Citations Flashcards
Dansereau, Graen, & Haga 1975
LMX theory
Yukl (1994)
guidelines for TL
Hunter et al., 2013
Self Esteem Workshops that give insights into employee strengths raise self esteem and self efficacy; Interventions designed to increase self esteem or self efficacy greatly increase job performance
Hackman & Oldham, 1976
Job Characteristics Theory; JCT focuses on how org tasks Job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) is a theory of employe motivation and work design that focuses on how elements of a job can affect work attitudes and behaviors. These job characteristics include psychological meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of skill variety, autonomy, task identify, task significance, and feedback. The presence of these characteristics then facilitates psychological states (meaningfulness, responsibility, knowledge of work results), which then influence work related outcomes such as performance, motivation, and satisfaction.
Morris & Campion, 2003
misalignment between needs values etc vs. what a job offers = low levels of motivation and satisfaction
Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, and Alge (1999)
Employee participation in goal setting increases the commitment to reaching the goal
Vroom 1964
expectancy theory OG
Adams 1965
equity theory
Burke (2014)
types of org change
Forsyth, 2013
curvilinear relationship of cohesion to performance; IPO model which is common to many models of team functioning. Inputs are conditions that exist prior to group activity, processes are interactions among group members, outputs are results of group activity. Has been dominant in explaining performance, based on classic systems theory. Causal structure, inputs (individual, team, environmental factors) are causal to group processes (mediators) which are causal to outputs (performance, member reactions). Follows linear progression from inputs to outputs, assumes functioning is static instead of dynamic.
Bell, 2007
meta; surface level variables vs. deep level variables in influencing team performance. Conscientiousness good, high GMA good especially for creative tasks, extraversion good. Deep level composition variables more important than surface level, especially over time. Implications on team member selection. Low agreeableness not usually good but can depend on task. People who enjoy teamwork = good for teams.
Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, & Melner (1999)
definition of team
Mackay, Allen, & Landis (2017)
UWES = low to moderate incremental validity over individual job attitudes. EE = low incremental validity over a higher order job attitude construct representing the combo of other attitudes in the prediction of effectiveness; the results suggest EE is better conceptualized as a higher order measure of job attitudes and may be better to apply as a broad predictor rather than administering seperate measures of job attitudes.
Kahn (1990)
defined employee engagement as the degree to which individuals invest their physical, cog- nitive, and emotional energies into their role performance. According to Kahn, engaged individuals are psychologically present, attentive, connected, integrated, and focused in their role performance
Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002)
contemporary definition of engagement that followed Kahn, defining engagement as “a positive work-related state of mind comprised of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to high levels of energy, the willingness to invest effort, and persistence at work-related tasks. Dedication relates to feelings of involvement in one’s work and the experience of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Lastly, absorption is characterized by full concentration, immersion, and engrossment in one’s work whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties detaching oneself from work. Personal, job, and work engagement are conceptually different but complementary to eachother
Schaufeli & Bakker (2004)
JDR model; proposes that job resources, psycho-social work characteristics such as autonomy, social support, and job feed- back, activate a motivational pathway leading to work engagement and better well-being. Personal resources also activate this pathway; they are individual characteristics such as self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism, which individuals can draw on to overcome work challenges and stay engaged. Job demands include workload, time pressure, and emotional demands and can activate a health impairment pathway lead- ing to poor well-being, engagement, and performance.
Christian, Garza, & Slaughter (2011)
Contextual predictors of EE = jobs that provide social support, performance feedback, autonomy, learning opps, task variety; evidence of incremental validity in predicting job performance over and above commitment; Employee engagement is a real, useful thing. It has discriminant validity from and criterion validity over job attitudes; but they did not discrimiante between the two primary conceptualzions of engagement to get their estimates; thus kahn and scheufeli’s scales were in there together
Rich, LePine, and Crawford (2010)
Engaged employees perform better than non-engaged’ Job engagement scale; designed to measure Kahn’s 1990 conceptualization of engagement
Macey & Schneider, 2008
Describes “trait” engagement: Proactive personality, positive affect, and conscientiousness; says that engagemetn’s nomological network has not been rigorously studied; questions construct validity of enggaement as its defined today
Schaufeli & Bakker (2003)
The UWES, most common measure of EE; contains elements of job sat, involvement, and commitment; their theory proposes engagement as vigor, dedication, absorption; also contends that burnout and engagement are opposite.
Frese (2008)
Employee engagement is nothing but construct proliferation
Greenhaus (1985)
work-family conflict occurs when there are incompatible demands between work and family roles
Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001)
meta; Job sat positively predicts work performance
Colquitt (2001)
Dimensionality of org justice - distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational
Ajzen & Fishbein (1977)
Broad attitudes (like job sat) will strongly predict an equally broad behavioral criterion
Locke and Latham (1990)
goal setting theory
Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994)
Task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance
Bommer et al 1995
Correlation between objective and subjective performance is only .39. this relates to criterion problem.
Bernardin et al (1976)
BARS
Murphy & Cleveland (1991)
Four possible goals that managers may adopt during PA: task performance goals that are purely motivated to increased performance levels and that are directly tied to the organization’s goals in conducting PA; (2) interpersonal goals that focus on ways to maintain or improve positive work climate, maintain feelings of equity, or illustrate power/influence over subordinates, (3) strategic goals to us PA to increase his/her standing the the org by eliminating poor workers and rewarding and promoting good workers, (4) internalized goals to provide as accurate appraisals as possible.
Gottfredson and Aguinis (2017)
LMX is a simple and parsimonious rationale that explains the relation between leadership behaviors and follower performance, suggesting that relational leadership theory is perhaps the best theoretical explanation, out of many currently in use, for why leadership behaviors lead to follower performance; practical implication is that leadership training should focus more on improving the leader follower relationship, as currently there is heavy focus on leader behaviors.
Judge, Piccolo, & Illies (2004)
Meta analysis that offers support for validity of Initiating Structure and Consideration (Ohio Leadership Studies); we have been too quick to denounce their importance; validities of behaviors generalizable across time and settings
Stogdill (1974)
found two types of leader behaviors that were universally effective: initiating structure (task focused) and consideration behaviors (people-focused). Mixed results meant these findings fell out of favor, but they really could be right and we need more research
House (1971)
Path Goal Theory; The leader’s role is to align the goals of followers with the goals of the organization. Inconclusive support; probably too complicated of a model; based on OLS initiating structure and consideration, looks at moderators of those
Judge and Piccolo (2004)
TL most strongly related to leadership effectiveness (.44); meta; Strong correlations between TL and several aspects of leader effectiveness; moderate correlation between cognitive ability and leadership performance; personality traits to leaderhsip
O’Neill and Salas (2018)
High performance work teams = deliver on org objectives and grow member capabilities over time. Primary ways to maximize team effectiveness: develop team ability to work across boundaries (multi team systems), build climate of psych safety, manage development issues (helps to spend more time exploring roles and tasks in first phase, then reflecting), emphasizing alignment of members with org goals via KSAs
Mesmer Magnus & DeChurch (2009)
info sharing positively predicted team performance, cohesion, and knowledge integration
Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001)
teams are multitasking and perform multiple processes simultaneously to achieve goals; emergent states = constructs that characterize proporties of a team that are dynamic and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes; can be inputs or outcomes. Emergent states are not interaction processes or team actions that lead towards outcomes, but are a result of team experiences and then serve as new inputs.
Morgan (1993)
Integrated PEM and Tuckman’s model;
Team Evolution And Maturation (TEAM), which helps to guide consideration of the development of team performance.team development is characterized by the differential maturation of taskwork and teamwork skills. Results indicate that task- and team-related activities were distinguishable in the middle phases of training, but not at the beginning and end of training.
Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005)
IMOI performance model (IPO but includes mediators and feedback loops); time becomes primary focal point in study of teams
Jehn 1995
Team conflict; relationship conflict is BAD; task conflict is GOOD
DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus (2010)
Meta analysis; team cognition is pertinent to effective teamwork and uniquely contributes above and beyond behavioral and motivational variables; people need to be on same page; planning is important and related to team outcomes; laying foundation for team work and task work is important for effective performance over time
Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, and Smith (1999)
Teams don’t build their full capabilitues initially; they form, establish regulatory mechanisms, and evolve over time. Adopts an organizational systems perspective; teams embedded in open but bounded org system that consists of multiple levels (individuals, team, org context). This broader perspective sets top down contextual constraints on teams. Different content, processes, and outcomes are important at different focal levels and different points in time. Phases include team formation, task complication, role compilation, and team compilation.
Burke & Hutchins (2008)
training: supervisor support and reinforcement needed for transfer. Opportunities to practice need to be given immediately. Interactive training methods encourage participation
Kozlowski & DeShon (2004)
Training must have fidelity to be effective
Mathieu & Martineau (1997)
individual characteristics can affect training (motivation, self efficacy, locus of control)
Taylor, Russ-Eft, and Chan (2005)
Meta analysis; transfer of training occurs best when employees are shown examples of good and bad behavior, and given well-defined skills to learn, feedback, and opportunity to practice
Kohn (1993)
Intrinsic motivation overpowers rewards
Parker et al 2003
Meta analysis; psych climate does have significant relationships with work attitudes, motivation, and performance
Armenakis, Harris, & Feild (1999)
3 phases of change: readiness, adoption, and institutionalization. 5 key change message components regardless of intervention model: discrepancy, efficacy, appropriateness, principal support, and personal valence
Washington & Hacker (2005)
“Empirical evidence that managers who understand the change effort are more likely to be less resistant to change. Specifically, the more a manager understood the change, the more likely they were to be excited about the change, the less likely that they would think the change effort would fail, and the less likely they were to state that they wished their organization had never implemented the change. “
Self and Shraeder (2009)
address primary sources of resistance by matching these sources with specific elements within the Armenakis framework that lead to readiness for change. The primary sources of resistance are: personal factors, org factors, content/process factors.
Meyer & Allen (1991)
Three lower-order factors of org. committment: Affective, Normative, & Continuance
Kast & Rosenzweig (1972)
General systems theory of organizations
Halbesleben 2010
Meta analysis that showed that feedback, autonomy, social support and organiza- tional climate are consistently associated with engagement and or particu- lar facets of engagement. also showed that personal resources (for example, self-efficacy and optimism) are strongly related to engagement.
Thomas and Bretz 1994
Increasing PA fairness = less turnover, higher performance without raising costs for org
Aguinis 2014
definition of PM= “a continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization PM process
Schneider 1987
ASA framework
Kirkpatrick (1996)
4 level model of training evaluation criteria
level 1 reaction (favorableness)
Level 2 learning (KSAs squired)
Level 3 behavior (info learned applied to job)
Level 4 results (target outcomes achieved)
Edmondson 1999
psych safety OG; 7 item scale of psych safety, intended for use at team level which she argues is where the construct belongs, but is also isomorphic and can be used at any level
Bacharach 1989
a good org theory is parsimonious, clear, falsifiable, has utility, and has a broad scope
Beer and Nohria 2000
theory E and theory O of org change
