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
This is an empirical study of the construct of engagement. -The UWES and Job Engagement Scale (JES) measure different aspects of engagement. UWES assesses a broader domain. -The UWES overlapped engagement with other job attitudes (i.e., commitment) but it is distinct. The measure might be best suited to applied situations where broader attitudes are also helpful. -Found that engagement is negatively related to, but not the direct opposite of, burnout.
Byrne et al., 2016
This is an empirical study on an intervention to boost engagement. -A JD-R intervention found that increasing Psych Cap and job crafting led to increased work engagement and performance. -Employees who had the intervention adapted personal resources, job resources, and job demands.
Van Wingerden et al., 2016
This is a review article on emotions in the workplace.-Emotions serve as a signaling mechanism for organisms to adapt behavior to meet environmental conditions. Positive emotions signal well being; negative emotions signal a challenging situation needs to be resolved. -ER: process by which individuals influence what emotions they have, when they have them and how they experience and express them (ER: cog reappraisal, authentic expression, EL)- 5 levels of emotion in orgs: within-person, between-person, interpersonal, teams & leadership, & organizational.-Within-person: best understood through AET and using ESM methods-Between-person: focuses on emotional intelligence (though its conceptualization is controversial, has emerged as a valid predictor of performance).-Interpersonal emotion: emotional labor-Teams and leadership: emotion contagion (how indiv emotions influence group, how group emotion affects org)-Org-level: reciprocity of emotional climate and culture & emotion at lower levels.
Ashkanasy and Dorris, 2017
This is a meta on leadership styles and safety participation and safety climate. Active transactional leadership is important in ensuring compliance with rules and regulations. Transformational leadership is associated with encouraging employee participation in safety.
Clarke, 2013
This is an empirical study on transformational leaders and employee burnout.Employees of transformational leaders experience lower levels of burnout, through thriving. Implies that to reduce burnout, employers can provide training to managers to be transformational, so that employees have a stronger sense of thriving. (Intervention for burnout)
Hildebrand et al., 2016
Transformational Leadership FrameworkTransformational leadership is made up of:-Idealized influence: acting as a role model, providing a clear vision collective mission-Intellectual stimulation: Encouraging employees to think for themselves, approaching matters in innovative ways.-Inspirational motivation: Encouraging employees to achieve more by setting high and realistic standards.-Individualized consideration: knowing followers individually, paying attention to unique needs for development and achiev.Transactional leadership forms: contingent reward and management by exception (active); management by exception (passive) and laissez faire
Bass 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1993
Barling et al., 2010 reviewed the few empirical studies on TL trainingBarling et al., 1996 - increased TL behaviors & team performanceKelloway et al., 2000 - repeated with another industryDvir et al., 2002 - soldiersBarling et al., 2002 - safety specific TL predicted safety behaviors.
Transformational Leadership training interventions
This is a review chapter on leadership (100 years JAP). It outlined the “three waves” of leadership research.
Lord et al., 2017
This is a handbook chapter that covers various types of leadership and their outcomes. -Leader traits and KSAs influence leader and follower effectiveness. Personality traits: extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, core self-concept, -efficacy and -esteem. KSAs: cog ability, EI, persuasion, interpersonal/business/strategic skills).-Authentic leaders have an internalized moral perspective, self-awareness, relational transparency, and balanced processing. -Moral leaders demonstrate normatively appropriate conduct to their followers through communication, reinforcement, and decision-making.-Abusive leaders causes strain, exhaustion, deviance, aggression, and low satisfaction and commitment.-LMX leads to follower satisfaction, performance, and low turnover.-Transformational leadership leads to creativity, innovation, proactivity, group performance, safety, and climate.-Co-or shared leadership, allocating different roles to different individuals, lead to group potency, citizenship, and effectiveness.-Women suffer from prejudicial evaluations of leadership traits. “Feminine” leadership is more interpersonal, inclusive, and collaborative.
Avolio et al., 2013
This is an empirical study on transformational leaderships effects on performance (task and OCB).-Transformational leadership leads to greatertask performance and OCB by improving employee perceptions of Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics (feedback, autonomy, task identity, task significance, skill variety), which fuels higher intrinsic motivation and goal commitment. Those then led to higher performance and OCBs.-Aligns with Locke and Latham goal setting research (1990; 2002; 2006) that suggests goal commitment is an important factor in motivation.-High quality LMX strengthened transformational leadership relationships with the variables.
Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006
This is a meta-analysis on LMX (antecedents and outcomes).-Leader variables (perceptions and behaviors) were the strongest predictors of LMX (compared to employee, interpersonal, and context variables). (Employees perceptions of LMX with their followers were predicted by their perceptions of the leader and the leaders behaviors, more strongly than employee perceptions of themselves, their interactions, or the context.-Contingent reward behavior, transformational leadership and leader’s expectations of success predicted high quality LMX.-LMX mediates the effects of antecedents on outcomes (many outcomes, from turnover, to affective and normative commitment, to satisfaction). This indicates that it is the QUALITY of the relationships, not the leader perceptions and behaviors themselves, that predict the outcomes. -TL can be trained (see Avolio et al., 2013; Barling et al, 2010 review), which means that by training supervisors on how to enact those behaviors, they can create high quality LMX relationships.
Dulebohn et al., 2012
Contingency model of leadership effectiveness-Fiedler’s situational contingency theory holds that group effectiveness depends on an appropriate match between a leader’s style (essentially a trait measure) and the demands of the situation. -A dynamic model where the personal characteristics and motivation of the leader are said to interact with the current situation that the group faces. -Thus, the contingency model marks a shift away from the tendency to attribute leadership effectiveness to personality alone
Fiedler, 1967
This is an empirical study on the effects of leadership style (transformational and laissez faire) on burnout via emotional labor EL.-Transformational leaders utilized genuine emotions and deep acting, which led to lower burnout. -Laissez faire leaders utilized genuine emotions, which led to lower burnout.-Mgmt by exception led to surface acting; contingent reward led to both deep and surface. Both had more more burnout.
Arnold et al., 2015
Substitutes for leadership theoryCertain characteristics of followers, tasks, or the organization reduce the importance of (need for) leaders. This is a contingency theory of leadership
Kerr et al., 1978
This is a chapter on org culture and climate. -Climate represents experiences and perceptions. (“what” is experienced). Antecedents: org processes and procedures -Culture represents ideologies and assumptions (“why” those experiences occur). Antecedents: larger societal climate, biz environment, founder values. So, larger climate ->culture->processes/proc->climate-Climate can be organizational, psychological, or focused/strategic (“climates for”)-Positive climates lead to performance, well-being, satisfaction, commitment, safety, creativity, and low absenteeism-Culture can be best changed through leadership; climate can be best changed through practive changes.
Ostroff et al., 2013
This is an empirical study on authenticity climates buffering impact on the emotional outcomes (burnout) of mistreatment. -Patient-instigated mistreatment of healthcare workers led to emotional exhaustion directly and indirectly through surface acting.-Surface acting did not predict emotional exhaustion in units with a strong authenticity climate (where it is encouraged to express feelings among colleagues).
Grandey et al., 2012
This is a meta on the competing values framework of org culture (which was most effective).-Quinn et al (1983) competing values framework: three types of cultures: adhocracy cultures (external focused and flexible), clan cultures (interal focused and flexible), and market cultures (external focused and stable). -Clan cultures have the strongest relationship with employee attitudes-Adhocracy cultures have the strongest relationship with innovation-Market cultures have the strongest relationship with product quality and financial effectiveness.
Hartnell et al., 2011
This is a handbook chapter on organizational change and development.-Early approaches to OD were focused on implementing humanistic ideals; modern approaches add contextual/environmental focus (helping biz accomplish its strategic objectives thru alignment with environment). There remains an emphasis on OD as humanistically oriented, as concerned about the people that make up the organization, not just the strategic goals of the organization.-Practitioner-oriented implementation theories of OD include employee participation, self-reflection, PAR, and narrative intervention.-Participation in change efforts and decision-making formed the earliest emphases of OD. Still viewed as important, but there has been expansion in ways such participation is understood and takes place, along with a greater awareness that employees do not always wish to participate in change efforts.-Narrative intervention is the predominant type of intervention currently in use and involves the sharing of stories and building consensus around new images of the future in which the stories shift.
Austin et al., 2013
Equity theoryEmployees perceive fairness based on the relationship between an employees’ inputs and outputs, and how this relationship compares to that of others. -Inputs: hard work, skill level, acceptance-Outputs: salary, benefits, recognition
Adams, 1965
Fairness theoryAccountability of a person’s actions is central to this theory (i.e., actions of the leader).Three questions are theorized to occur in fairness perceptions:1. Was injury done?2. Could another behavior have produced a different outcome?3. Does the outcome violate some personal value or cultural norm?
Folger and Cropanzano, 2001
Control model of justice People prefer justice because it allows them to predict and control the outcomes they are likely to receive from the organization. So people want fairness because fairness provides what they like. I get out what I put in idea. This is backed by research. (Cropanzano et al., 2007).
Thibault and Walker,1975
This is a review article on forms of justice.-Distributive justice: appropriateness of outcomes (e.g., pay)-Procedural justice: appropriateness of outcome process (e.g., how decisions of pay are made)-Interactional justice: appropriateness of treatment one receives from authority figures. Two forms: -Interpersonal justice: treating an employee with dignity and respect -Informational justice: sharing relevant information
Greenberg, 1987
Social exchange theory (Blau) and in orgs (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).Social behavior is the result of an exchange. People weigh the potential benefits and risks/costs of social relationships. Exchanges characterized by recriprocation are seen as fair and strengthen commitment, relationship strength and desire to communicate.
Blau,1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005
This is a chapter on three models of justice: instrumental, relational, fairnessInstrumental: -Control model: ppl regard decisions as fair if they had input in process (Thibault and Walker, 1975)-Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964)Relational:-Group engagemt model: justice perceptions->pride/respect->increased org ID->positive behavFairness models:-Fairness heuristic theory: uncertainty in groups->fear of exploit/rejection->search for cues of trustworthiness/inclusion-Fairness theory: 3 questions: was injury done? Could it have been avoided? Does outcome violate norms/personal values? (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001)
Blader and Tyler, 2005
This is a review article on justice theories.-Employees perceive fairness beginning with uncertainty about trustworthiness (social exchange, fairness heuristic), morality (fairness theory), goal process (affective events theory), status (group enagement model).-Employees form fairness perceptions by using deliberative processing, heuristic processing, and affective information.Employees react to justice perceptions with affect- and cognitive-driven behavior.
Colquitt and Zipay, 2015
Group engagement modelProposes that how members are treated in the group translates into symbolic information about how much they are valued by the group, and ultimately shapes their discretionary engagement in the group Procedural justice -> pride and respect -> identification with organization -> cooperation (supportive attitudes, values, behaviors)
Tyler, 2003
This is a meta-analysis that tested how social exchange theory and AET can help explain justice’s effects. Social exchange theory can help explain perceived (in)justice’s effects on performance. Mediators were reduced trust, org commitment and LMX. Affective events theory (AET) can help explain (in)justice’s effects on performance. Mediators were positive/neg affect.
Colquitt et al., 2013
This is an empirical study on the effects of procedural justice on performance. -Procedural justice predicted task performance, and was mediated by intrinsic motivation. -When employees perceived procedural justice was high, they were more likely to feel intrinsically motivated toward the task and performed better.
Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009
This is an empirical study on unfairness and deviant behavior.-Interactional unfairness increased deviant behavior through increased cortisol (stress) levels. -This was an interesting contribution because it assessed a behavioral outcome of cortisol activity.
Yang et al., 2014
This is a review article on psychological contacts.Psychological contract: a belief regarding an exchange agreement between an individual and the organization/leaders.Delineates three types of psychological contracts between employers and employees: transactional, relational, and balanced.Transactional: short-term workers less vital, don’t go beyond performance-compensation relationship.Relational: long-term workers more important to firm. Include loyalty and protection between both parties.Balanced: mutual concern, flexibility, and development commitments of relational contracts with the performance demands of transactional contracts.
Rousseau, 2004
This is a handbook chapter on motivation. Motivation: unobservable force that directs energizes & sustains behavior across time/circumstances-4 common themes in motivation theories: behavior is goal-directed; goals are hierarchically arranged; discrepancy reduction is a basic & universal process; approach/avoidance underlies all motivation tendencies.-4 types of Antecedents of motivation: internal/external x proximal/distal: D.E. (org policies, natl culture); P.E. (job char., social, justice percept., assigned goals); D.P. (personality, needs/values, gender; P.P. (commitm. SE, goal commitm., intr/extr motivation, affect)-Those antecedents influence action goal processes (within-episode goal selection and striving) and b/w episode goal revision.-Outcomes of motivation: positively relates to behavior (performance, prosocial behaviors, creativity, lower CWB) and well-being (safety). Progress and goal attainment lead to positive affect, which is good for well-being (and vice versa).
Diefendorff and Chandler, 2011
Self-Determination Theory. -Three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness.-When a task/job satisfies these needs, it leads to higher performance via intrinsic motivation.-Self-determination theory delineates between autonomous motivation (intrinsic motivation & fully internalized extrinsic motivation) & controlled motivation (internal & external extrinsic motivation).-Causality orientations predict what needs are more important to someone than others.-The dominant theory of intrinsic motivation; explains how IM fuels direction, intensity & persistence
Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci et al., 2017
This is a meta-analysis examining the relationships of self determination theory at work. The three basic needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) incrementally predicted intrinsic motivation & well-being. This supports Deci et al (2017) model of SDT theory of work motivation. The Deci et al. (2001) scale is a better predictor compared to other measures for SDT relationships at work.
Van den Broeck et al., 2016
Goal Setting Theory-Performance is highest when a) goals are specific, b) difficult, c) assigned using a “sell” rather than just told, and d) coupled with feedback and high goal commitment.-Moderators of the goal-performance relationships include goal commitment, feedback, task complexity, and self-efficacy. -Goals are a standard to judging ones satisfaction. -Irony: people who produce the most (with difficult goals) can still be dissatisfied because the bar for satisfaction is at a higher level
Locke and Latham, 1990; 2002
Review of research on goal setting theory and how the “open theory” has evolved.Specific and difficult gols are better for performance than do-your-best goals.Past performnce leads to goal revision.Discussed 8 moderators to goal setting’s effects, e.g., learning goals (times when when they’re better than performance goals), framing, affect, personality, group goals, and priming). Cite this when talking about moderators.Learning goal is best for new and complex tasks.Framing is an opportunity for success leads to better performance.Learning-goal orientations lead to acquiring knowledge. Performance goal orientations lead to avoiding errors. Learning goal orientation can be induced as a state.Even subconscious goals can affect performance.
Locke and Latham, 2006
Even goals that are subconsciously primed (affect performance. Priming works best with difficult goals. Priming can be done with words in handbook manuals or photographs/imagery in the environment, for example.They are useful because conscious goals consume limited attentional resources, but subconscious ones do not. One could assign a learning goal consciously and a subconscious performance goal, esp in new/complex situations. (Latham et al., 2010) Priming may be inappropriate, though, so there are ethical considerations (i.e., could manipulate employees to volunteer for overtime, etc).
Latham et al., 2010
The debate between Ordonez et al and Locke and Latham (2009) Ordonez et al argued that goal-setting theory is over-used and can be harmful through too difficult and (which can limit cooperation, harm motivation) too specific goals (which narrow focus). They argue goals should be prescribed.L&L argued they abandoned good scholarship in that they used too many anecdotes, addressed existing limitations and had a poorly representative group of studies.Ordonez et al argued back that anecdotes are important and GST is over-prescribed.
Goal Setting Debate
This is a review paper on goals.Goals are defined as internal representations of desired states.Goals are heirarchically arranged with subgoals arranged within higher-level goals. Goal commitment: how long an individual is willing to strive for a specific goalMiddle-level goals are the most common type of conscious goal and are most studied.
Austin and Vancouver, 1996
Goal orientation theoryLearning goal orientation vs performance goal orientation
DeShon and Gillespie, 2005
This is an empirical study on self efficacy and trainee outcomes. -SE may not always be good for performance, e.g., in training contexts where planning for resource investment is needed. They tested this. -SE was negatively related to resource allocation (i.e. study time) and performance, when goal level was controlled. When people felt LESS SE, they studied MORE and vice versa.-Between person: there was positive relation between self-efficacy and performance. -Within person: Self-efficacy negatively related to study time and performance.-Practical application - might make sense to try to temporarily decrease trainees’ SE just so they expend more resources to learn. But not so much so that they give up.
Vancouver and Kendall, 2006
Experiment on subconscious goal priming. People who were primed with a photo of a woman winning a race had a higher subconscious need for achievement and a conscious goal of better performance.
Schantz and Latham, 2009
(Action) control theory -Control theory holds that people move closer to a goal using a discrepancy-reducing feedback loop and a secondary feedback loop assessing the rate of goal progress. -1st loop: assesses goal process; compares goal to actual outcome & adjusts behavior accordingly-2nd loop: assesses RATE of progress. Can induce pos or neg emotions, which influences future goal commitment/abandonment. Positive rate of change leads to positive affect & vice versa.-Similar to goal setting theory’s feedback loop.
Carver and Scheier, 1990
Expectancy Theory / Valence Instrumental Expectancy theory-Hold that pople will expend effort on activities that lead to desireable rewards. -Expectancy: belief that action or effort will lead to a successful outcome -Instrumentality: belief that success will bring rewards -Valence, or the desirability of the rewards on offer.
Vroom, 1964
Self-Regulatory Focus Theory-This is about people’s orientations to goal pursuit. People tend to either approach positive possible outcomes or avoid negative outcomes.-Promotion oriented: focus on accomplishment, aspirations, rewards.-Prevention-focused: duties, obligations, punishments.
Higgins, 1997
Theory of planned behavior-Asserts that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control will combine to influence intentions, which will then determine behavior. Primary role of intentions. -Proposed as refinement to earlier theory of reasoned action proposed in the 1970s by Ajzen and Fishbein (who found that attitudes don’t always predict behavior).-It helps us to understand how humans can change a behaviour (e.g. reduce addiction).
Ajzen, 1991
Social cognitive theory of self-regulation-Humans regulate their own behavior through a process of self-regulation, in which they monitor their own behavior (self-monitoring), compare it to a standard (self-evaluating), and react to their comparison (self-reaction). -Self-efficacy plays a central role in this relationship through influencing the perceived causes of successes and failures and determining the standard of comparison.
Bandura, 1991
This is a meta-analysis on the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on performance.-Intrinsic motivation positively relates to performance, especially when the task focused on quality (vs quantity) and when incentives for task completion were indirectly (vs directly) performance-salient.-Intrinsic motivation is a better predictor than extrinsic incentives for quality performance.-Extrinsic incentives are a better predictor than intrinsic motivation for quantity performance.-Explained by SDT: quality-type tasks tend to be characterized by a higher valuation of personal investment (competence) & lower external control (autonomy), central to self-determined behavior
Cerasoli et al., 2014
This was an empirical study on how feedback (positive v negative) impacted goal regulation over time.Ilies and Judge 2005 found that positive feedback led to positive goal-performance discrepancies by raising goals after positive feedback; people getting neg feedback adjusted goals downward. This supports goal setting and social cog theory.
Ilies and Judge, 2005
Handbook: Morgeson et al., 2013 Theory: Hackman & Oldham, 1975 (JCM)Meta: Humphrey et al., 2007 (JCM test/expansion)Empiricals: -Dierdorff et al., 2018 - job crafting’s curvilinear effects-Parke et al., 2017 - time mgmt vs contig planning intervention-Parker et al., 2013 (relational work redesign intervention, structural support)
Work Design citations
Theory: Borman and Motowidlo, 1997 - task vs contextual, OCBsMetas:-Dalal, 2005 - OCBs and CWBs relationship and anteced-Marcus et al., 2016 - CWBs structure/constructEmpirical: Mai et al., 2016 - people on way out decrease OCBS/increase CWBs
Work Behavior: Performance citations
Review/model: Bindl & Parker, 2011Theory: Griffin et al., 2007: new model of performance includes proactivityEmpirical: Sun et al., 2014: political skill as moderator of proactive personality
Work Behavior: Proactivity citations
Review: Zhou and Shalley, 2011
Work Behavior: Creativity citations
Incivility: Pearson and Porath, 2005; 2015Ostracism: Ferris et al., 2017Other forms of mistreatment (bullying, social undermining, abuse): Hershcovis, 2011
Work Behavior: Incivility, Ostracism, Mistreatment citations
Chapter: Kozlowski and Bell, 2013Theory: Iglen et al., 2005 - IMOI modelReviews:-Mathieu et al., 2008 - team effectivenss outcome construct-Kozlowski and Iglen, 2006 - enhancing team effectiveness-Barsade and Knight, 2015 - group afect and how it impacts effectiveness
Teams citations
Handbook: Dalal, 2013 - anteced/outcomesReview: Judge et al., 2017 - definitions of attitudesTheory: -Smith et al., 1969 - Cornell Model and JDI-Hackman and Oldham, 1975 - JCM-Meyer and Allen, 1991 - 3-part model of commitment-Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996 - affective events theory (combine with Cornell)-Lee and Mitchell, 1994 - Unfolding model of turnoveMeasures: JDI (Smith et al., 1969) and PANAS (for affect part)Meta: Kinicki et al., 2002 - JDI construct validity
Job Attitudes: Satisfaction and Commitment citations
Review: Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010Meta: Christian et al., 2011 - unique from other job attitudes, antec/outcomesEmpirical: Byrne et al., 2016 - compared UWES and JESIntervention: Van Wingerden et al., 2016 - JD-R intervention; job crafting increased personal resources and engagement/perf.
Job Attitudes: Engagement citations
Chapter: Ashkanasey and Dorris, 2017Review: Barsade and Gibson, 2007 - affect mattersTheories:-Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996 - AET-Frederickson, 2004 - Broaden and Build-Grandey, 2000; Grandey and Melloy, 2017 - Emotional LaborMeta: Hulsheger and Schewe, 2011 - costs of emotional laborEmpiricals:-Bledow et al., 2011 - affect shift model of engagement -Yang et al, 2016 - affective shifts affect next day performance
Emotions citations
Handbooks: Avolio et al., 2013; Barling et al., 2010 - history and stylesReview: Lord et al., 2017 - historyBig papers:-Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1993 - transformational -Dulebohn et al., 2012 -LMX antec/outcomes-Clarke, 2013 - leader styles and safetyEmpiricals:-Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006 - TL boosts motivation/perf via JCM perceptions-Arnold et al., 2015 - TL have lower burnout due to deep acting-Hildebrand et al., 2016 - TL employees have lower burnout
Leadership citations
Chapter: Ostroff et al., 2013Meta: Hartnell et al., 2011 - 3 types of cultures’ effectiveness Empirical: Grandey et al., 2012 - authenticity climate / mistreatment
Org Culture and Climate citations
Chapter: Austin and Bartunek, 2013Empirical: Zhao, 2016 - TL effects in times of change
Org Change and Development citations
Reviews:-Greenberg, 1987 - forms of justice | Blader and Tyler, 2005 - models/perspectives of justice | -Rousseu, 2004 - psych contractMeta: Colquitt et al., 2013 - justice impacts performance (social exchange and AET)Theory: -Blau, 1964 - social exchange | -Adams, 1965 - equity theory | -Thibault and Walker, 1975 - Control model-Folger and Cropanzano, 2001 - Fairness theoryEmpirical: -Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009 - proced justice->intrinsic motiv->task perf.-Yang et al., 2014 - unfairness->cortisol->CWB
Justice citations
Chapter: Diefendorff and Chandler, 2011Theories: 1) SDT - Deci and Ryan, 2000; Cerasoli et al., 2014 meta on int/ext motiv qual/quant; Van Den Broeck et al., 2016 - meta testing SDT basic needs->intr motiv and wellbeing2) GST - Locke and Latham, 1990; 2002; 2006; 2009; Ornondez et al, 2009; Ilies and Judge, 2005 - empirical re feedback3) Action control - Carver and Scheier, 19904) Social cog theory - Bandura, 1991; Ilies and Judge, 2005 supported5) VIE - Vroom, 19646) Theory planned behavior - Ajzen, 1991 7) Regulatory focus - Higgins, 1997. | Practical: Vancouver and Kendall, 2006 - SE and training
Motivation citations
