Pub Date : 2022-09-26DOI: 10.1177/10596011221117904
Dotun Ayeni, Sara Chaudhry, Maryam Aldossari
I-deals (that is, personalised, non-standard employment arrangements negotiated between employees and their employers) arise at different stages of the employment lifecycle. I-deals can vary by timing, such as those created before hire (ex-ante) versus after hire (ex-post). However, scholars have not fully considered the impact of the temporal context (environmental, social, economic, individual) on I-deals or how a range of organisational actors may respond to enabling/constraining conditions when creating I-deals. Our paper focuses on the under-explored issue of I-deals’ timing by applying the theoretical lens of institutional entrepreneurship (IE). Key IE concepts enable a more critical understanding of broader temporal context impacts and the role of various actors (I-dealers, organisational agents) in creating I-deals. Drawing on a multicase study of 3 Nigerian organisations (62 semi-structured interviews, including fieldnotes and organisation-specific documents), our data revealed that field-level conditions and actors’ social positions interact to highlight (i) several distinctive temporal contexts, (ii) with differential impacts on I-deals’ timing and subsequently (iii) organisational actors adopting a range of tactics in response to enabling/constraining conditions. Based on these findings, we offer a theoretical model that reconceptualises I-deals’ timing by specifically focusing on the invisible concept of time. Finally, we discuss our study’s implications for I-deal research and offer future research directions and recommendations for practice.
{"title":"Temporal contexts and actors vis-a-vis I-deals' timing and creation: Evidence from Nigeria","authors":"Dotun Ayeni, Sara Chaudhry, Maryam Aldossari","doi":"10.1177/10596011221117904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221117904","url":null,"abstract":"I-deals (that is, personalised, non-standard employment arrangements negotiated between employees and their employers) arise at different stages of the employment lifecycle. I-deals can vary by timing, such as those created before hire (ex-ante) versus after hire (ex-post). However, scholars have not fully considered the impact of the temporal context (environmental, social, economic, individual) on I-deals or how a range of organisational actors may respond to enabling/constraining conditions when creating I-deals. Our paper focuses on the under-explored issue of I-deals’ timing by applying the theoretical lens of institutional entrepreneurship (IE). Key IE concepts enable a more critical understanding of broader temporal context impacts and the role of various actors (I-dealers, organisational agents) in creating I-deals. Drawing on a multicase study of 3 Nigerian organisations (62 semi-structured interviews, including fieldnotes and organisation-specific documents), our data revealed that field-level conditions and actors’ social positions interact to highlight (i) several distinctive temporal contexts, (ii) with differential impacts on I-deals’ timing and subsequently (iii) organisational actors adopting a range of tactics in response to enabling/constraining conditions. Based on these findings, we offer a theoretical model that reconceptualises I-deals’ timing by specifically focusing on the invisible concept of time. Finally, we discuss our study’s implications for I-deal research and offer future research directions and recommendations for practice.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"262 - 316"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48067244","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 : 2022-09-21DOI: 10.1177/10596011221127107
Yannick Griep, J. M. Kraak, Elizabeth M. Beekman
In today’s world, organisations face an ongoing paradox: relying on (near) slave labour in South-East Asia to satisfy clients’ desire for cheap clothing, or producing locally and thus charging a premium price? Sometimes these paradoxes have no ‘better alternative’ (making a choice between the plague or cholera); continuing to rely on fossil fuels such as oil and gas to keep our cars running or relying on children in sub-Saharan Africa to mine the necessary cobalt minerals to create our electric cars? Debate on such topics is present in the sustainability literature. Sustainability refers to a paradigm involving strategic long-term thinking on environmental, social and economic dimensions in order to meet the companies’ current needs ‘without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). In other words, sustainability is traditionally defined as integrating reasonable economic, environmental and social growth opportunities into business strategies (following the same logic as the famous triple-p bottom line that refers to planet, profit and people and which is widely used in CSR; Gallagher et al., 2018). Once just a passing fad, ‘sustainability’ can now be found everywhere and has
{"title":"Sustainability is Dead, Long Live Sustainability! Paving the Way to Include ‘The People’ in Sustainability","authors":"Yannick Griep, J. M. Kraak, Elizabeth M. Beekman","doi":"10.1177/10596011221127107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221127107","url":null,"abstract":"In today’s world, organisations face an ongoing paradox: relying on (near) slave labour in South-East Asia to satisfy clients’ desire for cheap clothing, or producing locally and thus charging a premium price? Sometimes these paradoxes have no ‘better alternative’ (making a choice between the plague or cholera); continuing to rely on fossil fuels such as oil and gas to keep our cars running or relying on children in sub-Saharan Africa to mine the necessary cobalt minerals to create our electric cars? Debate on such topics is present in the sustainability literature. Sustainability refers to a paradigm involving strategic long-term thinking on environmental, social and economic dimensions in order to meet the companies’ current needs ‘without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). In other words, sustainability is traditionally defined as integrating reasonable economic, environmental and social growth opportunities into business strategies (following the same logic as the famous triple-p bottom line that refers to planet, profit and people and which is widely used in CSR; Gallagher et al., 2018). Once just a passing fad, ‘sustainability’ can now be found everywhere and has","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"966 - 980"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46500156","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 : 2022-08-22DOI: 10.1177/10596011221117436
Kevin S. Cruz, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Yannick Griep
GOMusings were born of the first and second authors complain-, um, let’s say “discussing” for now (sounds more “academic,” right?), various aspects of management research and the publication process over the course of about a decade. These discussions often took the form of rants, and in some cases, it seemed like we might actually have had a point. As time passed and we became members of the GOM editorial team in various capacities, it occurred to us that (1) other people probably have similar discussions and (hopefully) more and better ideas; (2) we needed to come up with some ways to distinguish GOM from other journals; (3) we needed to get new, well-informed, and interesting ideas into the literature; and (4) that (2) and (3) might not happen through the typical article format. So, we came up with the idea of GOMusings because it seems to address 1-4. GOMusings are expected to be well-informed rants related to management research and/or the publication process that are written in the author’s voice rather than your typical academese (emphasis on well-informed and management–we do not want to hear about your department chair, although we’re sure that s/he is a jerk and it’s not just your hostile attribution bias – kidding (or maybe not?)!). Yannick Griep, moving into the Editor-in-Chief role next, thinks that it is a good idea to continue this section, at least until he learns how all of this could go wrong. So very, very wrong. Although Cruz (2021) devoted nearly an entire paragraph and Zagencyk (2021) devoted several complete sentences to introducing this new section (can you sense the sarcasm?), we think that now is an excellent time to (re) introduce it since quite a few GOMusings have made it through the
{"title":"(Re)introducing a New Section Generally and a Special Section in This Issue Specifically: GOMusings","authors":"Kevin S. Cruz, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Yannick Griep","doi":"10.1177/10596011221117436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221117436","url":null,"abstract":"GOMusings were born of the first and second authors complain-, um, let’s say “discussing” for now (sounds more “academic,” right?), various aspects of management research and the publication process over the course of about a decade. These discussions often took the form of rants, and in some cases, it seemed like we might actually have had a point. As time passed and we became members of the GOM editorial team in various capacities, it occurred to us that (1) other people probably have similar discussions and (hopefully) more and better ideas; (2) we needed to come up with some ways to distinguish GOM from other journals; (3) we needed to get new, well-informed, and interesting ideas into the literature; and (4) that (2) and (3) might not happen through the typical article format. So, we came up with the idea of GOMusings because it seems to address 1-4. GOMusings are expected to be well-informed rants related to management research and/or the publication process that are written in the author’s voice rather than your typical academese (emphasis on well-informed and management–we do not want to hear about your department chair, although we’re sure that s/he is a jerk and it’s not just your hostile attribution bias – kidding (or maybe not?)!). Yannick Griep, moving into the Editor-in-Chief role next, thinks that it is a good idea to continue this section, at least until he learns how all of this could go wrong. So very, very wrong. Although Cruz (2021) devoted nearly an entire paragraph and Zagencyk (2021) devoted several complete sentences to introducing this new section (can you sense the sarcasm?), we think that now is an excellent time to (re) introduce it since quite a few GOMusings have made it through the","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"47 1","pages":"891 - 898"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44388751","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 : 2022-08-17DOI: 10.1177/10596011221120377
Maria Simosi, Maryam Aldossari, Sara Chaudhry, D. Rousseau
To provide context for this special issue’s eight articles, we review the lenses adopted in i-deals research and its findings and then address under-studied aspects of i-deals. Part of the societal trend toward customization of employment arrangements, the i-deals workers negotiate for themselves are the subject of a growing body of research. We observe that i-deals research investigates both antecedents and consequences of i-deals at levels from the individual and dyad to team and organization. Numerous theories have been applied to explain i-deal phenomena beginning with social exchange theory in its initial research to social comparison and diverse theories regarding human needs and values. Employers are known to use i-deals to attract, motivate, and retain workers, while employees pursue i-deals to better their work lives and career opportunities. Although the positive effects of i-deals for organizations and i-dealers alike are well-documented, potential negative effects are under-studied. Moreover, white collar workers in developed countries are the recurrent focus in i-deals research to the neglect of other occupations and societies. In this article and special issue, we seek insights regarding understudied aspects of i-deals to deepen investigation into their myriad manifestations and effects.
{"title":"Uncovering Missing Voices: Invisible Aspects of Idiosyncratic Deals (I-Deals)","authors":"Maria Simosi, Maryam Aldossari, Sara Chaudhry, D. Rousseau","doi":"10.1177/10596011221120377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221120377","url":null,"abstract":"To provide context for this special issue’s eight articles, we review the lenses adopted in i-deals research and its findings and then address under-studied aspects of i-deals. Part of the societal trend toward customization of employment arrangements, the i-deals workers negotiate for themselves are the subject of a growing body of research. We observe that i-deals research investigates both antecedents and consequences of i-deals at levels from the individual and dyad to team and organization. Numerous theories have been applied to explain i-deal phenomena beginning with social exchange theory in its initial research to social comparison and diverse theories regarding human needs and values. Employers are known to use i-deals to attract, motivate, and retain workers, while employees pursue i-deals to better their work lives and career opportunities. Although the positive effects of i-deals for organizations and i-dealers alike are well-documented, potential negative effects are under-studied. Moreover, white collar workers in developed countries are the recurrent focus in i-deals research to the neglect of other occupations and societies. In this article and special issue, we seek insights regarding understudied aspects of i-deals to deepen investigation into their myriad manifestations and effects.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"3 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47305048","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 : 2022-08-16DOI: 10.1177/10596011221118499
Jonathan I. Lee, K. Dirks, Rachel L. Campagna
Trust and emotion have been among the most influential and frequently studied constructs in organizational behavior over the last two decades. Although emotion would seem to be integral to interpersonal trust, it has played a minor part in the literature. This article is intended to advance understanding of emotion’s role in shaping trust judgments to help bring this concept into the central conversation on trust within organizations. Our paper begins with a review of existing research to help understand how emotion fits within the nomological network of trust and to identify some of the key insights from empirical research. The review suggests emotion impacts trust in two fundamentally different ways, based on independent streams of research, by how it is experienced as a trustor and expressed by the trustee. We provide a conceptual model that integrates these different perspectives as well as brings in key ideas which are absent from research on organizational trust: (a) using a validated and more sophisticated model of trust and trustworthiness will add greater insight into how emotion impacts trust, (b) experienced and expressed emotions jointly and interactively affect trust, (c) trust and emotion operate at multiple levels of analysis, including dyadic and network, and (d) trust and emotion change over time as a function of each other. We conclude that there is much opportunity for future research on trust and emotion, and suggest future directions.
{"title":"At the Heart of Trust: Understanding the Integral Relationship Between Emotion and Trust","authors":"Jonathan I. Lee, K. Dirks, Rachel L. Campagna","doi":"10.1177/10596011221118499","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221118499","url":null,"abstract":"Trust and emotion have been among the most influential and frequently studied constructs in organizational behavior over the last two decades. Although emotion would seem to be integral to interpersonal trust, it has played a minor part in the literature. This article is intended to advance understanding of emotion’s role in shaping trust judgments to help bring this concept into the central conversation on trust within organizations. Our paper begins with a review of existing research to help understand how emotion fits within the nomological network of trust and to identify some of the key insights from empirical research. The review suggests emotion impacts trust in two fundamentally different ways, based on independent streams of research, by how it is experienced as a trustor and expressed by the trustee. We provide a conceptual model that integrates these different perspectives as well as brings in key ideas which are absent from research on organizational trust: (a) using a validated and more sophisticated model of trust and trustworthiness will add greater insight into how emotion impacts trust, (b) experienced and expressed emotions jointly and interactively affect trust, (c) trust and emotion operate at multiple levels of analysis, including dyadic and network, and (d) trust and emotion change over time as a function of each other. We conclude that there is much opportunity for future research on trust and emotion, and suggest future directions.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"546 - 580"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44463311","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 : 2022-08-12DOI: 10.1177/10596011221117723
Mingang K. Geiger, Luke A. Langlinais, Mark Geiger
Nonnative accent often leads to prejudicial judgments. In this paper, we examine the effect of a job candidate’s Mandarin Chinese accent on a hiring manager’s perceptions of trust and the three dimensions of trustworthiness. The results of an online experiment with 179 working adults suggest that speaking with a nonnative accent (vs. no accent) adversely affects hiring decision-makers’ perceptions of trust and the ability dimension of trustworthiness, but not the benevolence and integrity dimensions. We also examined the effects of perspective taking (vs. no perspective taking) on trust and trustworthiness to test its beneficial role in interpersonal evaluations. The findings suggest that perspective taking may significantly mitigate the effect of language-based stigma on people’s judgments, providing evidence-based insights for organizational leaders and HR professionals.
{"title":"Accent Speaks Louder than Ability: Elucidating the Effect of Nonnative Accent on Trust","authors":"Mingang K. Geiger, Luke A. Langlinais, Mark Geiger","doi":"10.1177/10596011221117723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221117723","url":null,"abstract":"Nonnative accent often leads to prejudicial judgments. In this paper, we examine the effect of a job candidate’s Mandarin Chinese accent on a hiring manager’s perceptions of trust and the three dimensions of trustworthiness. The results of an online experiment with 179 working adults suggest that speaking with a nonnative accent (vs. no accent) adversely affects hiring decision-makers’ perceptions of trust and the ability dimension of trustworthiness, but not the benevolence and integrity dimensions. We also examined the effects of perspective taking (vs. no perspective taking) on trust and trustworthiness to test its beneficial role in interpersonal evaluations. The findings suggest that perspective taking may significantly mitigate the effect of language-based stigma on people’s judgments, providing evidence-based insights for organizational leaders and HR professionals.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"953 - 965"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44107284","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 : 2022-08-12DOI: 10.1177/10596011221115980
Yannick Griep
In the April of 2022, I got the news – I had been appointed Editor-in-Chief of Group & Organization Management (GOM), together with a new Editorial Team. I was honored and humbled by this wonderful news. With this came further good news: Thomas Zagenczyk, the outgoing Editor-in-Chief, left me a healthy line of manuscripts (close to 100) which were in different stages of the submission system. Moreover, in my short time as incoming Editor-inChief, manuscripts continued to pour in, just north of 100 in just under five months. This continues stream of submissions manifests a strong confidence in GOM and the rigorousness we strive and stand for. So, no time for contemplation, it was hammer time! But before I delve into the future directions for GOM, let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we? As a junior academic, working on psychological contracts and negative workplace behaviors, I got intrigued by the stellar quantitative, qualitative, and conceptual work published in GOM on these topics—by leading scholars in the field whom I admired (and still do, in case you are wondering)—such as the work by Sherman and Morley (2015) on the formation of the psychological contract using a schema theory perspective; Cropanzano and colleagues’ (2002) work on Social Exchange Theory and justice principles; O’Boyle and colleagues’ (2011) work on bad apples or bad barrels in relation to groupand organizational-level effects of counterproductive work behavior; or Laulié and Tekleab (2016) multi-level theory of psychological contract fulfillment. Through reading these papers, through publishing (and getting rejected) my own research in the journal (Griep, Germeys, & Kraak, 2021), and through being a reviewer, editorial board member, and Senior Associate Editor on Tom Zagenczyk’s team, I came to identify quite strongly with GOM and noticed that our community of GOMmers (that is right, it is
{"title":"Greetings from the New Editor: Directions for Group & Organization Management","authors":"Yannick Griep","doi":"10.1177/10596011221115980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221115980","url":null,"abstract":"In the April of 2022, I got the news – I had been appointed Editor-in-Chief of Group & Organization Management (GOM), together with a new Editorial Team. I was honored and humbled by this wonderful news. With this came further good news: Thomas Zagenczyk, the outgoing Editor-in-Chief, left me a healthy line of manuscripts (close to 100) which were in different stages of the submission system. Moreover, in my short time as incoming Editor-inChief, manuscripts continued to pour in, just north of 100 in just under five months. This continues stream of submissions manifests a strong confidence in GOM and the rigorousness we strive and stand for. So, no time for contemplation, it was hammer time! But before I delve into the future directions for GOM, let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we? As a junior academic, working on psychological contracts and negative workplace behaviors, I got intrigued by the stellar quantitative, qualitative, and conceptual work published in GOM on these topics—by leading scholars in the field whom I admired (and still do, in case you are wondering)—such as the work by Sherman and Morley (2015) on the formation of the psychological contract using a schema theory perspective; Cropanzano and colleagues’ (2002) work on Social Exchange Theory and justice principles; O’Boyle and colleagues’ (2011) work on bad apples or bad barrels in relation to groupand organizational-level effects of counterproductive work behavior; or Laulié and Tekleab (2016) multi-level theory of psychological contract fulfillment. Through reading these papers, through publishing (and getting rejected) my own research in the journal (Griep, Germeys, & Kraak, 2021), and through being a reviewer, editorial board member, and Senior Associate Editor on Tom Zagenczyk’s team, I came to identify quite strongly with GOM and noticed that our community of GOMmers (that is right, it is","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"47 1","pages":"1095 - 1105"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48292520","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 : 2022-08-04DOI: 10.1177/10596011221112521
Stacey R. Kessler, Mindy K. Shoss
Despite ample access to large, archival datasets, the micro-organizational sciences field seem to consistently cast these datasets aside in favor of primary datasets collected by independent researchers. In the current GoMusing, we argue that these archival datasets should not be a secondary (or even last) choice for the micro-organizational sciences. In fact, large archival datasets can enable researchers to (a) investigate phenomena of interest across generalizable samples, (b) incorporate multiple levels of context into research, and (c) take advantage of several additional methodological benefits. In the hopes of spurring a paradigm shift in the micro-organizational sciences, we begin our article by discussing problems with the standard approach to data collection (i.e., independent researchers collecting their own datasets). We then discuss how archival datasets can remedy many of these issues and advance the range of research questions the field is able to answerer. We conclude by providing a step-by-step process for incorporating these archival datasets into our literature and provide insights into addressing common challenges. We hope this GoMusing will serve as a call to action for researchers and editorial teams alike to move our research forward though a greater usage of large archival datasets.
{"title":"Archival Data Sets Should not be a Secondary (or Even Last) Choice in Micro-Organizational Research","authors":"Stacey R. Kessler, Mindy K. Shoss","doi":"10.1177/10596011221112521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221112521","url":null,"abstract":"Despite ample access to large, archival datasets, the micro-organizational sciences field seem to consistently cast these datasets aside in favor of primary datasets collected by independent researchers. In the current GoMusing, we argue that these archival datasets should not be a secondary (or even last) choice for the micro-organizational sciences. In fact, large archival datasets can enable researchers to (a) investigate phenomena of interest across generalizable samples, (b) incorporate multiple levels of context into research, and (c) take advantage of several additional methodological benefits. In the hopes of spurring a paradigm shift in the micro-organizational sciences, we begin our article by discussing problems with the standard approach to data collection (i.e., independent researchers collecting their own datasets). We then discuss how archival datasets can remedy many of these issues and advance the range of research questions the field is able to answerer. We conclude by providing a step-by-step process for incorporating these archival datasets into our literature and provide insights into addressing common challenges. We hope this GoMusing will serve as a call to action for researchers and editorial teams alike to move our research forward though a greater usage of large archival datasets.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"47 1","pages":"907 - 919"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46421546","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 : 2022-07-20DOI: 10.1177/10596011221115988
Imogen Sykes-Bridge, P. Bordia, P. Garcia, Rajiv K. Amarnani, Sarbari Bordia
I-deals are a key method for organizations to retain and motivate employees, yet little research has investigated employee motivations for seeking i-deals and antecedents to request and receipt. We examine these largely invisible antecedents of i-deals in the context of older workers, a cohort of increasing importance in the workplace. Through thematic analysis of 82 in-depth interviews with Australian workers over the age of 50, we develop a model of i-deal emergence that delineates the motivation, request, and receipt stages of i-deals. We identified four motivational influences to seek i-deals: to improve work–life balance, to repair psychological contract breach, and to craft satisfactory retirement pathways; high levels of existing job-role autonomy acted as a demotivator to request i-deals. We also identified three factors associated with an i-deal request being granted: an older worker’s value to the organization, positive employee–manager relationships, and emphasis of mutual benefit for employee and employer. We identified a novel antecedent for i-deals: feasibility—an older worker’s perception of how likely they are to be successful when requesting a desired i-deal. Feasibility perceptions are informed by organizational practices and policies around i-deals, co-worker i-deal experiences, and job-role constraints. Feasibility can influence an employee’s decisions to request an i-deal and also directly affect attitudes toward the employer, regardless of whether an i-deal is present, desired, or otherwise. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed and future directions outlined.
{"title":"Factors Affecting Request & Receipt of I-deals: An Investigation in the Context of Older Workers","authors":"Imogen Sykes-Bridge, P. Bordia, P. Garcia, Rajiv K. Amarnani, Sarbari Bordia","doi":"10.1177/10596011221115988","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221115988","url":null,"abstract":"I-deals are a key method for organizations to retain and motivate employees, yet little research has investigated employee motivations for seeking i-deals and antecedents to request and receipt. We examine these largely invisible antecedents of i-deals in the context of older workers, a cohort of increasing importance in the workplace. Through thematic analysis of 82 in-depth interviews with Australian workers over the age of 50, we develop a model of i-deal emergence that delineates the motivation, request, and receipt stages of i-deals. We identified four motivational influences to seek i-deals: to improve work–life balance, to repair psychological contract breach, and to craft satisfactory retirement pathways; high levels of existing job-role autonomy acted as a demotivator to request i-deals. We also identified three factors associated with an i-deal request being granted: an older worker’s value to the organization, positive employee–manager relationships, and emphasis of mutual benefit for employee and employer. We identified a novel antecedent for i-deals: feasibility—an older worker’s perception of how likely they are to be successful when requesting a desired i-deal. Feasibility perceptions are informed by organizational practices and policies around i-deals, co-worker i-deal experiences, and job-role constraints. Feasibility can influence an employee’s decisions to request an i-deal and also directly affect attitudes toward the employer, regardless of whether an i-deal is present, desired, or otherwise. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed and future directions outlined.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"80 - 124"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48008163","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：