Pub Date : 2022-06-22DOI: 10.1177/10596011221107720
Kayla B. Follmer, Mingang K. Geiger, J. Beatty, D. Follmer
The current study examines the relations among anticipated discrimination, authenticity, and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) in an employee population that is vulnerable to mistreatment—namely, employees with depression and bipolar disorder. Using a longitudinal research design, we collected data at 3 points in time from 279 individuals diagnosed with depression and/or bipolar disorder. We tested the extent to which authenticity mediated the relationship between anticipated discrimination and counterproductive work behaviors. Our results provided support for our research model. Thus, when individuals perceived that they were likely to be targets of discrimination due to their mental illness, it resulted in increased counterproductive work behaviors, and this effect was transmitted through decreased perceptions of authenticity. In addition, we tested stigma centrality and symptom severity moderators of the mediated relationships. We found support for symptom severity (but not stigma centrality) as a moderator in which the mediated relationship between anticipated discrimination and CWBs through authenticity was stronger for those with more severe symptoms.
{"title":"The Consequences of not Being Me: Longitudinal Examination of the Relations Among Anticipated Discrimination, Authenticity, and Counterproductive Work Behaviors","authors":"Kayla B. Follmer, Mingang K. Geiger, J. Beatty, D. Follmer","doi":"10.1177/10596011221107720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221107720","url":null,"abstract":"The current study examines the relations among anticipated discrimination, authenticity, and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) in an employee population that is vulnerable to mistreatment—namely, employees with depression and bipolar disorder. Using a longitudinal research design, we collected data at 3 points in time from 279 individuals diagnosed with depression and/or bipolar disorder. We tested the extent to which authenticity mediated the relationship between anticipated discrimination and counterproductive work behaviors. Our results provided support for our research model. Thus, when individuals perceived that they were likely to be targets of discrimination due to their mental illness, it resulted in increased counterproductive work behaviors, and this effect was transmitted through decreased perceptions of authenticity. In addition, we tested stigma centrality and symptom severity moderators of the mediated relationships. We found support for symptom severity (but not stigma centrality) as a moderator in which the mediated relationship between anticipated discrimination and CWBs through authenticity was stronger for those with more severe symptoms.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"1058 - 1095"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47505277","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 : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1177/10596011221108546
Uriel Saldivar, Chenwei Liao
Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are customized work arrangements that employees negotiate with their employer. Despite the burgeoning growth, i-deals research is primarily focused on the benefits to the recipients without sufficiently considering how differences in i-deals across group members can have implications at the group and individual levels. To better guide the nascent literature, we (a) conceptualize content, quantity, and magnitude as the three key bases upon which i-deals can differ; (b) explain why content of i-deals can reflect social or economic exchange; and (c) define relative i-deals, that is, how individual group members’ i-deals compare to coworkers, and group i-deals differentiation, that is, the degree of variability in team member i-deals, in actual and perceptual terms. In our multilevel theory development of differences in i-deals, we offer propositions on (a) effects of perceived relative i-deals on outcomes at the individual level, (b) effects of actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation on outcomes at the group level, and (c) perceived group i-deals differentiation as a moderator of the effects of perceived relative i-deals at the individual level. Lastly, we conclude with managerial implications and future directions for research.
{"title":"Differences in I-Deals Within Groups: A Multilevel Approach","authors":"Uriel Saldivar, Chenwei Liao","doi":"10.1177/10596011221108546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221108546","url":null,"abstract":"Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are customized work arrangements that employees negotiate with their employer. Despite the burgeoning growth, i-deals research is primarily focused on the benefits to the recipients without sufficiently considering how differences in i-deals across group members can have implications at the group and individual levels. To better guide the nascent literature, we (a) conceptualize content, quantity, and magnitude as the three key bases upon which i-deals can differ; (b) explain why content of i-deals can reflect social or economic exchange; and (c) define relative i-deals, that is, how individual group members’ i-deals compare to coworkers, and group i-deals differentiation, that is, the degree of variability in team member i-deals, in actual and perceptual terms. In our multilevel theory development of differences in i-deals, we offer propositions on (a) effects of perceived relative i-deals on outcomes at the individual level, (b) effects of actual and perceived group i-deals differentiation on outcomes at the group level, and (c) perceived group i-deals differentiation as a moderator of the effects of perceived relative i-deals at the individual level. Lastly, we conclude with managerial implications and future directions for research.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"224 - 261"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48935461","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 : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1177/10596011221098823
E. Kossek, C. Kelliher
Current research on negotiated individualized flexible work arrangements focuses on highly paid, skilled professional workers. We refer to this as “flexibility through privilege,” the ability to obtain “flexibility I-deals,” due to high labor market power. Yet as work-life tensions grow across occupations globally, most individuals need increased access to flexibility. As the COVID-19 pandemic illuminated, work-life equality, the ability of workers to have equal access to, opportunity to use, and benefit from flexible working arrangements is a rising form of job inequality. We examine how existing flexibility i-deals can be reconceptualized more broadly to include collectively bargained arrangements across many occupations, and flexible working forms. Our essay advances understanding by (1) broadening notions of the typical employee and occupation involved; (2) expanding negotiation processes beyond an organizational sphere of control; (3) identifying new forms of negotiated flexibility such as control over work-life boundaries and technological availability; and (4) addressing not only employer-employee mutual benefits, but larger societal interests concurrent with new tensions and unintended consequences of mainstreamed implementation. We propose the term “collective flexibility” as the collective right of workers to customize their work schedule, place, workload, boundaries, connectivity, and employment mode with their employer and other stakeholders to benefit employers, employees, and society. We offer a future research agenda. Expanding how we frame and study what a flexibility i-deal is with a collective approach regarding how they are accessed, negotiated, maintained, and who they serve may enhance their potential as a lever for social change to advance economic, social, and health employment rights.
{"title":"Making Flexibility More I-Deal: Advancing Work-Life Equality Collectively","authors":"E. Kossek, C. Kelliher","doi":"10.1177/10596011221098823","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221098823","url":null,"abstract":"Current research on negotiated individualized flexible work arrangements focuses on highly paid, skilled professional workers. We refer to this as “flexibility through privilege,” the ability to obtain “flexibility I-deals,” due to high labor market power. Yet as work-life tensions grow across occupations globally, most individuals need increased access to flexibility. As the COVID-19 pandemic illuminated, work-life equality, the ability of workers to have equal access to, opportunity to use, and benefit from flexible working arrangements is a rising form of job inequality. We examine how existing flexibility i-deals can be reconceptualized more broadly to include collectively bargained arrangements across many occupations, and flexible working forms. Our essay advances understanding by (1) broadening notions of the typical employee and occupation involved; (2) expanding negotiation processes beyond an organizational sphere of control; (3) identifying new forms of negotiated flexibility such as control over work-life boundaries and technological availability; and (4) addressing not only employer-employee mutual benefits, but larger societal interests concurrent with new tensions and unintended consequences of mainstreamed implementation. We propose the term “collective flexibility” as the collective right of workers to customize their work schedule, place, workload, boundaries, connectivity, and employment mode with their employer and other stakeholders to benefit employers, employees, and society. We offer a future research agenda. Expanding how we frame and study what a flexibility i-deal is with a collective approach regarding how they are accessed, negotiated, maintained, and who they serve may enhance their potential as a lever for social change to advance economic, social, and health employment rights.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"317 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48863476","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 : 2022-06-06DOI: 10.1177/10596011221088435
Catherine Mackintosh, A. McDermott
This article contributes to the idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) literature by explicating and theorizing market-based and supportive i-deal pathways. In so doing, it enhances understanding of how i-deals are negotiated, addresses gaps in theoretical understanding about how outcomes emerge and reconciles divergent narratives regarding the availability of i-deals to stars or a broader pool of employees. To achieve this, the study explores the inputs, process, and outcomes of flexibility and financial i-deal creation using a qualitative approach. It addresses a deficit in multi-stakeholder i-deals research, drawing on 42 semi-structured interviews with employees, line managers and HR representatives in a financial service and a construction company. Findings detail how market-based i-deals are premised on economic exchange. They respond to employer needs to secure star performers, while employee needs may be flexibility or financially focused. The negotiation of market-based i-deals is distributive, and their creation is perceived by employees as special treatment to which they are entitled, leading to purely functional benefits for organizations (e.g., recruitment/retention). In contrast, supportive i-deals are relational, responding to employee needs for flexibility and employer needs to build high-quality employment relationships. Their negotiation is integrative. Perceived by employees as a reflection of being valued, supportive i-deals lead to broader reciprocation. Researchers and practitioners should consider the implications of these pathways. In particular, the article emphasizes the broad benefits of supportive i-deals but serves to manage expectations regarding the potential limitations of market-based i-deals, that may lead to functional benefits (e.g., recruitment/retention) but not positive attitudes and behaviors.
{"title":"The Implications of Market-Based Versus Supportive Idiosyncratic Deal Pathways","authors":"Catherine Mackintosh, A. McDermott","doi":"10.1177/10596011221088435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221088435","url":null,"abstract":"This article contributes to the idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) literature by explicating and theorizing market-based and supportive i-deal pathways. In so doing, it enhances understanding of how i-deals are negotiated, addresses gaps in theoretical understanding about how outcomes emerge and reconciles divergent narratives regarding the availability of i-deals to stars or a broader pool of employees. To achieve this, the study explores the inputs, process, and outcomes of flexibility and financial i-deal creation using a qualitative approach. It addresses a deficit in multi-stakeholder i-deals research, drawing on 42 semi-structured interviews with employees, line managers and HR representatives in a financial service and a construction company. Findings detail how market-based i-deals are premised on economic exchange. They respond to employer needs to secure star performers, while employee needs may be flexibility or financially focused. The negotiation of market-based i-deals is distributive, and their creation is perceived by employees as special treatment to which they are entitled, leading to purely functional benefits for organizations (e.g., recruitment/retention). In contrast, supportive i-deals are relational, responding to employee needs for flexibility and employer needs to build high-quality employment relationships. Their negotiation is integrative. Perceived by employees as a reflection of being valued, supportive i-deals lead to broader reciprocation. Researchers and practitioners should consider the implications of these pathways. In particular, the article emphasizes the broad benefits of supportive i-deals but serves to manage expectations regarding the potential limitations of market-based i-deals, that may lead to functional benefits (e.g., recruitment/retention) but not positive attitudes and behaviors.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"125 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44425668","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 : 2022-06-03DOI: 10.1177/10596011221102297
Ree Jordan, Terrance W Fitzsimmons, V. Callan
Workplace mavericks are seen as highly disruptive, engaging in unconventional behavior and showing apparent disregard for organizational norms, policies, and procedures. Despite this, some organizational leaders successfully leverage maverick behaviors to progress and achieve higher order organizational agendas. This paper challenges the former view by investigating the positive value maverickism provides organizations. Guided by the conceptualization of mavericks’ non-conformity as a form of positive deviance, two studies were conducted. Study 1 analyzed secondary data sources within the scientific research field to determine organizational performance requirements and expectations. Study 2 interviewed 28 mavericks and 27 leaders of mavericks in the same field. Data collection and analysis was guided by Bourdieu’s (1990) theoretical and methodological constructs—field, capital, and habitus. Results highlight that, while mavericks challenge and often ignore many organizational norms, their disruption is driven by the desire to achieve higher order goals benefitting their organizations and communities. Operating within boundaries set by these higher order values, mavericks not only embody traditional cultural capitals expected in their field but also offer valuable capitals traditionally possessed by those more senior in the field. This powerful combination of capitals produces additional symbolic capital which allows them to influence organizational decision-making despite not conforming to lower order organizational norms. At an applied level, valuable capitals associated with maverickism can be leveraged by leaders to support transformational change. To do this, organizational leaders need to recognize mavericks’ strengths through allowing them, as positive deviants, to challenge the status quo and to find alternative pathways to achieve organizational goals.
{"title":"Positively Deviant: New Evidence for the Beneficial Capital of Maverickism to Organizations","authors":"Ree Jordan, Terrance W Fitzsimmons, V. Callan","doi":"10.1177/10596011221102297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221102297","url":null,"abstract":"Workplace mavericks are seen as highly disruptive, engaging in unconventional behavior and showing apparent disregard for organizational norms, policies, and procedures. Despite this, some organizational leaders successfully leverage maverick behaviors to progress and achieve higher order organizational agendas. This paper challenges the former view by investigating the positive value maverickism provides organizations. Guided by the conceptualization of mavericks’ non-conformity as a form of positive deviance, two studies were conducted. Study 1 analyzed secondary data sources within the scientific research field to determine organizational performance requirements and expectations. Study 2 interviewed 28 mavericks and 27 leaders of mavericks in the same field. Data collection and analysis was guided by Bourdieu’s (1990) theoretical and methodological constructs—field, capital, and habitus. Results highlight that, while mavericks challenge and often ignore many organizational norms, their disruption is driven by the desire to achieve higher order goals benefitting their organizations and communities. Operating within boundaries set by these higher order values, mavericks not only embody traditional cultural capitals expected in their field but also offer valuable capitals traditionally possessed by those more senior in the field. This powerful combination of capitals produces additional symbolic capital which allows them to influence organizational decision-making despite not conforming to lower order organizational norms. At an applied level, valuable capitals associated with maverickism can be leveraged by leaders to support transformational change. To do this, organizational leaders need to recognize mavericks’ strengths through allowing them, as positive deviants, to challenge the status quo and to find alternative pathways to achieve organizational goals.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"1254 - 1305"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42018217","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 : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1177/10596011221110650
L. Shanock, Mindy K. Shoss, J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Louis T. Buffardi, Gaëtane Caesens, M. Ford, M. Joo, Gökhan Karagonlar, Zihan Liu, Salar Mesdaghinia, P. Neves, D. Rousseau, F. Stinglhamber, Xueqi Wen, Jing Zhang, Dianhan Zheng
{"title":"Remembering Robert W. Eisenberger: A Tribute to His Life and His Work on Perceived Organizational Support","authors":"L. Shanock, Mindy K. Shoss, J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, Thomas J. Zagenczyk, Louis T. Buffardi, Gaëtane Caesens, M. Ford, M. Joo, Gökhan Karagonlar, Zihan Liu, Salar Mesdaghinia, P. Neves, D. Rousseau, F. Stinglhamber, Xueqi Wen, Jing Zhang, Dianhan Zheng","doi":"10.1177/10596011221110650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221110650","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"47 1","pages":"872 - 888"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43744520","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 : 2022-05-22DOI: 10.1177/10596011221098824
L. Vossaert, F. Anseel, Violet T. Ho
Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are individualized employment arrangements negotiated and agreed upon by individual employees and their organization. This study addresses an emerging conundrum in i-deals research—whether the prevalence of i-deals in teams helps or hinders team outcomes. Because teams in which i-deals are prevalent receive more resources and status, they may be more cohesive and engage in more supportive behaviors. On the other hand, because i-deals differentiate among team members, teams in which i-deals are prevalent may be less cohesive and less inclined to engage in OCB. To solve this puzzle, we draw from a resource scarcity perspective to posit that understanding intra-team i-deal dynamics requires taking into account both organizational-level (i.e., organizational i-deal scarcity) and team-level (i.e., team power structure) factors. Using data from 40 organizations, 166 teams, and 1016 employees, we disentangle the complex interplay among the prevalence of i-deals in a team, organizational i-deal scarcity, and intra-team power structure in predicting both team cohesion and intra-team OCB.
{"title":"Do Multiple I-Deals in a Team Help or Hinder Team Outcomes? A Resource Scarcity Perspective","authors":"L. Vossaert, F. Anseel, Violet T. Ho","doi":"10.1177/10596011221098824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221098824","url":null,"abstract":"Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are individualized employment arrangements negotiated and agreed upon by individual employees and their organization. This study addresses an emerging conundrum in i-deals research—whether the prevalence of i-deals in teams helps or hinders team outcomes. Because teams in which i-deals are prevalent receive more resources and status, they may be more cohesive and engage in more supportive behaviors. On the other hand, because i-deals differentiate among team members, teams in which i-deals are prevalent may be less cohesive and less inclined to engage in OCB. To solve this puzzle, we draw from a resource scarcity perspective to posit that understanding intra-team i-deal dynamics requires taking into account both organizational-level (i.e., organizational i-deal scarcity) and team-level (i.e., team power structure) factors. Using data from 40 organizations, 166 teams, and 1016 employees, we disentangle the complex interplay among the prevalence of i-deals in a team, organizational i-deal scarcity, and intra-team power structure in predicting both team cohesion and intra-team OCB.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"156 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49480392","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 : 2022-05-21DOI: 10.1177/10596011221099797
Stacey R. Kessler, Melissa B. Gutworth
For several decades, working-class employees have been forgotten by policy makers and society more generally. This notion is further exacerbated in the organizational studies literature, where research mostly focuses on professional employees. In the current study, we seek to rectify this omission by examining how the experience of working-class employees has changed over time. We use a nationally representative sample of 35,771 U.S. employees collected between 1972 and 2018 as part of the repeated cross-sections of the General Social Survey Results suggest a growing disparity between working-class and middle/upper-class employees, with working-class employees reporting lower levels of financial satisfaction and higher levels of work exhaustion compared to middle/upper-class employees. Moreover, these discrepancies have increased over time, suggesting that this population of employees has indeed been forgotten.
{"title":"The Forgotten Working Class: A Call to Action Based upon a Repeated Cross-Sectional Examination of the Relationships Among Social Class, Financial Satisfaction, and Exhaustion","authors":"Stacey R. Kessler, Melissa B. Gutworth","doi":"10.1177/10596011221099797","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221099797","url":null,"abstract":"For several decades, working-class employees have been forgotten by policy makers and society more generally. This notion is further exacerbated in the organizational studies literature, where research mostly focuses on professional employees. In the current study, we seek to rectify this omission by examining how the experience of working-class employees has changed over time. We use a nationally representative sample of 35,771 U.S. employees collected between 1972 and 2018 as part of the repeated cross-sections of the General Social Survey Results suggest a growing disparity between working-class and middle/upper-class employees, with working-class employees reporting lower levels of financial satisfaction and higher levels of work exhaustion compared to middle/upper-class employees. Moreover, these discrepancies have increased over time, suggesting that this population of employees has indeed been forgotten.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"1306 - 1338"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47270803","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 : 2022-05-18DOI: 10.1177/10596011221101247
Benjamin D. Blake, J. Baur, M. Buckley
The purpose of this article is to conceptualize a novel theoretical occurrence—team physical activity (PA)—and its relevance for researchers and organizations. By building a testable model of the consequences and contingencies of team PA, we integrate the science of teamwork with the scholarly domain of employee health and well-being. Hence, we clarify the construct of team PA, present a three-dimensional typology, and outline a model drawing on neuroscience, positive organizational behavior, and teams research. Our propositions and subsequent discussion proffer an outline of potential benefits for organizations when they increase the utility and frequency of team PA. We also suggest ways in which researchers can advance scholarship in this area.
{"title":"Let’s Get Physical: Physical Activity as a Team Intervention at Work","authors":"Benjamin D. Blake, J. Baur, M. Buckley","doi":"10.1177/10596011221101247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221101247","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to conceptualize a novel theoretical occurrence—team physical activity (PA)—and its relevance for researchers and organizations. By building a testable model of the consequences and contingencies of team PA, we integrate the science of teamwork with the scholarly domain of employee health and well-being. Hence, we clarify the construct of team PA, present a three-dimensional typology, and outline a model drawing on neuroscience, positive organizational behavior, and teams research. Our propositions and subsequent discussion proffer an outline of potential benefits for organizations when they increase the utility and frequency of team PA. We also suggest ways in which researchers can advance scholarship in this area.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"671 - 704"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42800935","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：