 Subjects -> PSYCHOLOGY (Total: 983 journals)
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | | The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice. |
|
|
- From the editors
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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: Roni Reiter-Palmon, Claudia Buengeler
Pages: 207 - 208
Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Volume 13, Issue 3, Page 207-208, August 2023.
Citation: Organizational Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-08-07T11:24:50Z
DOI: 10.1177/20413866231190347
Issue No: Vol. 13, No. 3 (2023)
- How combinations of constraint affect creativity: A new typology of
creative problem solving in organizations-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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: Johnathan R. Cromwell
Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Research suggests that extreme levels of constraint can push people to use different types of creative problem solving, but this conflicts with recent theory arguing that individuals are most creative under a moderate level of constraint. To resolve this issue, this paper proposes a combinatorial theory of constraints that argues it is necessary to understand how multiple dimensions of constraint (e.g., on problems and resources) work together to influence creativity, rather than study them in isolation. Accordingly, two conditions can enhance creativity—either through divergent problem solving or emergent problem solving—because they produce an overall balanced combination of constraint that improves important psychological mechanisms of creativity such as intrinsic motivation and creative search. Alternatively, two other conditions can hinder creativity—either due to ambiguous opportunity or futile effort—because they produce a combined low or high level of constraint on a task.
Citation: Organizational Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-09-14T11:23:46Z
DOI: 10.1177/20413866231202031
- Constructive and destructive leadership in job demands-resources theory: A
meta-analytic test of the motivational and health-impairment pathways-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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: Jan Luca Pletzer, Kimberley Breevaart, Arnold B. Bakker
Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Integrating the leadership literature with Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, we conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis of the relations of different leadership behaviors with followers’ work engagement and burnout. We found that constructive leadership relates positively to followers’ work engagement (k = 588, [math] =.467) and negatively to followers’ burnout (k = 346, [math] =−.327), whereas destructive leadership relates negatively to followers’ work engagement (k = 72, [math] =−.220) and positively to followers’ burnout (k = 122, [math] =.381). We furthermore demonstrated that both followers’ work engagement and burnout partially mediate the relations of both constructive and destructive leadership with followers’ job performance. However, the indirect relation of constructive leadership with followers’ job performance via followers’ work engagement is clearly the strongest, suggesting that leaders stimulate followers’ job performance primarily because they motivate followers. We discuss how the findings of this theory-driven meta-analysis help to integrate leadership research in JD-R theory and generate important insights for leadership behavior and training.Plain Language SummaryIn organizations, leaders can act constructively or destructively toward followers, and that behavior can substantially influence followers’ wellbeing. In the current meta-analysis, we combine all prior research about the relations of different constructive and destructive leadership behaviors with followers’ work-related wellbeing. Work-related wellbeing was assessed based on how engaged and burned-out followers are at work. Summarizing data from more than 1,000 studies, we find that leaders’ constructive behavior relates positively to their followers’ engagement at work and negatively to their levels of burnout, whereas the opposite holds true for relations of leaders’ destructive behavior. Importantly, followers’ work engagement and burnout can also help to explain the well-established relations between leaders’ behavior and followers’ job performance.
Citation: Organizational Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-09-08T07:25:53Z
DOI: 10.1177/20413866231197519
- Of headlamps and marbles: A motivated perceptual approach to the dynamic
and dialectic nature of fairness-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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: Michael R. Bashshur, Laurie J. Barclay, Marion Fortin
Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
How do people perceive fairness' Recently, fairness scholars have raised important theoretical questions related to what information is used in fairness perceptions, why this information is emphasized, and how fairness perceptions can change over time. Integrating the Brunswikian lens approach with a motivated cognition perspective, we develop the Motivated Perceptual Approach (MPA) to highlight how people can be motivated to selectively perceive and weight cues to form fairness perceptions that align with their motives. However, these motives can change over time and through interaction with motivated others. By illuminating the dynamic and dialectic processes underlying fairness perceptions, the MPA sheds light on how people's fairness perceptions can be influenced by their own motives as well as socially constructed and negotiated through interactions with motivated others. Practical insights include how to effectively manage fairness perceptions over time and across perspectives. We conclude with a research agenda for advancing the fairness literature.Plain SummaryWhether or not people perceive they (or others) have been treated fairly or are treating others fairly at work, has implications for a variety of important outcomes ranging from helping others (when people perceive fairness) to undermining supervisors, making plans to quit or punishing bad actors (when people perceive unfairness). Important questions remain, however, around how people come to these perceptions in the first place. How do they decide what is fair' A long time assumption has been that these perceptions are subjective and motivated; that “fairness is in the eye of the beholder.” Based on this assumption, two people who experience the same event may come away with very different fairness perceptions. This is a crucial insight that helps explain the significant disparities in perceptions of fairness between people. However, as a field, we seem to have strayed from that foundational assumption. In this paper, we revisit this premise to develop an approach describing how people collect and integrate information to inform their fairness perceptions, highlighting the particular role that their motives (what they want to perceive, e.g., that they are fair actors, that they are treated well by important others) shape what information they attend to and use in arriving at their perceptions of fairness. From this perspective we explain how fairness perceptions can change over time, explain and predict differences between perspectives (e.g., managers and employees), and provide guidance for developing practical interventions that can reduce these differences before they become intractable.
Citation: Organizational Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-09-06T07:01:17Z
DOI: 10.1177/20413866231199068
- Reactions and Underlying Mechanisms of Customer Mistreatment: An
Integrative Review-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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: Neha Bellamkonda, Rahul Chandra Sheel
Abstract: Organizational Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Service sector employees often deal with mistreatment in their interactions with the customers. Mistreatment during the service interaction varies in severity and intensity ranging from incivility to bullying. However, the current reviews in this domain focus only on certain aspects of mistreatment, rather than looking at customer mistreatment as a holistic phenomenon encompassing a wide range of behaviors. This review provides a thematic synthesis of the literature on customer mistreatment outcomes on employees, identifies boundary conditions of these relationships as well as explains the underlying mechanisms. The review advances the customer mistreatment literature by providing a conceptual framework to explain how reactions towards mistreatment lead to various employee outcomes. Further, the review highlights significant methodological issues and gaps in the existing literature by organizing the customer mistreatment literature and providing agendas for future research.
Citation: Organizational Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-05-25T06:06:19Z
DOI: 10.1177/20413866231177682
- Meaning in life through work: A cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST)
perspective-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of
arousal in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of
abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- A Noisy Theory of Asking for Help That Explains why Many Feel Underwhelmed
With the Help They Receive-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- Integrating workplace meetings and team creative process literature: A
multi-level perspective-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- Inter-team coordination in multiteam systems: Mechanisms, transitions, and
precipitants-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- A meta-analysis of polychronicity: Applying modern perspectives of
multitasking and person-environment fit-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- Culture-driven scripts for meetings: An integrative theoretical lens for
studying workplace meetings-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- The key features of workplace meetings: Conceptualizing the why, how, and
what of meetings at work-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- Toward an organizational theory of meetings: Structuration of
organizational meeting culture-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- The science of workplace meetings: Integrating findings, building new
theoretical angles, and embracing cross-disciplinary research-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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 Abstract 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
- The entitativity underlying meetings: Meetings as key in the lifecycle of
effective workgroups-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- One-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports: A new opportunity
for meeting science-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- The meeting after the meeting: A conceptualization and process model
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
- It's the Theory, Stupid
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
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
|
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
