Foundations of OB Flashcards
Bunderson & Thompson (2009)
Summary: Double-edged nature of calling. It serves as a motivator and sense of meaning, but can lead people to sacrifice time, pay, and well-being in order to fulfill the calling.
Major Contribution 1: Calling = beyond rationality, a feeling of obligation or duty to fulfill a mission. Classical view = duty to society, modern view = duty to self.
Major Contribution 2: Occupational identity – shared belief that one’s work and the work within the community of those who share that occupation is deeply meaningful.
Major Contribution 3: Methodological: generating hypotheses from qualitative interviews, testing hypotheses with a follow-up survey.
Crosina & Pratt (2019)
Summary: Mourning organizational death and the process of moving forward.
Major Contribution 1: Deals with the enduring of organizational identification and attachment, which happen after people leave organizations (or if the organizations themselves dissolve).
Major Contribution 2: Iterative interviewing, allowing time between for theory refinement/development.
Major Contribution 3:
Heath (1999)
Summary: Lay beliefs about motivation overemphasize extrinsic incentives (pay, job security) and underemphasize intrinsic incentives (Learning).
Major Contribution 1: Organizations and agents are in a “deal” where agent contribute to organizational goals in exchange for rewards.
Major Contribution 2: Everyone overemphasizes the extent to which OTHERS are motivated by extrinsic, and not intrinsic, goals and factors. This broke from the traditional actor-observer effect. Due to (1) presence of explicit deals, (2) long term nature, (3) ranking of importance between different job elements.
Major Contribution 3: Expansion of self-serving bias, where people see themselves as exceptional/overly positive. Maintains self esteem.
Leana et al. (2009)
Summary: Individual and collective job crafting are separate constructs. Collaborative crafting is positively related to performance (especially among low experienced teachers). Also positively related to satisfaction, commitment, and attachment.
Major Contribution 1: Individual and collaborative crafting are distinct. Policy design to allow for collective crafting. Individuals can define their work beyond what is stated in formal job requirements.
Major Contribution 2: Expands Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model (skills, tasks, autonomy, feedback). And links collaborative job crafting to organizational performance for the first time.
Major Contribution 3: Methodological: observations, interviews, follow-up survey.
Wresniewski and Dutton (2001)
Summary: Job Crafting = changing task and relational boundaries of work. Changes design and social environment of the job, alters work meaning and work identity.
Major Contribution 1: Model presented that examines: motivations for job crafting -> how opportunities and individual orientations determine the forms job crafting takes (can be built into job/environment, or one can be motivated to job craft) -> likely individual and organizational effects.
Major Contribution 2: People are motivated to job craft to avoid alienation from their work, improve self-image, connect with others. Work identity = who you are at work. Ex from article: cleaners in hospital seeing themselves as crucial in the patient care process, hairdressers personally connecting with clients.
Major Contribution 3: Can be geared toward both tasks (what you do) and relations (who you do it with) at work.
Grant (2008)
Summary: Task significance is positively related to job performance and job dedication, and is moderated by prosocial values and conscientiousness.
Major Contribution 1: Task significance = work that is meaningful, benefits others, and contributes to society.
Major Contribution 2: This is particularly true for “employees who do not naturally endorse strong work ethics”
Major Contribution 3: Methodological – set of three experiments that go beyond cross-sectional studies and “confounded manipulations” of research prior to this point.
Grant et al. (2011)
Summary: Job design can influence workers’ level of engagement and satisfaction w/ jobs.
Major Contribution 1: Positive job design typically includes the granting of autonomy, empowerment of workers.
Major Contribution 2: Expands on Hackman and Oldham model – defines motivating potential of a job as product of autonomy, feedback, and the average of task significance, task ID, and skill variety.
Major Contribution 3: New Job Characteristics model includes the physical, knowledge, and social aspects of jobs. Needs to take context into account.
Parker et al. (2019)
Summary: First study testing how individuals actually design work. Opening up an area of inquiry in studying how/why individuals design work as they do.
Major Contribution 1: We can’t rely solely on employee-driven job crafting as the designer/producer of good work arrangements. Individuals with training in work design theory will design jobs that have higher enriched task allocation.
Major Contribution 2: Designing enriching work does not come naturally. Aided by things like openness to change and positive affect. Capacity and willingness are two biggest drivers of designing engaging work.
Major Contribution 3: (Limit) - survey based, not actually tested among job designers in real life.
Erhardt & Ragins (2019)
Summary: People prefer psychological attachment through relationships at work, but there can be “too much of a good thing” when relationships get too personal and people pull back.
Major Contribution 1: People don’t just need support at work, they need a type and magnitude of support that is congruent to what they desire. Complementary fit perspective of relational attachment at work.
Major Contribution 2: Integrated model of meaningful connections (Kahn, 2007) with person-environment fit. People do not seek general support, but the type of support that fit their needs. Previous work had not tested to this level.
Major Contribution 3: Links relational needs fit (through relational attachment – feeling connected, attached, close to others at work) to organizational commitment, decreased turnover, etc..
Kim et al. (2022)
Summary: Contributes by exploring organization-wide perceptions of support by employees (org-level perceived support, OPS). Links OPS to profitability through workforce performance and voluntary turnover rate.
Major Contribution 1: Looks at OPS instead of individual-level perceived support. Aggregated individual measures of perceived OPS.
Major Contribution 2: Links OPS to the bottom line. Opens door for studies of antecedents and consequences of organization-wide treatment of employees.
Major Contribution 3: OPS overshadows individual contributors of identification, commitment, and sense of responsibility – as well as leadership.
Judge et al. (2017)
Summary: Presents theoretical models of job attitudes, drawing on existing models and then expanding based on new theoretical approaches.
Major Contribution 1: Juxtapose social attitudes and job satisfactions. Job satisfaction = cognitive and affective components.
Major Contribution 2: There are a ton of various conceptualizations of job satisfaction.
Major Contribution 3: Job satisfaction can be measured within-person and between-unit, and can be measures via mood or discrete emotions.
Bernstein (2012)
Summary: Increased observation and surveillance actually decreased worker productivity and effectiveness.
Major Contribution 1: Over-observation and excessive control lowered “productive deviance” and prevented people from taking shortcuts that they knew worked better.
Major Contribution 2: Found impact of privacy on groups. Does not necessarily hold for individuals.
Major Contribution 3: Methodological: theory development and testing in the same paper.
Kakkar et al. (2020)
Summary: High status actors who are perceived to be dominant received harsher penalties and sanctions across a variety of studies.
Major Contribution 1: Goal – reconciling the theoretical inconsistency where some argue that high status actors are severely punished and others “get off easy.”
Major Contribution 2: Methodological deficiency – using face structure as a proxy for dominance. Weird.
Major Contribution 3: Perverse incentive for high status high prestige actors to transgress, knowing that they will not be held accountable to the same extent.
Lu et al. (2021)
Summary: Examined the impact of multicultural experiences on leadership competence at the micro level, and found that leaders with multicultural experiences were rated as more effective leaders (on a six-item scale).
Major Contribution 1: How and when do multicultural experiences foster leadership effectiveness? Breadth > depth of experience.
Major Contribution 2: Changed the level of analysis from multicultural leaders -> firm-level outcomes to individual ratings of leaders who had (or lacked) multicultural experiences.
Major Contribution 3: Leaders with multicultural experiences were more effective in general, but especially effective in leading multicultural teams.
Solinger et al. (2020)
Summary: Moral leadership = situation wherein individuals take a moral stance on an issue, convince others to do the same, and together spur change in a moral system.
Major Contribution 1: Expand research from a micro level to explore socially situated emergence of moral leadership. Coalition building from groups of rank-and-file organizational members.
Major Contribution 2: Emergence of moral leadership is a challenge to an existing immoral order, sparked by a disconnect between individual and organizational values.
Major Contribution 3: Results in the establishment of a new moral order that is stewarded – until this point, it is a constant state of challenging an existing immoral order.
Shah et al. (2021)
Summary: Exploring the microfoundations of intragroup conflict. Where does it originate? How does it evolve over time?
Major Contribution 1: Utilization of social network methodology to capture fine-grained interpersonal conflict within teams.
Major Contribution 2: Intragroup conflict most often stems from individuals, dyads, and/or subgroups. Conflict is not distributed uniformly among team members. Individual an dyadic conflict positively predicted team performance (healthy disagreement?).
Major Contribution 3: Conflict is sticky (continuity) and typically is not contagious and does not concentrate among a few individuals (though there are times when this happens).
Bowles et al. (2019)
Summary: Proposing a conceptual framework for gendered research in career negotiations. Finds three strategies (asking, bending, shaping) that vary based on the extent to which one redefines organizational norms.
Major Contribution 1: Attempts to challenge or clarify the “women don’t ask” narrative that ignores social and organizational contexts (findings are in lab settings).
Major Contribution 2: Ask = proposal in line with org norms. Bend = deviates from standard org practices. Shape = proposal to change org structures or practices. Bending and shaping are challenging but strategies women can use to help navigate the “nontraditional” context in which asking is met with resistance.
Major Contribution 3: Pay negotiations are only a narrow slice of what is negotiated in org settings. Women often face pushback in negotiating. Bending and shaping can be mutually beneficial strategies for all in the org.
Allport (1954)
Summary: Presents conditions under which intergroup prejudice can be reduced.
Major Contribution 1: There exists positive and negative intergroup contact.
Major Contribution 2: Negative intergroup contact can be the result of prejudice and a lack of understanding or perception of competition between in groups and out groups.
Major Contribution 3: Optimal conditions for intergroup contact = equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and authority support.
LePine and Van Dyne (1998)
Summary: Field study looking at voice behavior as a function of person-centered and situational factors. Found that the combination of these factors explained 10% of the variance in peer-rated voice 6 months later.
Major Contribution 1: Fills gap in trying to predict voice. Previous literature had fallen short here. Individual predictors = satisfaction with group, self-esteem. Situational predictors = group size, style of management.
Major Contribution 2: Leaders can influence whether their employees speak up because they: 1) send signals about whether it is appropriate or effective 2) control rewards structures 3) can implement the ideas voice promotes.
Major Contribution 3: Voice can be promoted through organizational design – group structure, group composition, leadership style, etc.
Detert and Burris (2007)
Summary: Looking at relationship between two types of change-oriented leadership (transformational leadership and managerial openness) and subordinate improvement-oriented voice.
Major Contribution 1: Openness is more consistently related to voice (than transformational leadership) when controlling for personality, satisfaction, job demography. Relationship is mediated by subordinate perceptions of psych. safety.
Major Contribution 2: Leaders are important in how their subordinates assess the risk of speaking up. Leadership behaviors have the strongest impact on the voice of the best-performing employees.
Major Contribution 3: Methodological: Assessed common method bias from first study (which used one rater) by using a time-lagged approach in Study 2.
Morrison (2011)
Summary: Review of the literature on employee voice (the decision whether to speak up or remain silent when one has potentially useful information), synthesize past work, and provide directions for future research.
Major Contribution 1: Integrative definition of voice: “Discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning” Related to upward communication, whistle-blowing, silence.
Major Contribution 2: Antecedents/motivators of voice behavior = perceived efficacy, perceived safety. Contextual factors = org structure, communication mechanisms, org culture, supervisor behavior.
Consequences of voice = org learning, effective decision making. Individual = enhanced feelings of control, increased satisfaction. Downsides = damaged public image, formal sanctions.
Major Contribution 3: Future areas of study:
- How findings vary by message type.
- Formality and timing of communication.
- How voice efforts are framed.
-Individual v. group voice. - Nuanced understand of how voice is perceived?
Satterstrom et al. (2020)
Summary: Exploring how upwardly voiced ideas endured to reach implementation. 208 initial ideas, and only 49 reached implementation despite appearing initially to be rejected. These ideas were kept alive by team members who drew upon and revived the initial ideas. The paper details the VOICE CULTIVATION PROCESS and five pathways through which voiced ideas stayed alive
Major Contribution 1: Five pathways to advance ideas through the adoption process = allyship, persistence, co-crafting, problematizing, catalyzing
Major Contribution 2: Methodological – Collected and analyzed transcripts from weekly meetings over 21 months.
Formal and informal interviews, shadowing, observation.
Major Contribution 3: Filling gap in existing research that had not studied that influence that OTHER group members have on the expression and efficacy of voice.
Sherf et al. (2021)
Summary: Contributing to the debate around whether voice and silence are opposites or distinct constructs. Provides a conceptual framework for the independence of voice and silence and look at how two antecedents – perceived impact and psychological safety – more strongly relate to voice and silence.
Major Contribution 1: Study 1 – voice and silence are independent constructs. Perceived impact relates more strongly to voice, psych safety relates more strongly to silence. Silence has a stronger association with burnout, voice has a stronger association with performance.
Major Contribution 2: Voice and silence fit BAS (Behavior activation system) and BIS (behavior inhibition system) framework.
Major Contribution 3: Relationship with burnout. Voice should be energizing and optimistic, silence is experienced as stressful and can take an emotional toll on those who experience it.
Detert et al. (2013)
Summary: Two studies. Developing and testing theory about the relationship between speaking up and unit performance by accounting for where employee voice is flowing.
Major Contribution 1: Voice flows are positively related to a unit’s effectiveness when they are targeted at the focal leader of that unit, and negatively related to a unit’s effectiveness when they are targeted at coworkers who have little power to effect change.
Major Contribution 2: Lateral flow of voice directed to coworker or coworkers is negatively related to unit performance.
Major Contribution 3: Methodological – first qualitative (open-ended responses for nuance) then quantitative (survey) to measure.
Burris (2012)
Summary: Examines whether managerial responses to employees speaking up depend on the type of voice exhibited by the employees. Specifically examines the differences in responses to challenging voice, which involves “speaking up in ways intended to alter, modify, or destabilize generally accepted sets of practices, policies, or strategic directions that make up the status quo” versus reactions to expressions of supportive voice, which is “intended to stabilize or preserve existing organizational policies or practices.”
Major Contribution 1: 3 studies – 1 field and 2 lab. Expressions of supportive voice were generally associated with positive employee outcomes in the form of increased perception of performance, higher likelihood of idea endorsement, and increased perceptions of loyalty. The inverse was true for challenging voice (lower performance ratings, lower likelihood of idea endorsement, and increased perceptions of threat)
Major Contribution 2: Nuanced findings whereby perceptions of threat by managers do not necessarily hinder the adoption of the ideas presented by those who are seen as threatening.
Major Contribution 3: Potential for qualitative extension – what are the thought processes behind perceptions of threat and how do people parse the nuance of someone’s challenging approach with a particularly effective idea?
Parker et al. (2019)
Summary: Review seeking to understand the factors that shape the effect of proactivity on individual-level outcomes.
Major Contribution 1: Three categories that mitigate or exacerbate the effectiveness of proactive behavior. Situational judgement, having an open leader, learning orientation.
Major Contribution 2: Considers multiple forms of proactive behavior (voice, taking charge, individual-level innovation, etc.)
Major Contribution 3: Draws on wisdom theory top discuss how individuals can be “wise” in how/when they exercise proactivity.
- Draws on political skills, situational judgement, contextual knowledge.
- Set goals with collective interests in mind.
- Change isn’t always the appropriate solution.
Tajfel and Turner (1978)
Summary: Chapter goal is presenting an outline of a theory of intergroup conflict. Expanding view from individual-level prejudices to take into account group identification and context.
Major Contribution 1: Bridges the gap between overly-individualistic and overly-group deterministic views of social conflict between different groups of people.
Major Contribution 2: Theory holds that competition for scarce resources in a stratified society should produce in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. However, it is often the case that subordinate groups derogate those in their own in-group and positively look at the dominant out-group.
Major Contribution 3: Social Identity – a social categorization tool that helps segment, classify, and order the social environment and enable the individual to undertake many forms of social action. People pressured to view their own group favorably. Paper detailed example studies of how social categorization leads to favorable results even in “non-competitive” settings.
Cha and Roberts (2019)
Summary: Work-related goals triggered mobilization of identity – producing quality work, building relationships, constructing a positive image. This mobilization was able to draw on identity in a constructive way and leverage it for individual benefit.
Major Contribution 1: When performing tasks, identities are activated and made salient by the actions of others and the content of tasks. They can help execute tasks but also can create tensions.
Major Contribution 2: Tensions arose from these identity-based triggers - perpetuating stereotypes, activism tension, pigeon-holing and objectivity tension.
Major Contribution 3: Strategies used to navigate = crafting, challenging, confirming, bridging.
Ramarajan and Reid (2020)
Summary: Relational reconciliation = strategy whereby tutors engaged with their own identities vis a vis their students’ identities in open and honest dialogue.
Major Contribution 1: not focusing on either the organizational tactics or socializee’s reactions, but centering the socialization agent.
Major Contribution 2: focusing on the misalignment between organizational demands and socialization agents’ practices. Future area of study = looking into how this impacts socialization agents.
Major Contribution 3: Tutors across the spectrum reported experiencing identity threat. Those from higher-status social identities were concerned about being viewed as “saviors,” while those from minoritized and/or lower-status social identities were worried about being perceived as “traitors.”
Creed et al. (2010)
Summary: Centers on the internal processes of reconciling contradictory identities (LGBTQ and Christian) and eventually leveraging the identities to spur change within the organization.
Major Contribution 1: Highlights the activation of an identity and how that is used to generate organizational change.
Major Contribution 2: Three microprocesses – internalization of contradictions, identity reconciliation, role claiming and embodied role use.
Major Contribution 3: Methodological – snowball sampling used to overcome the “invisible identity” issue present in the setting/context.
Posner and Powell (1985)
Summary: Early, methodologically-rough survey of business students asking about socialization experiences in the workplace. Quantitative exploration of socialization practices.
Major Contribution 1: Gendered differences – Females had more mentor/sponsor relationships, males greater business travel.
Major Contribution 2: Socialization experiences (orientation, interaction w other recruits, first supervisor) all rated higher by men than women.
Major Contribution 3: Shortcoming – discussion section frames the differences between experiences via gender as an individual issue.
Beagan (2005)
Summary: Explores socioeconomics and challenges associated with socioeconomic status in the medical profession.
Major Contribution 1: Quantitative and qualitative explanation of lack of fit among working class med students.
Major Contribution 2: Background and experiences in medical school also positively related to skepticism toward the medical system.
Major Contribution 3: Authors posit that lack of representation and knowledge about diverse experiences in the medical field may contribute to discussion around disparate health outcomes rooted in socioeconomic status.
Dumas et al. (2013)
Summary: Study about the nuance and complexity of bringing racially diverse groups together.
Major Contribution 1: Simply bringing people together is insufficient for developing quality relationships. The quality of experience matters.
Major Contribution 2: The mediator between integration behaviors and closeness is quality of experience, which is why the relationship between integration behaviors and closeness is moderated by racial dissimilarity. Racially-diverse experience can be negative and not produce closeness.
Major Contribution 3: Methodological – survey based, had to use Qualtrics in study 2 to get a more racially diverse sample. Also relied on self-reports.
