理解气候:竞争价值观框架的元分析扩展

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2020-04-06 DOI:10.1177/2041386620914707
Jeremy M. Beus, S. Solomon, Erik C. Taylor, Candace A. Esken
{"title":"理解气候:竞争价值观框架的元分析扩展","authors":"Jeremy M. Beus, S. Solomon, Erik C. Taylor, Candace A. Esken","doi":"10.1177/2041386620914707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Organizational climate research has surged recently, but the disbursement of research contributions across domains has made it difficult to draw conclusions about climate and its connections with performance. To make sense of the climate literature, we used the competing values framework (CVF) to classify domain-specific climates into four climate types (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market climates). We did so by conceptually linking domain-specific climates that are manifestations of the same underlying strategic values. We then conducted meta-analyses to examine the magnitudes, mechanisms, and moderators of the individual and group-level associations between the CVF climates and performance. These meta-analyses revealed positive climate–performance associations for each climate type and supported job attitudes as a common mediator. We also examined several methodological moderators of climate–performance relationships, testing the source of climate and performance measures, the temporal assessment of these constructs, and the level of within-group agreement in climate measures as possible boundary conditions.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"136 - 168"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620914707","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making sense of climate: A meta-analytic extension of the competing values framework\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy M. Beus, S. Solomon, Erik C. Taylor, Candace A. Esken\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2041386620914707\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Organizational climate research has surged recently, but the disbursement of research contributions across domains has made it difficult to draw conclusions about climate and its connections with performance. To make sense of the climate literature, we used the competing values framework (CVF) to classify domain-specific climates into four climate types (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market climates). We did so by conceptually linking domain-specific climates that are manifestations of the same underlying strategic values. We then conducted meta-analyses to examine the magnitudes, mechanisms, and moderators of the individual and group-level associations between the CVF climates and performance. These meta-analyses revealed positive climate–performance associations for each climate type and supported job attitudes as a common mediator. We also examined several methodological moderators of climate–performance relationships, testing the source of climate and performance measures, the temporal assessment of these constructs, and the level of within-group agreement in climate measures as possible boundary conditions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"136 - 168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2041386620914707\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620914707\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386620914707","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

组织气候研究最近激增,但跨领域的研究贡献使得很难就气候及其与绩效的关系得出结论。为了理解气候文献,我们使用竞争价值框架(CVF)将特定领域的气候分为四种气候类型(氏族、专制、等级制度和市场气候)。我们通过在概念上联系特定领域的气候来做到这一点,这些气候是相同潜在战略价值观的表现。然后,我们进行了荟萃分析,以检查CVF气候和表现之间个人和群体层面关联的大小、机制和调节因素。这些荟萃分析揭示了每种气候类型的积极气候绩效关联,并支持工作态度作为共同的中介。我们还研究了气候-绩效关系的几个方法论调节因素,测试了气候和绩效指标的来源、对这些结构的时间评估,以及气候指标中群体内一致性的水平,作为可能的边界条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Making sense of climate: A meta-analytic extension of the competing values framework
Organizational climate research has surged recently, but the disbursement of research contributions across domains has made it difficult to draw conclusions about climate and its connections with performance. To make sense of the climate literature, we used the competing values framework (CVF) to classify domain-specific climates into four climate types (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market climates). We did so by conceptually linking domain-specific climates that are manifestations of the same underlying strategic values. We then conducted meta-analyses to examine the magnitudes, mechanisms, and moderators of the individual and group-level associations between the CVF climates and performance. These meta-analyses revealed positive climate–performance associations for each climate type and supported job attitudes as a common mediator. We also examined several methodological moderators of climate–performance relationships, testing the source of climate and performance measures, the temporal assessment of these constructs, and the level of within-group agreement in climate measures as possible boundary conditions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
1.60%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.
期刊最新文献
Sustainability champions: A proactive perspective on the inter-organizational job design dynamics of sustainability implementation Multiple Pathways to Leadership: A Revision and Extension of the CIP Leadership Framework More Teams, More Meetings? Toward an Understanding of Multiteam System Meeting Design, Facilitation, and Effectiveness An inconvenient truth about “bundling” commitment, engagement, and embeddedness: Unbundling to extend theory on turnover motivations and beyond Physical Challenge Interventions and the Development of Transferable Skills for the Workplace: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1