Org cites - recall cites Flashcards
Job Characteristics Model of work motivation-5 core job characteristics: Feedback, Autonomy, Task identity, Task Significance, Skill Variety-Lead to 3 critical psych states: experienced meaningfulness, knowledge of results, and felt responsibility.-Which lead to 4 outcomes: increased internal motivation, performance, job satisfaction, and reduced absenteeism.-Implies that by enriching jobs on these characteristics, you can enhance these outcomes.-Humphrey et al., 2007 found that meaningfulness was the primary mediating mechanism.
Hackman and Oldham, 1976
This is a chapter on work design.-Task (autonomy, variety, significance, feedback), knowledge (e.g., complexity, problem solving, specialization), social (e.g., social support, interdependence), and contextual characteristics (e.g, ergonomics, physical demands, work conditions) influence employees’ attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, and well-being outcomes.-Mediators to outcomes of W.D.: meaningfulness, responsibility, knowl of results, empowerment, & SE.-Outcomes of effective W.D.: attitudinal (e.g., satisfaction, commitment), behavioral (e.g., productivity, OCB, turnover), cognitive (e.g., role ambiguity, turnover intentions), and/or well being (e.g., stress, burnout, overload, work-family)-Moderators: e.g., cog ability, conscientiousness, PA-Work design interventions can help to increase satisfaction and efficiency, so tradeoffs are reduced. -Increasing autonomy increases role-breadth self-efficacy, which increases proactive behaviors. Two theories that may help explain how work characteristics impact outcomes are JCM and regulatory focus.
Morgeson et al, 2013
This is the first meta that tested the JCM model and it expanded upon it. -The primary mediator in the characteristics-psych states-outcomes model is experienced meaning. Aligns with SDT (ultimate goal of life is meaningfulness)- They extended JCM by testing additional motivational job characteristics (e.g., job complexity) and found that they impact a variety of work outcomes such as job satisfaction and overload.- They also added social and work context characteristics and found they have comparable relationships with work outcomes as job characteristics, and they had incremental impact, especially social characteristics.
Humphrey et al (2007)
This is an empirical article on relational work design. -They found that relational work redesign that enhances structural support can reduce role overload and improve performance and proactive behaviors. -Effects were dependent on the individuals understanding of others’ work roles & their NA.-Relational work design: whereas JCM focuses on design of jobs to fuel intrinsic motivation and performance, relational focuses on the design of jobs to fuel prosocial motivation (motivation to care about protecting and promoting the wellbeing of beneficiaries, i.e., patients). So it focuses on social charact. (per Morgeson et al.’s model) -When jobs are high in both task significance & contact with beneficiaries, employees will experience higher impact on and affective commitments to beneficiaries, which fuels prosocial motivation (effort, persistence, helping behavior). Grant, 2007
Parker et al., 2013
This is an empirical article on planning methods’ effects on engagement and performance.-Time management planning (TMP) and contingent planning (CP) positively and uniquely influence daily performance through enhanced work engagement. -Interruptions had no influence on CP effects, but weakened the effects of TMP.-Employees can utilize either method to increase daily engagement and performance at work, but TMP might not be as effective when employees experience high levels of interruptions at work on a particular day. -In dynamic work environments, CP is a good strategy individuals can employ to help them maintain engagement and performance.
Parke et al., 2017
This is an empirical study on negative consequences of job crafting. -Job crafting is associated with individual benefits such as higher levels of job satisfaction, work engagement, and psychological capital, as well as lower levels of burnout and boredom and higher performance.-This is because it helps enhance a sense of meaning for employees.However, what is good for the individual may not be good for the org.-There is a curvilinear relationship between job crafting and OCB & job proficiency outcomes, such that high/low levels of job crafting led to more positive outcomes than moderate. Maybe bc at moderate levels, they not yet integrated & accepted by others, so not yet functional. -Moderators: in cases of high autonomy, low ambiguity, and high social support, the relationships are positively linear b/w crafting and outcomes. (makes even mod levels of job crafting effective)
Dierdorff et al., 2018
This is an empirical paper presenting their affective shift model of work engagement.-Negative affect can lead to engagement when there are positive emotions that follow the negative affect. Increasing positive emotions can therefore help increase engagement, even when people have experienced negative events in their day.
Bledow et al, 2011
This is an empirical article on affective shift. Upward and downward shifts in positive and negative affect over the course of one work day interacted to predict unique patterns in motivation, cognition and performance.Upshift in both PA and NA - increased task performance Upshift in PA and downshift in NA - to increased OCBsPA downshift, NA upshift - thorough, analytical, alertDownshift in both - analytical, slow, broad
Yang et al., 2016
This was an empirical article on the impact of leaders’ transformational leadership in times of organizational change and transition. They found that, in times of transition, a new leader’s TL has weaker effect when former leader was high in TL. Conversely, when former leader was low in TL, their TL was more impactful. This is explained by contrast effect theory.
Zhao et al., 2016
This is a meta on the costs of emotional labor. Emotional labor is not necessarily harmful to employees:Surface acting and the emotion-rule dissonance are harmful led to impaired well-being, job attitudes and performance.Deep acting leads to better performance and does not affect well being. Emotion-rule dissonance - the discrepancy between required and felt emotions; a form of person-role conflict stemming from the incongruence between emotions that are actually felt and emotions that are required by display rules and resulting in an unpleasant state of tension.
Hulsheger & Schewe, 2011
This is a theory paper on emotional labor as emotional regulation.-Hochschild (1983) emotional labor: The management of feeling to create a publicly observable facial and bodily display. Surface and deep acting. Surface: regulating the emotional expressions only; Deep: consciously modifying feelings-Applied Gross’s (1998) emotional reg theory to emotional labor. Emotional regulation: individuals receive stimulation from the situation and respond with emotions. Response provides info to the person and others. -Antecedents: customer interaction expectations due to job characteristics & discrete emotional events. -Outcomes: affective (burnout and satisfaction) and behavioral (performance and withdrawal). Surface acting is more likely to promote negative outcomes than deep acting.-Job characteristics like autonomy can minimize the stress of the emotion regulation process, and supportive climates can lead to greater job satisfaction, meaning less emotional labor is necessary.
Grandey, 2000
This is in a review article on emotional labor. They expanded upon Grandey’s (2000) model in several ways. -The new model is multi-level: event-level EL can impact person and org-level outcomes-Expands focus of ER beyond simply customers to team members, leaders, followers-Includes both momentary and chronic well-being outcomes.-Conceptualizes display rules at group, organizational, and national level.-Represent ER more broadly than deep and surface acting, e.g., authentic displays and situation selection.
Grandey and Melloy, 2017
This is a review on why affect matters in orgs.-Affect has important implications for a number of critical organizational variables, including performance, decision-making and creativity, withdrawal, prosocial behavior, negotiation and conflict resolution, team effectiveness, and leadership.
Barsade and Gibson, 2007
This is a review article on group affect.-Group affect is made up of affective convergence, diversity, culture, and dynamism.-Group affect is impacted by leadership, individual differences, relationship structure, and interaction frequency.-Positive group affect leads to positive individual attitudes, interactions, creativity, decision-making, and performance.-Negative group affect leads to the opposite.
Barsade and Knight, 2015
This is a chapter on creativity.-Creativity is the production of NEW and USEFUL ideas for products, services, or procedures. Has been examined using mechanisms of motivation, cognition, and affect-Creativity and motivation: intrinsic motivation is essential to creativity and is more likely when contextual factors are informational rather than controlling.(i.e., high transformational leadership, creativity goals vs productivity goals; developmental performance evals, high job complexity).-Creativity and cognition - individual creativity more likely under conditions of mindless work, creative intention, psychological safety, and indentity integration. -Creativity and affect - PA leads to creativity directly & through cognitive flexibility. NA can lead to creativity when used as an expression of voice, perceived recognition for creativity, and clarity of feelings are high, and negative moods are activating and increase performance.
Zhou & Shalley, 2011
Distinguishes between task & contextual performance behaviors, & presents a taxonomy ofcontextual performance (containing elements of OCB & prosocial behavior).5 categories of contextual performance: 1) Persisting with enthusiasm and extra effort to complete own task activities; 2) Volunteering for extra-role activities; 3) Helping and cooperating with others 4) Following org rules and procedures; 5) Endorsing, supporting and defending org objectives-Note that supervisors consider contextual performance on the part of subordinates when making overall performance ratings and that they weight it approximately as highly as task performance in making overall judgements.-Found that personality predicts contextual performance, which provides alternative explanation for personality predicting overall performance.
Borman & Motowidlo, 1997
This is a meta-analysis on OCB and CWB.-The relationship between OCBs and CWBs is modestly negative.-OCBs and CWBs are relatively distinct constructs (not opposite poles of same construct) and should be targeted separately in intervention work.-Literature suggests OCBs and CWBs share similar antecedents: job satisfaction, org justice perceptions, PA and NA, conscientiousness, org commitment-But, they more strongly predict CWBs than OCBs.
Dalal, 2005
This is a chapter on proactive work behavior. -Increasingly important that employees take charge of their careers & work environments. -Orgs can shape employee proactivity through designing work structures, leader behaviors, & work climates that foster employee confidence, challenging goals, and positive affect. -Antecedents of proactive work behavior: job characteristics (autonomy, complexity, control), individual factors (education and conscient.), interpersonal factors (support and relationships), leadership styles (participative, transformational, and LMX) all predict proactivity at work.-Outcomes of proactivity at indiv & team levels include increased performance & more positive attitudes.-Situational factors & individual differences may play important moderators when examining effects.
Bindl & Parker, 2011
This is an empirical article on when proactivity is ineffective in the workplace. -Found that when employees with proactive personalities had low political skill, they received lower evaluations from supervisors. -When political skill is high, there is no negative effect.
Sun et al, 2014
This is an empirical study on OCBs and CWBs for employees who are on their way out. -Employees who are thinking about leaving the organization tend to decrease OCBs and increase CWBs. -This seems to be due to them having a “transactional” (shorter-term, economic-based) orientation toward the organization and weaker relational (longer-term) contract orientation. -This is particularly problematic when the organization is perceived to be responsible for the potential exit (i.e., injustice issues, changes they do not agree with, etc).
Mai et al., 2016
This is a meta-analysis on the structure of CWB as a construct. -CWB is a broad umbrella construct that captures behavior that has a detrimental effect on organizations and their members. -These behaviors can be self-, other-, or org-directed.-There is some general latent factor underlying all 11 of these acts (tested Gruys et al acts).There are 11 categories of CWBs (per Gruys & Sackett, 2003).1.Theft 2.Destruction of property. 3.Misuse of information.4.Misuse of time and resources. 5.Unsafe behavior 6.Poor attendance. 7.Poor quality work 8.Alcohol use 9.Drug use 10.Inappropriate verbal actions 11.Inappropriate physical actions
Marcus et al., 2016
This is a review article on incivility at work.-Definition: Incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior that violates workplace norms for mutual respect & may or may not be intended to harm the target. -Negative outcomes for targets (as well as witnesses/observers): decreased commitment and productivity & increased withdrawal, turnover, & CWBs.-Most likely instigators: Men and those with higher status -A dilemma because: it is not illegal, is less overt (flies under radar), mgrs not trained to deal-Dangerous bc: ambiguous in intent, causing rumination for targets, harder for mgrs to manage, and it can spiral upward, resulting in increased aggression & more purposeful efforts to harm each other -Less likely to be reported, so less likely orgs will be aware of it.
Pearson and Porath, 2005
This is a theory paper with empirical support on a 3x3 model of work role performance.-Argue that the new work environment is more interdependent (to degree that they are embedded within a broader social system) and that uncertainty determines whether work roles can be formalized (and thus judged solely on proficiency), or whether they emerge through adaptive and proactive behavior. -3 behaviors (proficiency, adaptivity, proactivity) x 3 membership levels (individual, team, org)-The matrix describes how work behaviors cross with work roles.
Griffin et al., 2007
This is a review on ostracism. Ostracism: the extent to which an individual perceives they are being ignored or excluded by others. -Example behaviors include being avoided, having calls go unanswered, and withholding interaction).-Ostracism and incivility are both low intensity behaviors that are ambiguous in intent and counter to norms of respect. But ostracism is non-interactive. -Ostracism can be especially aversive because it threatens basic human needs for belonging, self esteem, control and having a meaningful life (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). -Antecedents of someone being ostracized are having a competitive mindset, being unpopular, being uncivil to colleagues.
Ferris et al., 2017
This is a review article on workplace mistreatment.-Forms of mistreatment (work aggression): social undermining, incivility, bullying, abusive supervision, interpersonal conflict. They overlap often in the literature. -They differ in the degree of ambiguity intensity, frequency, power imbalance.
Hershcovis, 2011
Chapter on teams.A team is composed of two or more individuals, who exist to perform org relevant tasks, share 1+ common goals, exhibit task interdependency (e.g., goals), interact socially, manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational context.Teams are embedded in a system composed of multiple, nested levels. Team context is a joint product of both top down (i.e., leadership, policy) and bottom up (individual affect, behavior, interactions) influences. (Kozlowski and Bell, 2013).
Kozlowski & Bell, 2013
This is a theory paper on team performance. -Developed the IMOI (input-mediator-output) model to address shortcomings of the IPO model of team performance: cyclical nature of teams, feedback loops between episodes, & nestedness within organizations. Includes: (a) “mediators” rather than processes to address the mediational factors that are not processes, and are instead emergent states, (b) allows for a feedback loop from the outcome back to the input to address how team development can occur in a cyclical nature, and (c) allows for interactions between various steps in the model, rather than implying a linear progression.
Iglen et al., 2005
This is a review on team effectiveness. -They build off Ilgen et al., 2005’s IMOI model, and focus specifically on the outcome side (team effectiveness).-“Team effectiveness” is a tricky concept as it has been multi-faceted (performance, attitudes and behaviors), and there is a lack of consistency in how it has been operationalized.
Mathieu et al., 2008
This is a review on teams effectiveness. Effective teams:- share a climate reflective of their core mission and strategy, developed through leadership and social interaction.- have a shared team mental model developed through leadership, training, and common experience.- have better transactive-memory systems, practice collective team learning, and have greater collective task and interpersonal cohesion and pride.-have better individual teamwork KSAs and better regulatory-process dynamics, and these can be created through team leadership and team-training interventions.
Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006
This is a chapter on job satisfaction, “sense of enjoyment/fulfillment one gets from one’s job”. -Job satisfaction is best as a global construct for predicting overall behavior, but both global (i.e., Jobs in General); and facet-level tools (JDI) are necessary for getting a full picture. Also include PANAX for affective component.-Largest determinant of overall satisfaction: Satisfaction with nature of work itself. Smallest: Pay-Antecedents of J.S. explained by JCM and Cornell model (which led to JDI), among others.-Job attitudes predict both contextual and task performance, though relationships are stronger for contextual. -Job and work withdrawal are likely outcomes of dissatisfaction, both directly and through a dynamic process of cognitive and affective responses. (Dissat necessary but not sufficient to explain turnover.)-Future research should be multi-level, within-person, non-self-report.
Dalal, 2013
Unfolding Model of TurnoverProposes that employees don’t just randomly evaluate their job unless there is a situation that gives them a reason to evaluate their current position. The Unfolding Model labels these situations as “shocks”and describes them as an event that forces the employee to evaluate their job. Shocks may seem that they are only negative events, like being laid off, but they can also be positive events such as, promotions or bonuses, or unsolicited job offers. This model presents five distinct paths employees can experience that result in the leaving their current job.
Lee & Mitchell, 1994
This is a revision of the JDI.Items of the JDI (Smith et al., 1969) were replaced, and the Jobs in General scale was added as a global measure.
Balzer et al., 1990
Cornell Model of Job Attitudes and the original JDI-The model led directly to the development of the JDI. -Similar to Adam’s equity theory, it was based on perceptions of inputs vs outputs. -Its major contribution: frames of reference moderates the impact of inputs and outputs on job satisfaction. -Frames of reference are heavily influenced by economic factors (i.e., unemployment rate, other job opportunities available to the employee)
Smith et al., 1969
This is a review on job attitudes.-Job satisfaction: overall evaluative judgment one has about one’s job.-Commitment: as a values-based appraisal of an object -Humanist perspective of J.A.: job attitudes result when indiv’s needs for growth, developm, & meaning are met by conditions of work. -Mood- and event-based perspective: AET posits that a person’s moods and events on day to day basis drive within-person variability.-Outcomes: Adaptation/withdrawal: Attitudes direct one’s motivation and attention toward desireable ends. They approach situations toward which they have pos attitudes and avoid neg ones. Explains work withdrawal.
Judge et al., 2017
This was a meta-analysis on the JDI, comparing it to other constructs.The JDI has high internal consistency and construct validity.
Kinicki et al., 2002
This refers to the three-component model of organizational commitment.1. Affection for your job (affective commitment)2. Fear of loss/no other options (continuance commitment)3. Sense of obligation to stay (normative commitment - “the norm is to stay” )
Meyer and Allen, 1991
Affective events theory-Work events (i.e., coffee spill) lead to affective reactions, which lead to affective-driven behavior, attitudes, and cognitions-Emphasizes the importance of within-person affective experience and the timing of measurement (ESM)-Events, situations or others may be perceived as threats or opportunities in relation to attaining goals and emotions are responses to that.
Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996
Broaden and build theory of positive emotions-Experiencing positive emotions helps expand personal resources (e.g., social, psychological) and build reserves for future coping.-BROADEN an individual’s momentary thought-action category; that in turn BUILDS more resources that act as reserves.
Fredrickson, 2004
This is a review article on engagement.-Engagement is a psychological state encompassing vigor, dedication, and absorption. It has been validated across contexts using the (UWES (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). -Engagement is related to other concepts but has added value over and above them. -Model of engagement: -Antecedents: challenging work and positive affect -Psych states: engagement, safetisfaction, involvement -Outcomes: org commitment, performance, initiative (proactive behavior), OCBs.
Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010
This is a meta-analysis on the construct of engagement (validity, antecedents, outcomes)-Engagement is related to but distinct from job attitudes (satisfaction, commitment, job involvement). -Predictors of engagement: task variety, significance, transformational leadership, conscientiousness, positive affect -Outcomes of engagement: task and contextual performance.
Christian et al., 2011
