Pub Date : 2025-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2025.100222
Aleksandra Kacperczyk , Santiago Campero
Startups are increasingly central to job creation, innovation, and economic mobility, yet research on hiring inequality focuses predominantly on established firms and founders, overlooking the non-founder workforce. We develop a comprehensive framework for understanding how startup hiring practices affect labor market inequality. We propose that startups differ from mature firms in ways that make their hiring dynamics uniquely consequential for inclusion and exclusion. Integrating demand-side perspectives, we advance a four-part analytical framework organized around why, when, how, and who startups hire. We discuss how hiring motivations, timing, and methods interact to determine workforce composition, producing recursive effects that affect long-term diversity trajectories. Finally, we outline a research agenda highlighting the temporal, organizational, and contextual contingencies of startup hiring. By shifting attention from founders to employees and from supply-side to demand-side processes, this framework reconceptualizes startups as pivotal institutions in the reproduction and potential mitigation of inequality. It reveals how the architecture of opportunity in emerging ventures impacts the broader distribution of work and wealth.
{"title":"Inequality in startup hiring","authors":"Aleksandra Kacperczyk , Santiago Campero","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2025.100222","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2025.100222","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Startups are increasingly central to job creation, innovation, and economic mobility, yet research on hiring inequality focuses predominantly on established firms and founders, overlooking the non-founder workforce. We develop a comprehensive framework for understanding how startup hiring practices affect labor market inequality. We propose that startups differ from mature firms in ways that make their hiring dynamics uniquely consequential for inclusion and exclusion. Integrating demand-side perspectives, we advance a four-part analytical framework organized around <em>why, when, how,</em> and <em>who</em> startups hire. We discuss how hiring motivations, timing, and methods interact to determine workforce composition, producing recursive effects that affect long-term diversity trajectories. Finally, we outline a research agenda highlighting the temporal, organizational, and contextual contingencies of startup hiring. By shifting attention from founders to employees and from supply-side to demand-side processes, this framework reconceptualizes startups as pivotal institutions in the reproduction and potential mitigation of inequality. It reveals how the architecture of opportunity in emerging ventures impacts the broader distribution of work and wealth.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100222"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145754025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-10-29DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2025.100223
Michel Anteby, Valerio Iannucci
{"title":"Beyond professional experts: The rise of lay, counter-, and neo-experts as alternative claim-makers","authors":"Michel Anteby, Valerio Iannucci","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2025.100223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2025.100223","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145382999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2024.100205
Gina Dokko , Winnie Y. Jiang
The portability of performance for individuals during a career transition is not straightforward. Differences between jobs can create a drag on performance; alternatively, the differences can be an input to creativity and innovation. In this paper, we develop a model of career transitions that centers around the concept of career frictions, which we define as the disrupting differences felt by individuals between a new role and career attributes accumulated through their prior work experience (i.e., knowledge, social relationships, and imprints and identity). We argue that experienced individuals bring their accumulated career attributes into new jobs, and that the relationship between these attributes and their post-transition routine and creative job performance is mediated by career frictions. Furthermore, we theorize that the way in which movers experience career transitions is moderated by cognitive fixedness, which influences how much friction an individual feels, and by socialization practices, which can smooth or leverage friction in order to determine an individual’s post-move routine and creative job performance. Our friction-based theory of career transitions holds that individual characteristics like cognitive fixedness and also contextual conditions like socialization practices affect the portability of performance, or the prospect of generating creative performance.
{"title":"From boundaryless to boundary-crossing: Toward a friction-based model of career transitions and job performance","authors":"Gina Dokko , Winnie Y. Jiang","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100205","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100205","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The portability of performance for individuals during a career transition is not straightforward. Differences between jobs can create a drag on performance; alternatively, the differences can be an input to creativity and innovation. In this paper, we develop a model of career transitions that centers around the concept of career frictions, which we define as the disrupting differences felt by individuals between a new role and career attributes accumulated through their prior work experience (i.e., knowledge, social relationships, and imprints and identity). We argue that experienced individuals bring their accumulated career attributes into new jobs, and that the relationship between these attributes and their post-transition routine and creative job performance is mediated by career frictions. Furthermore, we theorize that the way in which movers experience career transitions is moderated by cognitive fixedness, which influences how much friction an individual feels, and by socialization practices, which can smooth or leverage friction in order to determine an individual’s post-move routine and creative job performance. Our friction-based theory of career transitions holds that individual characteristics like cognitive fixedness and also contextual conditions like socialization practices affect the portability of performance, or the prospect of generating creative performance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100205"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142790120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2024.100209
Ethan S. Bernstein , Pranav Gupta , Mark Mortensen , Paul M. Leonardi
As rapid organizational and technological change makes boundaries within workplaces more permeable, employees are gaining unprecedented access to new people and information. This both increases opportunities for collaboration and heightens the risk of attention overload. While scholars have investigated overload with respect to “what” employees attend to, little research has examined the challenges concerning “whom” to attend to, resulting in ambiguity that can undermine collaborative relationships. In this paper, we integrate and advance insights from organizational control and selective-attention research, building on those macro- and micro-level theories to better conceptualize collective attention when the potential target is a colleague (human) rather than information (nonhuman)—which we conceptualize as relational attention, i.e., attention-to-whom. Further, we propose a separate, meso-level theory of transactive control of relational attention, building on concepts of transactive behavior from other fields. By exploring how such transactive control works, we begin to define the conditions organizations need to cultivate—regarding mutually transparent availability, synchronous attentional allocation, and reciprocal attentional allocation—to reduce relational overload without sacrificing productive work relationships or other benefits of more permeable internal boundaries. In addition to shedding light on underexamined attention problems in the workplace, this model contributes to future research by forging multi-level connections between individual meta-attention, transactive control over relational attention, and more traditional forms of organizational control.
{"title":"Collective attention and relational overload: A theory of transactive control in high-permeability intraorganizational environments","authors":"Ethan S. Bernstein , Pranav Gupta , Mark Mortensen , Paul M. Leonardi","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100209","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100209","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As rapid organizational and technological change makes boundaries within workplaces more permeable, employees are gaining unprecedented access to new people and information. This both increases opportunities for collaboration and heightens the risk of attention overload. While scholars have investigated overload with respect to “what” employees attend to, little research has examined the challenges concerning “whom” to attend to, resulting in ambiguity that can undermine collaborative relationships. In this paper, we integrate and advance insights from organizational control and selective-attention research, building on those macro- and micro-level theories to better conceptualize collective attention when the potential target is a colleague (human) rather than information (nonhuman)—which we conceptualize as relational attention, i.e., attention-to-whom. Further, we propose a separate, meso-level theory of transactive control of relational attention, building on concepts of transactive behavior from other fields. By exploring how such transactive control works, we begin to define the conditions organizations need to cultivate—regarding mutually transparent availability, synchronous attentional allocation, and reciprocal attentional allocation—to reduce relational overload without sacrificing productive work relationships or other benefits of more permeable internal boundaries. In addition to shedding light on underexamined attention problems in the workplace, this model contributes to future research by forging multi-level connections between individual meta-attention, transactive control over relational attention, and more traditional forms of organizational control.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100209"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142790129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2024.100207
Mabel Abraham , Tristan L. Botelho , Gabrielle Lamont-Dobbin
Evaluations play a critical role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Although evaluation systems are a cornerstone of organizational and market processes, they often reinforce social and economic inequalities. The body of organizational research on inequality and evaluations is extensive, but it is also fragmented, siloed within specific contexts and types of evaluations (e.g., hiring, performance). As a result, we currently lack a systemic understanding of the conditions under which inequalities emerge. This paper provides a unifying framework to identify how gender and racial inequality is produced and reproduced in evaluations across professional contexts (e.g., digital platforms, entrepreneurship, traditional employment). Our framework categorizes the drivers of inequality into three main areas: prevailing beliefs in evaluative contexts, the design and structure of evaluation processes, and the characteristics of evaluators. Our approach not only sheds light on the common processes that exacerbate inequality but also underscores why an integrative framework is critical for both theoretical advancement and enacting effective reforms.
{"title":"The (re)production of inequality in evaluations: A unifying framework outlining the drivers of gender and racial differences in evaluative outcomes","authors":"Mabel Abraham , Tristan L. Botelho , Gabrielle Lamont-Dobbin","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100207","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100207","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Evaluations play a critical role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Although evaluation systems are a cornerstone of organizational and market processes, they often reinforce social and economic inequalities. The body of organizational research on inequality and evaluations is extensive, but it is also fragmented, siloed within specific contexts and types of evaluations (e.g., hiring, performance). As a result, we currently lack a systemic understanding of the conditions under which inequalities emerge. This paper provides a unifying framework to identify how gender and racial inequality is produced and reproduced in evaluations across professional contexts (e.g., digital platforms, entrepreneurship, traditional employment). Our framework categorizes the drivers of inequality into three main areas: prevailing beliefs in evaluative contexts, the design and structure of evaluation processes, and the characteristics of evaluators. Our approach not only sheds light on the common processes that exacerbate inequality but also underscores why an integrative framework is critical for both theoretical advancement and enacting effective reforms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100207"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142756139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2024.100211
Jennifer E. Dannals, Yin Li
How do individuals learn and perceive social norms across situations and groups? We propose a three-stage process of social norm perception in which individuals first enter situations with a prior expectation of social norms that may apply, then they encounter and weigh norm information, and finally they integrate this norm information with their prior expectation. In addition, we discuss definitions of social norms, the motivations for learning social norms, and different categorization schemes for different types of norms based on content. This framework further suggests implications for when social norms should be more likely to be misperceived, and what kinds of social norm information should be most influential in one’s perception of the norm.
{"title":"A theoretical framework for social norm perception","authors":"Jennifer E. Dannals, Yin Li","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100211","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100211","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How do individuals learn and perceive social norms across situations and groups? We propose a three-stage process of social norm perception in which individuals first enter situations with a prior expectation of social norms that may apply, then they encounter and weigh norm information, and finally they integrate this norm information with their prior expectation. In addition, we discuss definitions of social norms, the motivations for learning social norms, and different categorization schemes for different types of norms based on content. This framework further suggests implications for when social norms should be more likely to be misperceived, and what kinds of social norm information should be most influential in one’s perception of the norm.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100211"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142790127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2024.100208
Joel Brockner , Ya-Ru Chen , Gaoyuan Zhu
An age-old adage in psychology is that people’s behavior emanates from or is an expression of their motivation and their ability. We posit that work behaviors and attitudes also depend on employees’ perceptions of motivation and ability, pertaining to others and themselves. The processes through which perceptions of motivation and ability influence employees are conceptually distinct from effects attributable to their expressions of motivation and ability. Moreover, many theoretical frameworks emphasize either perceptions of motivation or perceptions of ability. We posit that there is considerable value in considering perceptions of motivation and ability, most notably their interactive effects on work behaviors and attitudes. Doing so may not only more fully account for employees’ behaviors and attitudes, but also may promote cross-fertilization between literatures, such as organizational justice and behavioral ethics on the one hand and status and power on the other. Whereas some of our assertions have been empirically supported, others take the form of hypotheses to be tested in future research. Practical implications also are discussed.
{"title":"The joint effects of perceived motivation and ability on work behaviors and attitudes: Integrating the past and shaping the future","authors":"Joel Brockner , Ya-Ru Chen , Gaoyuan Zhu","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100208","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100208","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>An age-old adage in psychology is that people’s behavior emanates from or is an <em>expression</em> of their motivation and their ability. We posit that work behaviors and attitudes also depend on employees’ <em>perceptions</em> of motivation and ability, pertaining to others and themselves. The processes through which perceptions of motivation and ability influence employees are conceptually distinct from effects attributable to their expressions of motivation and ability. Moreover, many theoretical frameworks emphasize <em>either</em> perceptions of motivation <em>or</em> perceptions of ability. We posit that there is considerable value in considering perceptions of motivation <em>and</em> ability, most notably their <em>interactive</em> effects on work behaviors and attitudes. Doing so may not only more fully account for employees’ behaviors and attitudes, but also may promote cross-fertilization between literatures, such as organizational justice and behavioral ethics on the one hand and status and power on the other. Whereas some of our assertions have been empirically supported, others take the form of hypotheses to be tested in future research. Practical implications also are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100208"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142790131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2024.100210
Tanya Menon , Catherine T. Shea , Edward Bishop Smith
A key puzzle in social network research is why people have networks in theory but fail to extract resources from them in practice. We propose the concept of mobilization capacity—one’s efficiency in extracting resources from networks—to help explain this gap. Mobilization capacity involves several critical microprocesses that account for what often appears as error in network models, given that having a network structure does not precisely translate into attaining outcomes. The determinants of mobilization capacity arise at actor- and relational- levels. Actor-level determinants include the actor’s willingness to seek network resources and ability to accurately locate network resources. Relational determinants involve cooperative intent in the relationship and the ability to successfully exchange resources within that interaction. Using these dimensions, we consider how actors realize or degrade their structural potential as they attempt to capture value from their networks. We conclude with an illustrative example of the Matthew effect by describing how each component of mobilization capacity compounds structural advantage, with the structurally rich enjoying efficiencies in resource extraction and the structurally poor further disadvantaged, which increases inequality.
{"title":"Mobilization capacity: Tracing the path from having networks to capturing resources","authors":"Tanya Menon , Catherine T. Shea , Edward Bishop Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100210","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100210","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A key puzzle in social network research is why people have networks in theory but fail to extract resources from them in practice. We propose the concept of <em>mobilization capacity—</em>one’s efficiency in extracting resources from networks—to help explain this gap. Mobilization capacity involves several critical microprocesses that account for what often appears as error in network models, given that having a network structure does not precisely translate into attaining outcomes. The determinants of mobilization capacity arise at actor- and relational- levels. Actor-level determinants include the actor’s willingness to seek network resources and ability to accurately locate network resources. Relational determinants involve cooperative intent in the relationship and the ability to successfully exchange resources within that interaction. Using these dimensions, we consider how actors realize or degrade their structural potential as they attempt to capture value from their networks. We conclude with an illustrative example of the Matthew effect by describing how each component of mobilization capacity compounds structural advantage, with the structurally rich enjoying efficiencies in resource extraction and the structurally poor further disadvantaged, which increases inequality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100210"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142790128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2024.100206
Kylie J. Hwang, Damon J. Phillips
Scholarship on entrepreneurship in top management journals has disproportionately focused on elites, leading our field to develop a great deal of understanding about a select few in society. Collectively, this bias has led to deeper expertise on elite entrepreneurs relative to entrepreneurs with different backgrounds, such as those from marginalized populations. We note the conceptual and prescriptive limitations of this traditional focus and draw attention to the importance of integrating research involving individuals from marginalized populations to improve our theories and prescriptions. Centering our discussion on the relationship between entrepreneurship and employment, we explore the focus on elites in top management journals, highlight exceptions to this focus, and propose a set of research questions as a path to more integrated and robust scholarship on entrepreneurship as represented in top management journals. In particular, we explore ways that our field can better understand when and how employment leads to entrepreneurship, how to better theorize the relationship between one’s past entrepreneurial experience and subsequent employment, and how a richer set of entrepreneurial outcomes can be examined. In each of these cases, we argue that integrating marginalized populations is not merely a matter of representativeness but is essential for strengthening our conceptual frameworks and analyses.
{"title":"“We are experts on elite entrepreneurs”: A call to integrate marginalized populations into entrepreneurship research","authors":"Kylie J. Hwang, Damon J. Phillips","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100206","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100206","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholarship on entrepreneurship in top management journals has disproportionately focused on elites, leading our field to develop a great deal of understanding about a select few in society. Collectively, this bias has led to deeper expertise on elite entrepreneurs relative to entrepreneurs with different backgrounds, such as those from marginalized populations. We note the conceptual and prescriptive limitations of this traditional focus and draw attention to the importance of integrating research involving individuals from marginalized populations to improve our theories and prescriptions. Centering our discussion on the relationship between entrepreneurship and employment, we explore the focus on elites in top management journals, highlight exceptions to this focus, and propose a set of research questions as a path to more integrated and robust scholarship on entrepreneurship as represented in top management journals. In particular, we explore ways that our field can better understand when and how employment leads to entrepreneurship, how to better theorize the relationship between one’s past entrepreneurial experience and subsequent employment, and how a richer set of entrepreneurial outcomes can be examined. In each of these cases, we argue that integrating marginalized populations is not merely a matter of representativeness but is essential for strengthening our conceptual frameworks and analyses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100206"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142790130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-01DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2023.100197
Christopher M. Barnes , David T. Wagner
There are multiple topic areas relevant to human sustainability in organizational behavior. These have recently been integrated into Restricted Employee Sustainability Theory (REST). However, REST as currently formulated focuses on individual employees, leaving the theory undersocialized and undercontextualized. Moreover, REST leaves responsibility for human sustainability on individual employees. We extend rest to take a leader-focused perspective. We highlight how leaders can monitor employees who may be in different employee sustainability states, and how these different employees have different needs which should be managed differently. We discuss how leaders can build a culture which values human sustainability. We delineate three different tensions faced by leaders in the context of human sustainability (short term productivity versus long term human sustainability, protecting human capital versus avoiding paternalism, and maintaining lean payrolls versus maintaining a robust capacity for workload spikes). Finally, we close with a discussion of practical implications and future research. In doing so, we discuss how leaders can enhance the human sustainability of their subordinates and their organizations.
{"title":"Leading for human sustainability: An extension of Restricted Employee Sustainability Theory","authors":"Christopher M. Barnes , David T. Wagner","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2023.100197","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.riob.2023.100197","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There are multiple topic areas relevant to human sustainability in organizational behavior. These have recently been integrated into Restricted Employee Sustainability Theory (REST). However, REST as currently formulated focuses on individual employees, leaving the theory undersocialized and undercontextualized. Moreover, REST leaves responsibility for human sustainability on individual employees. We extend rest to take a leader-focused perspective. We highlight how leaders can monitor employees who may be in different employee sustainability states, and how these different employees have different needs which should be managed differently. We discuss how leaders can build a culture which values human sustainability. We delineate three different tensions faced by leaders in the context of human sustainability (short term productivity versus long term human sustainability, protecting human capital versus avoiding paternalism, and maintaining lean payrolls versus maintaining a robust capacity for workload spikes). Finally, we close with a discussion of practical implications and future research. In doing so, we discuss how leaders can enhance the human sustainability of their subordinates and their organizations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"43 ","pages":"Article 100197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138475765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号