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}
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.
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.