organizational climate and team-based models for analyzing group effectiveness. Hence, important questions have languished without an answer. First, organizational climate research suggests that climate strength, the extent to which team members share consensus as to their treatment, could moderate the effect of climate level, at least in some circumstances. If this is so, prior team justice research is misleading, given that climate strength has yet to be taken into account. Therefore, we examine whether the level (or amount) of team justice will have a greater effect on team performance to the extent that the climate is also strong. Second, despite the relevance of team inputs to better understand team processes, very little is known about the antecedents of team justice climate level and strength. This could be problematic as research on team effectiveness suggests that team faultlines, hypothetical dividing lines that may split a team into homogenous subgroups, can alter group processes and performance. Based on this research, we argue that demographic faultlines predict not only the climate level of team justice but also its strength. Two independent studies with teams from the healthcare industry showed that faultlines reduce the strength, but not the level, of team justice climate. These faultlines, in turn, lower the extent to which climate level translates into effective performance.
{"title":"Team Justice as a Consequence of Demographic Faultlines: Climate Level and Strength","authors":"Agustín Molina, Víctor Valls, Vicente Martínez-Tur, Russell Cropanzano","doi":"10.1177/10596011241238492","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241238492","url":null,"abstract":"Team justice climate refers to group-level perceptions of fairness that teammates display toward one another. Despite its potential to promote performance, available empirical evidence is inconsistent and has remained in conceptual isolation from research on organizational climate and team-based models for analyzing group effectiveness. Hence, important questions have languished without an answer. First, organizational climate research suggests that climate strength, the extent to which team members share consensus as to their treatment, could moderate the effect of climate level, at least in some circumstances. If this is so, prior team justice research is misleading, given that climate strength has yet to be taken into account. Therefore, we examine whether the level (or amount) of team justice will have a greater effect on team performance to the extent that the climate is also strong. Second, despite the relevance of team inputs to better understand team processes, very little is known about the antecedents of team justice climate level and strength. This could be problematic as research on team effectiveness suggests that team faultlines, hypothetical dividing lines that may split a team into homogenous subgroups, can alter group processes and performance. Based on this research, we argue that demographic faultlines predict not only the climate level of team justice but also its strength. Two independent studies with teams from the healthcare industry showed that faultlines reduce the strength, but not the level, of team justice climate. These faultlines, in turn, lower the extent to which climate level translates into effective performance.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140563763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-13DOI: 10.1177/10596011241237841
Djurre Holtrop, Christine Soo, Marylène Gagné, Darja Kragt, Patrick D. Dunlop, Aleksandra Luksyte
Volunteer involving organizations (VIOs) play a vital role in many societies. Yet, turnover among volunteers remains a persistent struggle and VIOs still do not have a good understanding of why volunteers leave. In response, we employed a mixed-methods approach to explore why volunteers consider leaving. By coding textual responses of Australian State Emergency Services and Scouting volunteers ( n = 252 and 2235) on an annual engagement survey, we found seven overarching reasons to consider leaving these VIOs: Conflict, high demands and/or low resources, lack of fit, lack of inclusion, personal commitments and circumstances, poor communication and organizational practices, and poor leadership. When contrasted to the reasons that employees leave organizations for, the lack of inclusion and poor communication and organizational practices seem to be uniquely salient reasons that volunteers consider leaving for. Subsequently, guided by the Proximal Withdrawal States theory and using quantitative data from the Scouts sample, we investigated how reasons to consider turnover can predict turnover intentions and turnover behavior. First, volunteers in different withdrawal states cited different potential turnover reasons. For example, volunteers who ‘wanted to stay, but felt they had to leave’ cited personal commitments and circumstances more frequently than those in different withdrawal states. Second, we found that reasons to consider turnover explained little variance in turnover behavior one year later.
{"title":"Exploring Volunteer Turnover Reasons, Intentions, and Behavior","authors":"Djurre Holtrop, Christine Soo, Marylène Gagné, Darja Kragt, Patrick D. Dunlop, Aleksandra Luksyte","doi":"10.1177/10596011241237841","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241237841","url":null,"abstract":"Volunteer involving organizations (VIOs) play a vital role in many societies. Yet, turnover among volunteers remains a persistent struggle and VIOs still do not have a good understanding of why volunteers leave. In response, we employed a mixed-methods approach to explore why volunteers consider leaving. By coding textual responses of Australian State Emergency Services and Scouting volunteers ( n = 252 and 2235) on an annual engagement survey, we found seven overarching reasons to consider leaving these VIOs: Conflict, high demands and/or low resources, lack of fit, lack of inclusion, personal commitments and circumstances, poor communication and organizational practices, and poor leadership. When contrasted to the reasons that employees leave organizations for, the lack of inclusion and poor communication and organizational practices seem to be uniquely salient reasons that volunteers consider leaving for. Subsequently, guided by the Proximal Withdrawal States theory and using quantitative data from the Scouts sample, we investigated how reasons to consider turnover can predict turnover intentions and turnover behavior. First, volunteers in different withdrawal states cited different potential turnover reasons. For example, volunteers who ‘wanted to stay, but felt they had to leave’ cited personal commitments and circumstances more frequently than those in different withdrawal states. Second, we found that reasons to consider turnover explained little variance in turnover behavior one year later.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140155634","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-09DOI: 10.1177/10596011241238796
Yannick Griep, Tinne Vander Elst, Johannes M. Kraak, Samantha Hansen, Elizabeth M. Beekman
Although scholars and practitioners argue that organizations should provide justice information in the aftermath of a psychological contract breach (PC breach) to prevent or reduce violation feelings, it remains unclear whether that information should be provided within a few hours, days, or weeks following a PC breach. We estimated a 2-level time-lagged regression model on experience sampling data from 76 (226 observations), 70 (213 observations), and 70 (344 observations) employees with different intervals to test the durability of informational justice as a moderator on the PC breach-violation feelings relationship. We found that justice information should be provided in close temporal proximity (i.e., within the same day; Study 1) of PC breach to reduce violation feelings. In contrast, neither justice information provided the day (Study 2) or week (Study 3) after a PC breach successfully moderated the PC breach-violation feelings relationship. The current paper underscores the importance of being informationally just in close temporal proximity to a PC breach in line with resolution velocity as an indicator of the effectiveness of the recovery process. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
尽管学者和从业人员认为，组织应在心理契约违约（PC违约）后提供公正信息，以防止或减少违约情绪，但是否应在PC违约后数小时、数天或数周内提供公正信息，目前仍不清楚。我们对来自 76 名（226 个观测值）、70 名（213 个观测值）和 70 名（344 个观测值）员工的不同时间间隔的经验抽样数据进行了两级时滞回归模型估计，以检验信息公正作为 PC 违约与违规感受关系调节因素的持久性。我们发现，公正信息应在 PC 违规事件发生的近段时间内（即同一天内；研究 1）提供，以减少违规感受。与此相反，在 PC 被侵犯后当天（研究 2）或一周（研究 3）提供的公正信息都不能成功调节 PC 被侵犯与侵犯感之间的关系。本文强调了在发生 PC 违规事件时，在时间上接近解决速度的公正信息作为恢复过程有效性指标的重要性。我们讨论了这些发现的理论和实践意义。
{"title":"Temporal Proximity Matters: The Impact of Justice Information Timing on Psychological Contract Breach Resolution","authors":"Yannick Griep, Tinne Vander Elst, Johannes M. Kraak, Samantha Hansen, Elizabeth M. Beekman","doi":"10.1177/10596011241238796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241238796","url":null,"abstract":"Although scholars and practitioners argue that organizations should provide justice information in the aftermath of a psychological contract breach (PC breach) to prevent or reduce violation feelings, it remains unclear whether that information should be provided within a few hours, days, or weeks following a PC breach. We estimated a 2-level time-lagged regression model on experience sampling data from 76 (226 observations), 70 (213 observations), and 70 (344 observations) employees with different intervals to test the durability of informational justice as a moderator on the PC breach-violation feelings relationship. We found that justice information should be provided in close temporal proximity (i.e., within the same day; Study 1) of PC breach to reduce violation feelings. In contrast, neither justice information provided the day (Study 2) or week (Study 3) after a PC breach successfully moderated the PC breach-violation feelings relationship. The current paper underscores the importance of being informationally just in close temporal proximity to a PC breach in line with resolution velocity as an indicator of the effectiveness of the recovery process. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these findings.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140076405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-09DOI: 10.1177/10596011241236994
Christopher O. L. H. Porter, Brittney Amber, Adam C. Stoverink
Shared leadership should have many benefits for teams. This study addresses the call to better understand its effects by extending research suggesting that collective efficacy mediates the effects of shared leadership on team performance. Specifically, we explore the extent to which team action processes explain how and why the collective efficacy that emerges as a result of shared leadership impacts team outcomes. We also add team learning outcomes to the team effectiveness outcomes that are ultimately affected by shared leadership because the failure to systematically explore learning outcomes ignores the reality that today’s work teams are often asked to share leadership to better move from task to task, span unfamiliar boundaries, and continuously learn. Using a sample of 85 teams that worked on a decision-making task in a laboratory setting, we found that teams performed better and learned faster to the extent that they shared leadership. Specifically, shared leadership increased teams’ collective efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, increased teams’ engagement in action processes and resulted in higher performance and less time required to learn. Supplemental tests demonstrated that the effects we found could not be explained by other teamwork processes (i.e., transition and interpersonal processes). We conclude by discussing the need to broaden the search for the consequences of shared leadership, the implications of our findings for theorizing and testing midlevel perspectives on teamwork processes, and by offering additional recommendations for future work on team learning.
{"title":"The effects of shared leadership and collective efficacy on team performance and learning: The mediating role of team action processes","authors":"Christopher O. L. H. Porter, Brittney Amber, Adam C. Stoverink","doi":"10.1177/10596011241236994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241236994","url":null,"abstract":"Shared leadership should have many benefits for teams. This study addresses the call to better understand its effects by extending research suggesting that collective efficacy mediates the effects of shared leadership on team performance. Specifically, we explore the extent to which team action processes explain how and why the collective efficacy that emerges as a result of shared leadership impacts team outcomes. We also add team learning outcomes to the team effectiveness outcomes that are ultimately affected by shared leadership because the failure to systematically explore learning outcomes ignores the reality that today’s work teams are often asked to share leadership to better move from task to task, span unfamiliar boundaries, and continuously learn. Using a sample of 85 teams that worked on a decision-making task in a laboratory setting, we found that teams performed better and learned faster to the extent that they shared leadership. Specifically, shared leadership increased teams’ collective efficacy beliefs, which, in turn, increased teams’ engagement in action processes and resulted in higher performance and less time required to learn. Supplemental tests demonstrated that the effects we found could not be explained by other teamwork processes (i.e., transition and interpersonal processes). We conclude by discussing the need to broaden the search for the consequences of shared leadership, the implications of our findings for theorizing and testing midlevel perspectives on teamwork processes, and by offering additional recommendations for future work on team learning.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140155633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-06DOI: 10.1177/10596011241239465
Tammy L. Rapp, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Walter D. Davis, Melissa Carsten, Lucy L. Gilson
{"title":"The Group & Organization Management 2024 Special Conceptual Issue: Applying New Perspectives to Advance our Understanding of Traditional Organizational Relationships","authors":"Tammy L. Rapp, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Walter D. Davis, Melissa Carsten, Lucy L. Gilson","doi":"10.1177/10596011241239465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011241239465","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140075567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：