Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Sharath Baburaj, Gaurav Manohar Marathe Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. This article explores existential meaning-making from work using the cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). To start with, we use the tenets of CEST to elaborate on how the cues from archetype work environments—a realization facilitating work environment (RfWE) and justification facilitating work environment (JfWE)—are interpreted by information-processing systems to imbue meaning in life (MiL) as internal or external manifestations of coherence, purpose, and significance. Next, we explain how individual differences in work centrality and proactive meaning-crafting ability moderate the impact of JfWE, but not of RfWE, on MiL. Finally, we create a nomological network of existential meaning states emerging from the simultaneous presence or absence of RfWE and JfWE. In summary, by applying the information-processing lens of CEST, we develop an integrated model that explains how work drives MiL, elucidates the resultant existential states, and assesses the role of individual differences in meaning-making.Plain Language SummaryThis article develops an integrated model that outlines how work environments can augur human well-being by fostering a sense of meaning in life (MiL). Based on the cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST), expounding parallel-competitive processing of information through the working of the experiential and rational system, we explore how the cues from archetype work environments—a realization facilitating work environment (RfWE) and justification facilitating work environment (JfWE)—influence the varied flavors of MiL and meaninglessness in life. We build the argument that RfWE activates the functioning of the experiential system to induce a feeling of internal MiL as internal coherence, internal purpose, and internal value significance. At the same time, JfWE triggers the functioning of the rational system to construct a judgment of external MiL as external coherence, external worthy purpose, and external value significance. However, the interaction between RfWE and JfWE can result in intricate scenarios, including favorable states such as holistic meaning, positive existential feelings, and positive existential narratives. Still, it can also lead individuals into meaninglessness in life through existential fatigue, existential cocoon, or existential futility. Nonetheless, individual differences in work centrality and proactive behavior to craft meaning can act as moderators to alter the intensity of work’s impact on MiL in a JfWE but not in an RfWE. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-04-01T05:16:51Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866231166151
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Franziska Emmerling, Claudia Peus, Jill Lobbestael Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Due to its devastating consequences, research needs to theoretically and empirically disentangle different sub-types of destructive leadership. Based on concepts derived from aggression research distinguishing re- and proactive aggression, we provide a process model differentiating abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. High versus low arousal negative affect is installed as the central mediating factor determining (1) whether perceived goal-blockage (leadership antecedents) leads to abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership and (2) whether a specific leadership behavior leads to active versus passive follower behavior (leadership consequence). Further, theoretical anchoring of individual and contextual moderators onto the model's process paths is provided and exemplary hypotheses for concrete moderation effects are deduced. Based on the provided process model, we highlight four recommendations to facilitate process-based construct differentiation in future research on destructive leadership. To precisely understand the differences and commonalities in different forms of destructive leadership will ultimately enable custom-tailored inter- and prevention.Plain Language SummaryNegative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their antecedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded” form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated “cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggression and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arousal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can help us to better predict leaders' and followers' behavior. We also outline how individual characteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context interact with arousal and their behavior.Plain Language SummaryNegative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their antecedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded” form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated “cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggression and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arousal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can help us to better predict leaders’ and followers’ behavior. We also outline how individual characteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context interact with arousal and their behavior. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-02-08T05:40:00Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866231153098
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Christopher R. Dishop, Nikhil Awasty Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Employees often feel that the help they receive at work is inadequate. Whereas previous research explains this empirical finding by referencing stereotypes or poor communication, we suggest an alternative that does not rely on biased agents: disappointment with received help may arise due to self-selection and regression to the mean. Before asking for help, employees assess whether their co-workers have the time and ability to respond. Consistent with regression to the mean, extreme beliefs are often followed by less extreme outcomes. However, employees with inflated beliefs are more likely to ask for help than employees with low or modest beliefs. Therefore, the subset of employees who act will have overly optimistic expectations, expectations that are unlikely to be met once co-workers respond. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed.Plain Language SummaryThis article presents a theory explaining the following empirical regularity: employees often feel let down with the help they receive at work. Prior research explains this effect by referencing errors in communication or cognition. We propose a simple, alternative mechanism, such that cognitive biases or communication mishaps need not be present for the pattern to emerge. Suppose employees ask for help based on a noisy signal of colleague potential—that is, a perception of whether co-workers have the motivation and ability to resolve the issue. Employees who believe potential is high will be more likely to ask for help than employees who believe potential is low. Due to regression to the mean, extreme beliefs will likely be followed by less extreme received help (in either direction). But not every employee asks for help. Only those with sufficiently high beliefs send a request—and it is those employees who have a greater chance of holding inflated assessments. Among those who ask, then, received help will appear underwhelming. Apart from challenging conventional wisdom, this article also integrates chance and self-selection perspectives into the ongoing dialogue of help-seeking. Implications for future research, theory, and practice are discussed. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-02-01T06:31:05Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866231153102
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Vignesh R. Murugavel, Roni Reiter-Palmon Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Expanding existing meeting typologies, this paper introduces a model of the team creative process in meetings to better capture and study the full breath of meeting activity that results in creative outcomes. The primary goal of this work is to describe the processes that occur in the team creative process in meetings at the individual and team levels. A multi-level model that depicts the emergence of team creative cognitive processes from individual-level cognitions is presented. The nature of emergence of team creative processes is detailed. Research on creativity and meetings is integrated to better understand how meeting design characteristics influence creative output. This review of research is distilled to provide practical recommendations to best construct meetings to facilitate individual and team creativity. Additionally, the role of related team states in creative processes meetings is outlined. Finally, paths for future research on creativity in meetings are discussed.Plain Language SummaryThis article explores how individuals and teams think creatively in meetings. A model of meetings that have goals to produce creative outcomes is presented. The association between individual thinking processes and group thinking processes is presented alongside a discussion of relevant surrounding influences. Research on creative thinking and workplace meetings is used to better understand how meetings can be used to improve creativity. Practical recommendations to improve the production of creative outcomes in meetings are also provided. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-02-01T06:30:25Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221143369
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:John A Wagner Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Coordination among the teams of a multiteam system is necessary in order to initiate and maintain inter-team interdependence. In turn, coordinated interdependence is required if the teams in a multiteam system are to work together toward a common outcome and succeed as an organized entity. A literature review indicates that multiteam research has indicated that three basic coordination mechanisms—mutual adjustment, direct supervision, and standardization—are used to coordinate interdependence among teams. The review also reveals that multiteam systems research has seldom examined transitions among inter-team coordination mechanisms and has rarely investigated precipitants that trigger mechanism transitions. In light of this finding, this article describes theorized transitions and identifies precipitant factors likely to stimulate these transitions. It concludes that transitions and precipitants merit significant attention in future multiteam systems research in order to render a more complete understanding of inter-team coordination. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-01-31T08:30:50Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866231153537
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Matt C. Howard, Joshua E. Cogswell Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. We apply modern theory on multitasking and person-environment fit to holistically explain the relations of polychronicity as well as provide justifications for disparate results found in prior studies, such as undetected differences regarding task-switching and dual-tasking. We then conduct a meta-analysis of polychronicity's relations. We show that the nomological net surrounding polychronicity matches our proposed fit perspective. We likewise demonstrate that differences in task-switching and dual-tasking indeed influence the observed results of polychronicity, and the growing complexity of businesses may have caused the association of polychronicity and job performance to strengthen over time. Our discussion highlights that polychronicity plays an important role in personal well-being and employee performance, which can be understood by our person-environment fit perspective.Plain Language SummaryWe apply modern theory on multitasking and person-environment fit to holistically explain the relations of polychronicity as well as provide justifications for disparate results found in prior studies, such as undetected differences regarding task-switching and dual-tasking. We then conduct a meta-analysis of polychronicity's relations. We show that the nomological net surrounding polychronicity matches our proposed fit perspective. We likewise demonstrate that differences in task-switching and dual-tasking indeed influence the observed results of polychronicity, and the growing complexity of businesses may have caused the association of polychronicity and job performance to strengthen over time. Our discussion highlights that polychronicity plays an important role in personal well-being and employee performance, which can be understood by our person-environment fit perspective. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-12-14T08:01:03Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221143370
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Evangelia Demerouti, Arnold B. Bakker Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. This theoretical paper presents an extended Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) theory aimed at understanding how organizations and their employees can best deal with COVID-19 and other crises in the workplace. The crisis showed that job characteristics alone are insufficient to explain employee health and motivation, i.e., the two focal outcomes of the JD-R theory. Rather, demands and resources of the individual, the family, the job and the organization interact with each other to predict outcomes. Moreover, next to individual regulatory strategies also the regulatory strategies of the family, the leader and organization/team are suggested to modify the impact of demands and resources on outcomes. This was possible by integrating the crisis management literature in JD-R theory. Viewing the crisis from a job design perspective helped us to introduce several new and testable propositions that specify how employee well-being and functioning are impacted by crises and turbulent times.Plain Language SummaryOrganizations have been struggling to find out how their employees are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and what they can do to support their well-being and improve their functioning during the pandemic and beyond. The well-being and job performance of individual employees are difficult to predict which becomes even more complicated during times of crisis. The Job Demands–Resources theory is a helpful means because it suggests that employee health and motivation are outcomes of two different processes, i.e., the health impairment process and the motivational process. Job demands, such as work pressure and demanding customers, exhaust the energy of employees and consequently diminish their health, whereas job resources, such as autonomy and social support, help employees to deal with the demands and to develop themselves. The pandemic showed that the interplay between demands and resources of the individual, the job, the family and the organization predict outcomes. Moreover, next to individual regulatory strategies also the regulatory strategies of the family, the leader and organization/team are suggested to modify the impact of demands and resources on outcomes. Viewing the crisis from a job design perspective helped us to introduce in the Job Demands–Resources theory several testable propositions that specify how employee well-being and functioning are impacted by crises and turbulent times. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-11-08T01:56:16Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221135022
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Laura S. Fruhen, Jess Gilbert, Sharon K. Parker Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Large distances between work and home require many workers to stay away from home for work over extended periods. An extreme case of such work is fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) work. FIFO work requires workers to stay, over a fixed number of days or weeks, in remote employer-arranged accommodation. Given the disruptive nature of this work arrangement, it is important to develop an understanding of its implications for worker mental health. Based on a systematic review, we identify mostly negative mental health implications of FIFO work and propose an integrative model that brings together FIFO work's key features: the simultaneous fracturing and blending of personal and work lives. The model can guide future research. For example, we suggest that researchers investigate how FIFO workers and other work-related travelers experience fracturing and blending, and how they manage the frequent fluctuation between these two extremes.Plain language summaryFly-in-fly-out work represents a specific and extreme case of work-related travel in which workers are housed by employers and have fixed schedules that prescribe blocks of time at work followed by blocks of time at home, alongside other rules. This paper provides an overview of the literature regarding the mental health implications of FIFO work. Moreover, an integrative model of FIFO work is proposed that brings together its key defining attributes: the simultaneous fracturing and blending of personal and work lives, which FIFO workers, and by extension other work-related travellers, experience. The model identifies the key attributes of this type of work arrangement that shape fracturing namely the commute (i.e., duration, mode, distance) and rosters (i.e., length and ratio of time on and off) and blending experiences, namely accommodation (i.e., type and quality), extent to which autonomy is limited (i.e., via choice in food, activities, scheduling) and social isolation. While developed for an extreme, highly standardized, and specific case of work-related travel, the model may also be useful in research focused on work related travel more broadly, Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-11-03T07:50:46Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221134938
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Megan T. Nolan, James M. Diefendorff, Meghan Thornton-Lugo, Daniel Hynes, Margaret Prezuhy, Jenna Schreiber Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. The current review theorizes that self-regulatory principles can be applied to the commute experience to better understand how spatial navigation and role transition processes interface with each other. Using a multiple goal framework, spatial navigation and role transitions are conceptualized as simultaneous goals, each with their own set of effort allocation processes. Furthermore, the review describes how dynamic and stable features of the commute and of the different roles individuals enact come together to impact spatial navigation and role transition effectiveness, along with well-being and effectiveness in individuals’ “home” and “workplace” roles. The proposed framework offers novel predictions about how and why these two activities impact each other in different ways, providing testable propositions that will help researchers begin to better understand the commute as a time for multiple goal regulation. The review concludes with suggestions for future research aimed at investigating these processes.Plain Language SummaryThe commute represents a time when individuals are focused on physically moving from one location to another to meet the goal of arriving at one's destination in a safe and timely manner (Calderwood & Mitropoulos, 2020). At the same time, individuals may also have the goal of transitioning between roles, which involves mentally detaching from one role (e.g., deactivating goals involved with being a spouse) and reattaching to a second role (e.g., activating goals relevant to being an employee). As such, the current review views the commute as a time and place in which individuals may be striving for multiple goals that involve shifting attention and energetic resources between goals (Louro et al., 2007). The review uses a multiple goal framework (e.g., Louro et al., 2007) to explain how dynamic and stable features of the commute and of individuals’ roles come together to influence commute and role transition effectiveness and work and home outcomes. Further, the review concludes with suggestions for future research aimed at investigating these dynamic processes. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-11-03T07:33:40Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221133745
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Gabrielle C. Danna, Jason G. Randall, Bhindai K. Mahabir Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Though commuting is often seen as a source of stress, commuters may take advantage of travel time to pursue learning and developmental goals—a concept we refer to as Commute-Based Learning (CBL). We draw on self-regulation and learning and development theories to define CBL in terms of its context, content, and process and present the findings of a systematic review of multitasking activities in the transportation literature. This review demonstrates that (a) travel-based activities related to learning are increasingly prevalent, (b) people enjoy being productive during their commutes, and (c) commute mode and environmental characteristics impact multitasking and evaluations of the commute itself. We then integrate these review findings with psychological theories to propose a framework specifying the predictors of CBL, its benefits, and drawbacks, and the commute mode's moderating influence. These efforts yield several practical implications and future research directions to increase CBL's potential benefits while reducing potential harm.Plain Language SummaryAlthough commuting can often be a source of stress, commuters may also take advantage of travel time to pursue learning and developmental goals—a concept we refer to as Commute-Based Learning (CBL).To emphasize the potential benefits and pitfalls of CBL, we draw on learning and development, self-regulation, multiple-goal pursuit, and multiple resource theories to define CBL in terms of its context (where it occurs), content (what it includes), and process (how it is done). Next, we present the findings of a systematic review ofresearch on multitasking activities in the transportation literature to gather evidence of the learning activities that commuters may pursue.This review demonstrates that (a) travel-based activities related to learning are increasingly prevalent, (b) people enjoy being productive during their commutes, and (c)commute mode and environmental characteristics impact multitasking and evaluations of the commute itself. We then integrate these findings from the transportation literature with psychological theories to propose a framework specifying the predictors of CBL (individual and organizational), its benefits (expertise, need satisfaction and well-being) and drawbacks (depletion, reduced safety), and the critical role of commute mode as a moderator of these relationships. Our definition and framework of CBL inform practical implications for improving the benefits of learning during the commute, while mitigating its potential drawbacks. We also present suggested directions for future multidisciplinary research. We hope this review provides insight into the state of the literature on commute-based learning and a clear research agenda for advancement in this broadly important, yet underdeveloped area. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-10-31T06:44:00Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221132060
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Kristie L. McAlpine, Matthew M. Piszczek Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. The increase in remote work during COVID-19 has drawn attention to the function of commutes as work-home transitions. While prior work-home research has referenced commutes as an example of role transitions, little is known about how the characteristics of a commute or the behaviors and processes undertaken in a commute affect their nature. We integrate research on commute characteristics, role transitions, and psychological recovery to develop a transitional perspective of commuting. We provide a conceptualization of liminal space that differentiates its physical and temporal dimensions and its psychological dimension as characteristics of the space through which one transitions during the commute and the experience of rolelessness one may perceive while doing so. We argue that perceived liminality during the commute frees cognitive resources for psychological role transition and recovery. Based on our conceptual model, we discuss implications for role transitions, commuting, and telecommuting research.Plain Language SummaryCommutes provide a regular opportunity for individuals to shift from the work domain to the home domain. While making this transition, commuters occupy a “liminal space” in which they are neither fully engaged with work or home thoughts and behaviors. We explain and explore the physical, temporal, and psychological dimensions of this space, how the characteristics of commutes shape these dimensions, and how these dimensions create an opportunity for individuals to both recover from work and more effectively shift into the home role domain after the commute. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-10-17T07:47:25Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221131394
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Tine Köhler, Helene Tenzer, Catherine Durnell Cramton Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. The current research conceptualizes workplace meetings as socially embedded forms of organizing and proposes that cross-cultural comparisons of workplace meetings offer insights into differences in meeting structures and processes. This provides a deeper understanding of how meetings drive organizing in different cultural settings. Specifically, we build programmatic theory proposing cognitive and behavioral scripts as a promising theoretical lens through which to capture and integrate sociocultural influences on workplace meetings. We adapt Cramton et al.'s (2021) cultural coordination scripts formulation (consisting of the task setting, role structure, temporal structure, and cues) to develop an interpretive framework for workplace meeting processes that orients future research on cross-cultural meetings. We further integrate existing research on cross-cultural meeting differences to develop a generic prototype meeting script and two illustrative examples of culturally specific meeting scripts (for German and U.S.-American meetings) to demonstrate the practical usefulness and usability of this programmatic theory.Plain Language SummaryWorkplace meetings are used by organizations to maintain their overarching goals and purpose. They are an important, maybe the most important, tool through which members of the organization ensure its functioning and the pursuit of its purpose. The form of meetings and the processes involved in carrying out meetings are influenced by the cultural context(s) in which the meeting is held and the organization resides. Previous research has identified meeting characteristics and processes that differ across cultures. Comparisons of meeting structures and processes embedded in different cultural contexts can help researchers explore how variations in meeting characteristics contribute to organizing in organizations. This in turn allows researchers to better illuminate, explain, and guide the management of meetings to support their core goals and purpose. In the current paper, we propose a novel way of conceptualizing, capturing, and studying cross-cultural variations in meeting structures and processes, using the lens of cognitive and behavioral scripts. Scripts are cognitive structures that organize knowledge around how events typically unfold and provide prescriptions for the ways in which actors should interact over time to achieve coordinated action in a task situation. We employ Cramton et al.'s (2021) cultural coordination scripts formulation to create a definition of meeting scripts as well as prototype meeting scripts that can provide the foundation for future meetings research and for improved facilitation of cross-cultural meetings in organizations. Furthermore, we build an overarching, integrative theoretical framework for understanding cross-cultural meeting differences, which will guide future research endeavors into and theorizing about meetings in different cultural contexts. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-09-30T06:47:38Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221128968
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Joseph A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Given the focal role that group and team meetings play in shaping employees’ work lives (and schedules), the scarcity of conceptual and empirical attention to the topic in extant organizational psychology research is a major oversight that stalls scientific understanding of organizational behavior more broadly. With the explosion of meetings in recent years, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some even wonder why organizational psychology has not already figured out meetings from both a science and practice perspective. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the extant literature on the science of workplace meetings and sort the works by identifying the key features of the meeting phenomenon. The five key features of workplace meetings identified include Leading, Interacting, Managing Time, Engaging, and Relating. We couch these features within a larger framework of how meetings are the intersection of collaboration in organizations and indispensable to organizational success. Against this conceptual backdrop, we reviewed a total of 253 publications, noting opportunities for future research and discussing practical implications.Plain Language SummaryGiven the focal role that group and team meetings play in shaping employees’ work lives (and schedules), the scarcity of conceptual and empirical attention in extant organizational psychology research is a major oversight that stalls scientific understanding of organizational behavior more broadly. With the explosion of meetings that has occurred in recent years, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some even wonder why organizational psychology has not already figured out meetings from both a science and practice perspective. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the science of workplace meetings by identifying the core features of the phenomenon and sorting the extant literature along these features. The five core features identified include leading, interacting, managing time, engaging, relating. We couch these features within a larger framework of how meetings are the intersection of collaboration in organizations and a major key to organizational success. Against this conceptual backdrop, we reviewed a total of 253 publications, noting opportunities for future research and discussing practical implications. We conclude our review with an overview of the special issue on workplace meetings, which is an overt attempt to launch research that will fill the theoretical and conceptual gap in the science of meetings. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-09-28T05:26:28Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221129231
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Cliff Scott, Joe Allen Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Although research on meetings generally regards them as noteworthy organizational events, studies tend to focus on an individual or group level of analysis, conceiving of meetings as a phenomenon that happens in organizations but does not shape them. Integrating research on work meetings, structuration theory, and organizational culture, this paper develops the concept of organizational meeting cultures and suggests structuration theory as a framework for explaining their emergence, reproduction, and alteration. We propose a model of organizational meeting culture that theorizes work meetings as a foundational activity that shapes and reifies organizational cultures over time, contributing to their distinctiveness, and influencing patterns of perception regarding what is valued, expected, rewarded, and supported in specific work environments. It concludes with an agenda to be pursued in future research on the structuration of meeting culture.Plain Language SummaryAlthough research on meetings seems to assume they are an important element of organizational life, studies tend to focus on an individual or group level of analysis, which results in theories that only construe meetings as a group phenomenon that happens in organizations but does not constitute them. We propose a model of organizational meeting culture that portrays work meetings as a foundational activity that doesn't just happen to occur within “already organized organizations” but instead also shapes organizational cultures over time, influencing their distinctiveness, shared views of what is valued, expected, rewarded and supported in specific work environments. Integrating research on meetings, structuration theory, and organizational culture, this paper develops the concept of meeting culture and proposes structuration theory as a way to explain how meeting cultures emerge, are sustained, and changed. It concludes with suggestions for future research. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-09-20T06:30:33Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221127249
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Joseph A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. The purpose of this special issue is to bring more theory into meeting science by reviewing literature, identifying knowledge gaps, developing theoretical propositions drawing from different disciplines, and providing direction for future research. The special issue will open with a general overarching review of the literature on meeting science provided by the co-editors. Each subsequent article will focus on a particular domain within meeting science, provide a focused review of the literature, identify knowledge gaps, and push towards theories that will drive future research. Plain Text This is the introduction to the special issue of Organizational Psychology Review that positions meetings at the core of organizations and provides a roadmap for the future science of workplace meetings. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-09-01T06:55:26Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221122896
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Anita L. Blanchard, Joseph A. Allen Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. As more employees work in different locations, meetings become the primary opportunity for workgroup interactions. We explore how workgroup entitativity develops within successful meetings and grounds positive employee and group outcomes between meetings. Social identity theory and self-categorization processes explain how entitativity develops during meetings and activates workgroup identification between meetings. Further, construal level theory, which establishes that physical and psychological distance are positively related, affects entitativity and social identity for dispersed and hybrid workgroups. We propose that entitativity develops in meetings through interactions, co-presence, leader behavior, and meeting size. Between meetings, the frequency of self-categorization into a workgroup identity maintains and even increases workgroup entitativity. Further, task interdependence, informal interactions, and time between meetings affects frequency of self-categorization and, thus, employees’ workgroup entitativity between meetings. We conclude that meetings serve as the primary formal occasion in which workgroup entitativity can be maintained or repaired for optimal workgroup performance. Plain Language Summary Successful meetings lead to productive workgroups but we do not know why or now. We suggest that entitativity (a person's perception of a “group”) develops during successful meetings and explains productive workgroups. Specifically, when people start to work, they can either think of their group or themselves. If they think about their group, a process follows such that the employee comes under the influence of all of the positive characteristics of their group. Because successful meetings influence how people think about their group, entitativity explains successful groups. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-05-20T12:46:34Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221101341
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jonathan R. Flinchum, Liana M. Kreamer, Steven G. Rogelberg, Janaki Gooty Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings.Plain Language SummaryMeeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-05-11T07:43:39Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221097570
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Annika L. Meinecke, Lisa Handke Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. This article offers initial theorizing on an understudied phenomenon in the workplace: the meeting after the meeting (MATM). As an informal and unscheduled event, the MATM takes place outside managerial control and has potentially far-reaching consequences. However, our current knowledge of the MATM relies primarily on practitioner observations, and conceptual work that integrates the MATM into the larger meeting science literature is missing. This article fills this gap by outlining key defining features of the MATM that can be used to structure future research. Moreover, and based on theorizing concerning the affect-generating nature of meetings, we develop an affect-based process model that focuses on the antecedents and boundary conditions of the MATM at the episodic level and shines light on meetings as a sequential phenomenon. Plain Language SummaryThis article sheds light on an understudied but rather common phenomenon in the workplace: The meeting after the meeting (MATM). Defined as an unscheduled, informal and confidential communication event, the MATM has the potential to create new structures in everyday organizational life. Yet, our current knowledge of this particular meeting type is very limited and largely based on anecdotal accounts by practitioners. To guide future research, this article first outlines key features of the MATM, focusing on when the MATM occurs, where it takes place, how it takes place, why it takes place, and who is involved in the MATM. Next, this article presents an affect-based process model of the MATM. To this end, antecedents and boundary conditions at the episodic level are outlined, highlighting that meetings should be seen as interconnected, sequential events. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-05-03T11:49:21Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221097409
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Herman Aguinis, Matthew A. Cronin Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. To the complex question of “What is the number one issue on which we should focus as producers, evaluators, and consumers of research'” our simple and blunt answer is: It's the theory, stupid. Accordingly, we offer guidance on how to produce, test, and use theory by answering the following questions: (1) Why is theory so critical and for whom' (2) What does a good theory look like' (3) What does it mean to have too much or too many theories' (4) When don’t we need a theory' (5) How does falsification work with theory' and (6) Is good theory compatible with current publication pressures' Our answers are useful to current and future scholars and journal editors and reviewers, as well as consumers of research including other researchers, organization decision makers, and policy makers, and other stakeholders in the theory production and testing process including deans and other university administrators. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-02-21T05:17:42Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221080629
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Christopher W. Wiese, Charles Calderwood First page: 3 Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. In this introduction to the special issue about commuting, we invite readers to consider how this frequently occurring worker activity should be integrated and investigated within the organizational sciences. Commuting is ubiquitous in organizational life. Yet, despite this centrality, it remains one of the most understudied topics in the organizational sciences. This special issue seeks to remedy this oversight by introducing seven articles that review the literature, identify knowledge gaps, theorize through an organization science lens, and provide directions for future research. We introduce these seven articles by discussing how they address three cross-cutting themes (Challenging the Status Quo, Insights into the Commuting Experience, The Future of Commuting). We hope that the work within this special issue informs and inspires organizational scholars to engage in meaningful interdisciplinary research on commuting going forward.Plain Language SummaryThis special issue aims to encourage readers to consider how commuting research can and should be investigated within the organizational sciences. Commuting is a frequently occurring activity of daily living, but remains one of the most understudied topics in the organizational sciences. This special issue aims to address this issue through seven papers which review the literature, identify knowledge gaps, offer theoretical advancement, and yield future research directions. We introduce these seven articles via the presentation of three cross-cutting themes (Challenging the Status Quo, Insights into the Commuting Experience, The Future of Commuting). Our goal is that this special issue will inform and inspire future organizational science research on commuting. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-11-11T07:10:46Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221134972
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Lauren D. Murphy, Haley R. Cobb, Cort W. Rudolph, Hannes Zacher First page: 11 Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Research on commuting to work and its potential consequences for employee strain and wellbeing has accumulated across various disciplines. However, this has led to a narrow research scope with wide methodological variability. An integration of this literature is needed to understand the breadth of the commuting experience and interpret heterogeneous findings. Extending the transactional stress model, we propose that commuting is a demand that can have both negative and positive effects on outcomes through commuting appraisals. We present a systematic review (k = 109 studies) and meta-analysis (k = 39 studies) of these relationships. Our systematic review finds partial support for our hypotheses, and our meta-analysis suggests that objective commuting demands are positively associated with strain outcomes (r ̅_xy = .089; especially perceived stress, r ̅_xy = .153), but unrelated to wellbeing outcomes. Subjective commuting appraisals are unrelated to strain or wellbeing outcomes. We conclude with recommendations for methodological improvements and implications for research and practice.Plain language summaryCommuting is a nearly ubiquitous part of contemporary employment. Over the last several decades, empirical research on commuting has accumulated across various disciplines. Our systematic review and meta-analysis take stock of relationships regarding commuting demands, appraisals of commuting, and strainand wellbeing-related outcomes. The results of the qualitative review indicate that there are both positive and negative implications of commuting. Commuting demands are related to favorable and unfavorable appraisals, and commuting demands are also related to both strain and wellbeing outcomes. However, the result of our quantitative meta-analysis suggests that time spent commuting is positively associated with strain outcomes, but unrelated to wellbeing outcomes. Subjective commuting appraisals are unrelated to strain and wellbeing outcomes. We outline implications for future research (e.g., commuting’s role in boundary management), highlight methodological challenges (e.g., variability in reporting), and provide recommendations for practice (e.g., offer resources that mitigate consequences of commuting). Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-10-20T11:45:08Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221131404
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Shani Pindek, Winny Shen, Stephanie Andel First page: 44 Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Most research on commuting has focused on its negative aspects and consequences (i.e., stress). However, some work has also begun to recognize that there may be positive aspects to commuting. In this paper, we develop a perspective that has so far received limited attention, highlighting how the commute can be experienced as desired and beneficial “me time”, due to the fact that it inhabits a “third space” that is less associated with work or home role requirements. Drawing upon and integrating theories and research on commuting, leisure, recovery, and identity, we first define this construct and then develop a theoretical model that aims to address key questions regarding predicting motivation to engage in “me time”, beneficial outcomes of “me time”, and potential moderators of these effects. Consequently, our proposed model offers both research and practical implications for commuting employees as well as their employers, families, and society.Plain Language SummaryThe majority of research on commuting has focused on its negative aspects and consequences (i.e., stress). However, increasingly, some work has also begun to recognize that there may be some positive aspects of commuting. Despite some scholars acknowledging the potential benefits of commuting, most still conceptualize the commute as simply a necessary transition between domains (i.e., work and home). In this paper, we seek to bring a new perspective to the literature, highlighting how the commute can be experienced as desired “time to myself”. We therefore develop a theoretical model that aims to address key questions surrounding this phenomenon, including what is “me time” during the commute, who is more likely to uses the commute for “me time”, what are the situational factors that facilitate or inhibit choosing “me time”, what positive outcomes can be expected when engaging in “me time”, and what conditions are likely to affect this process. We also discuss the underlying mechanisms for this process. As a result, our proposed model presents both research and practical implications for commuting employees as well as their employers, families, and society. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-10-26T06:54:21Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221133669
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Fabiola H. Gerpott, Wladislaw Rivkin, Dana Unger First page: 67 Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. The few studies that have considered psychological processes during the commute have drawn an ambiguous picture, with some emphasizing the negative and others the positive consequences of commuting. Drawing on self-determination theory, we develop a framework that expands on the costs and benefits of commuting for employees’ subsequent domain-related functioning at work and home. Specifically, we propose employees’ basic needs satisfaction and processes of autonomous and controlled self-regulation as mechanisms that explain how psychological commute characteristics spill over to domain-related functioning through experienced subjective vitality. In doing so, we introduce a taxonomy of psychological commute characteristics and highlight the importance of separating these underlying subjective characteristics from objective aspects of the commuting environment. Our research encourages scholars to conduct within- and between-person studies to examine how the objective commute environment and associated psychological commute characteristics affect employees’ self-regulation.Plain Language SummaryWhat happens during the commute does not stay within the boundaries of the commute: Aversive experiences such as being stuck in a traffic jam may spill over to lower engagement in work or home activities. Similarly, positive incidents such as flowing to work uninterruptedly can positively impact subsequent experiences such as flowing (i.e., being fully engaged) when performing tasks at work or at home. How can this be explained' Our article suggests that commuters enter motivational states when going and coming from work. For instance, they feel that everything is going easy and under one's control (autonomous self-regulation) or they feel that the commute is effortful and externally determined (controlled self-regulation). These motivational states influence subjective vitality after the commute, which in turn predicts how employees function at work or at home. Importantly, while objective aspects of the commute environment (for instance, the length of one's commute or one's means of transportation) have an impact on these motivational states, we argue that they do so via psychological commute characteristics perceived by the commuter. We focus on the latter and predict employees’ motivational state during the commute in the form of the fulfillment of their basic needs (i.e., feeling autonomous, competent, and related during the commute) as determined by different psychological commute characteristics (decision latitude, psychological stimulation, social characteristics, physical aspects, insecurity). Our work can inspire research that investigates why different employees perceive their commute differently as well as why the same employee may experience different motivational states during their commute from day to day. We end with practical recommendations for communities, organizations, and the commuter themselves. Citation: Organizational Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-11-01T07:11:28Z DOI: 10.1177/20413866221133644
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
