Organizational Psychology

Taylor (1911)

(Intro/Overview/History) -Managers are more knowledgeable and capable than EEs, & EEs will always try to put in as little effort as possible, so managers' responsibility to motivate them/structure work in such a way that enhances productivity. - Champions *scientific management* as the best way to improve productivity, profits, & even EE's standard of living. - 4 principles of scientific mgmt : (1) Time & motion studies (scientifically uncovering rules, laws, etc. of work); (2) Scientific selection & training of workers; (3) Making EEs accept science, fire if they don't; (4) & Teamwork (division of labor b/w EE & mgmt).

Cascio & Aguinis (2008)

(Intro/Overview/History) • Not enough focus in top journals on the human capital trends that overlap with IO • Majority of publications generated by academics & focus on stats, methodology, and psychometrics, and not immediately applicable to practice. Most practitioners don't read these journals & view them as lacking applicable relevance. We're too far removed from practice • Need to narrow the science-practice divide so that we don't become an irrelevant field • Changes in graduate training and the socialization (emphasize/encourage more connection between research and practice) of new faculty members are also necessary- need greater emphasis on application •Ask more relevant questions *Also in Intro IO*

Colquitt et al (2001)

(Justice) • Meta-A shows 4 correlated but distinct Dimensions of Organizational justice (Distributive, procedural, interpersonal, informational) that have different patterns of relationships with outcomes (outcome satisfaction, withdrawal, OC, trust, eval of authority, JS) *DJ*: strongest pred of outcome satis & withdrawal, also org commitment, trust, agent-referenced eval of authority *PJ*: Outcome satis, job satisfaction, OC, trust, & agent-ref author eval *Interpersonal*: authority eval *Informational*: trust, agent & system referenced eval of authority

Jones & Skarlicki (2005)

(Justice) • Social cues-->Inxnl justice (above/beyond actual behavior)-->Retaliation • Social cues bias info processing: Ppl treated less fairly retaliated more after being led to expect fair treatment than did participants who heard no prior information about the experimenter. • Unfair treatment by an authority with a fair reputation may result in stronger reactions than the same unfairness by an authority with no reputation at all. Managers should be careful about managing shared perceptions.

Ordonez et al (2009)

(Motivation/Job Design) - Goals may cause systematic problems in organizations due to (1) Narrowed focus, (2) Increased risk taking, (3) Unethical behavior, (4) Inhibited learning, (5) Decreased cooperation, (6) Decreased intrinsic motivation (especially when overly narrow and difficult). - Goal-setting is overprescribed and overused-- Use goals with great caution

Edwards et al (2006)

(Attraction & Fit) *Also in A&V* - 3 approaches to P-E Fit: (1) Atomistic (examine perceptions of P & E separately & then combine) (2) Molecular (calculate discrepancy in your head and retain direction) (3) Molar (person rates fit, does not retain direction/"perceived fit") - Approaches are not interchangeable and don't relate to each other in the way that they should. These are measuring fundamentally different things. - Molar is especially different from the other two-- it's just a global affective evaluation of how you feel about your work - Should always use indirect subjective/Atomistic, because if you don't you're missing important information -Atomistic>Molecular>Molar

Schmidt & Deshon (2007)

(Motivation/Job Design) *(1) Incentive-linked goals met at a higher rate* • Participants in the dual-approach condition were nearly twice as likely as those in the dual-avoid condition to meet both goals --> *(2) If you give EEs multiple goals, they should be approach* • *(3) Equal incentives* --> more time allocated to task with greatest discrepancy (task participant perceived that they were least successful in) • *(4)Unequal incentives*--> Error sensitivity (sens. to discrepancies)--> Focus on the rewarded task at the detriment of the non-rewarded •*(5)* Early= allocate rscs to task w/largest discrepancy. As deadline nears, pattern reverses-- allocate to task w/ smallest discrepancy

Schulte et al (2009)

(Culture/Climate) • *Climate dimensions* dealt with things like: Supportiveness, Service, Company vision, communication, teamwork, development (training/PM), clarity, rewards/recognition • Overall climate levels elevation-> EE outcomes (affect, TO intent, perceptions of service quality), • Shape-> External effectiveness criteria (customer satisfaction, financial performance) • Org climate has multiple facets that mutually influence and reinforce each other so that the overall climate system needs to be taken into account in any change effort • Different outcomes may require different climate formations • When looking at culture/climate, incorporate a lot of dimensions/take a configural approach because different combos predictive of different outcomes

Balogun & Johnson (2004)

(Org Change/Dev) - Findings highlight the significance of recipient sensemaking in organizational change. - Sensemaking occurs largely independently of senior level managers, but is heavily influenced by peer interactions and informal conversations. - Efficacy of org change initiatives is largely a function of how recipients (i.e., EE/MLMs) interpret these changes and develop new schemas. - Organizations need to manage these interpretations and reactions and make sure schemas are developing in the desired ways.

Harrison & Klein (2007)

(Diversity) -Needs to differentiate btw 3 types of diversity: 1)*Separation*- Opposing opinions; Problem=interpersonal bonds w/in own subunit & antipathy toward opposing subunit 2)*Variety*- Diffs in kind/category, (info, knowledge, experience); Problem=unshared info 3)*Disparity*- Diffs in concentration of valued social assets or resources (pay, status); Problems= Conformity, suppression of creativity, withdrawal, perceptions of injustice. - When measuring diversity, specify which type you're talking about and design your methods accordingly.

Cox (2001)

(Diversity) Not just about increasing diversity, but managing it/creating conditions in which its potential to be a performance barrier is minimized & its potential to enhance performance is maximized. • Managed incorrectly-> Lack of communication, Conflict, Lack of commitment etc • Manage effectively-> (1) Improves problem solving, (2) Creativity/innovation, (3) Org flexibility, (4) Market strategies. • Efforts to manage fail bc (1) Encourage assimilation, (2) Fail to use a systematic approach (PA, development, compensation, mentoring, promotion-- all must align to encourage diversity), (3) Fail to understand the shape of the learning curve for leveraging diversity--It requires years of work, and leaders often get impatient and give up.

Dutton et al (2001)

(Org Change/Dev) • Managers believe org change facilitated by different strategies: (1) Business logic plans (numbers/graphs) (2)Continuous proposal making (bring up multiple times), (3) Bundling moves (tying issue to other issues, eg productivity) (3) Involving others • Issue sellers (1) Involve others early in the process, (2) Keep bosses informed, (3) Persist but consider timing • Rely on 3 types of knowledge (1) Relational (understanding indis & social relationships), (2) Normative (Acceptable behavior), (3) Strategic (org goals/plans/priorities) • This knowledge helps issue sellers achieve objectives by characterizing their appeal as rational and tying the appeal to important goals.

Schneider et al (1995)

(Attraction & Fit) -Collective characteristics of people define an organization - *Attraction-Selection-Attrition Model*- Founders/top managers (personality, create culture etc) have long term effects on organizations through ASA. - Orgs become relatively homogenous over time.

Lievens & Highhouse (2003)

(Attraction & Fit) • Job applicants are attracted to organizations because of the org's *intstrumental characteristics*: (1) Pay (2) Advancement (3) Task demands (4) Location (5) Working w/customers • But *symbolic trait inferences* about the company's (1) Sincerity, (2) Innovativeness, (3) Competence, (4) Prestige, (5) Robustness are also taken into account/add incremental variance above & beyond instrumental. • Easier to differentiate between orgs based on symbolic trait inferences • People care more about symbolic

Kozlowski et al (2013)

(Teams) •*Emergence*: bottom-up process whereby individuals' characteristics and dynamic social interaction yield a higher level property of the group (When a characteristic originates from the cog, affect, behaviors, or other characteristics of an individual, is amplified by interactions, and manifests itself at higher levels of analyses) • Largely neglected in empirical literature, but important for understanding org psy and team processes. Need to focus more attention on emergence, develop better research designs for studying emergence, and take a more quantitative multilevel perspective in organizational science.

Edmondson (1999)

(Teams) Introduce & argue for importance of *Team Psychological Safety* (shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking)

Dineen et al. (2002)

(Attraction & Fit) *- People are more attracted to organizations when they have a high level of P-O fit, & when they receive feedback telling them that they fit well (esp when FB perceived as accurate)* - Supports the ASA Model - When low self esteem individuals receive FB that they don't fit well, they will not be as attracted to the organization, even if their objective fit is high--> orgs need to be careful to provide accurate feedback/info regarding a potential applicant's fit, because lower SE individuals may be easily deterred by negative FB - Subjective PO Fit was a mediator (self reported impression of fit)

Walker et al (2012)

(Attraction & Fit) - Diversity cues on recruitment websites elicit more thorough processing (look at materials longer and better recall information) among blacks and whites; however, this relationship was stronger for black applicants. - For black applicants, this process is mediated by affective reactions. - Orgs can encourage more thorough recruitment website information processing by (1) Including pictures of diverse organizational members & (2) Providing about diversity goals & initiatives

Hekman et al (2010)

(Diversity- Customer Relations) - Customer satisfaction evaluations are biased because they are anonymous judgments by untrained raters that usually lack an evaluation standard. - Presence of nonwhite & women service employees produce lower aggregated customer satisfaction evals - *Implicit bias against minorities predicted lower satisfaction ratings*-- Effect is exacerbated when rater has implicit bias. - The larger the percentage of low status (racial minorities, females) the weaker the relationship between the organizational unit's objective (actual) performance and their satisfaction ratings.

Heilman & Okimoto (2007)

(Diversity- Leadership) - Successful woman disliked more than successful men (viewed as not communal) - Women depicted as successful at male gender-typed jobs were (1) Disliked, (2) Viewed as having undesirable interpersonal attributes, and (3) Seen as less desirable as bosses relative to similarly described male managers b/c seen as less communal - Dislike/negativity can be weakened/eliminated if the woman demonstrates communal behaviors (that originate from her person, not demands of the organization) or if individuals know that she is a mother.

King et al (2006)

(Diversity- Selection) • Race indicated through names influence selection decisions • Asians evaluated highly for high status jobs, regardless of their resume quality. • White & Hispanics benefited from a high-quality resume • Black applicants were evaluated negatively, even with strong credentials. • Occupational stereotypes accounted for the relationship between race and evaluations of applicants. • Indication of race on a resume > occupational stereotype>evaluation of applicant

Weick & Quinn (1999)

(Org Change/Dev) Big review of change lit • Distinguish btw 2 conceptualizations of change: *Episodic* (dramatic, intermittent, intentional, produced by inertia, or the inability for orgs to change as rapidly as the environment) vs *Continuous* (cumulative, never ending, driven by inability to remain stable rather than inertia) • Ideally, orgs change continuously • Which perspective (above) you'll see will depend on level of analysis (Episodic more macro, continuous more micro) • Change agent communication is key • Need to focus on orgs "changing" rather than "change"

Fu & Yukl (2000)

(Power/Leadership) - Cultural differences in the perceived effectiveness of influence tactics between the US and China - US-->Perceive rational persuasion (explain why task important for org) & exchange (offer incentive for task) as more effective - Chinese --> Coalition tactics (ask for help from friend), Upward appeals (ask superior for help), & gifts were rated as more effective.

Jung & Avolio (2000)

(Power/Leadership) Transformational Leadership enhances follower performance (quality, quantity, satisfaction w/ leader) by fostering trust and value congruence

Boswell et al (2009)

(Socialization & Mentoring) *Also in A&V* -Honeymoons & Hangovers- job satisfaction has a curvilinear effect over time for newcomers. Honeymoon at first and then decline in JS over the course of a year - JS initially higher than that at prior job - No honeymoon or hangover for those who were highly satisfied at their previous job - Effect more likely for individuals who reported less satisfaction with last job and more experience on new job (high levels of fulfilled commitments, high levels of socialization) - Changes in JS over time

Sumer & Knight (2001)

(Stress/Coping/Work Life Balance) •Adult attachment style is predictive of the probability of negative or positive spillover from the family/home to the work domain. People experience the work-family relationship in different ways depending on their attachment style (which is indicative of how they view themselves and others) • Preoccupied (negative self, positive others)-> negative spillover from the family/home to the work domain • Secure-->positive spillover in both work and family domains; less likely to use a segmentation strategy • Those with a negative self-view and positive others view are most likely to experience neg. spillover, those with positive views of both most likely to experience pos. spillover

Reichers & Schneider (1990)

(Culture/Climate) - Culture/climate distinction emerged bc different scientific backgrounds associated w/ each - Climate: (1) Aimed at understanding org effectiveness, (2)Well-established,(3) Etic/inductive - Culture: (1) Anthropological construct (2) Aimed at describing rather than predicting (3) Emic/deductive - Need both etic & emic approaches to the study of climate/culture - Separation of constructs may decrease with time

Probst et al (2008)

(Culture/Climate) - In the construction industry, illness & injury is underreported - Companies with poorer safety climates have higher rates of underreported injury

Schein (1996)

(Culture/Climate) •*Culture*: Set of shared, taken-for granted implicit assumptions that a group holds and that determines how it perceives/thinks about/reacts to various environments • Org psych methods have been overly focused on indis & ignored social systems, which has led us to underestimate importance of culture • 3 cultures operate silently within organizations (Operators, Engineers, Executives) and their different cultures sometimes cause friction because of opposing goals. • Consider how learning occurs w/in each & reconcile conflict between them to promote learinng

Dickson et al (2006)

(Culture/Climate) *Climate strength*- extent of agreement among EEs regarding org practices/policies/values • *Mechanistic* (members work together effectively bc they know/agree on rules) vs. *Organic orgs* (weak climate, less clear rules) • Strongest climates in Mechanistic --> clear expectations • Strongest climates @ extremes of the mechanistic-organic continuum (most noticeably defined); Weakest in middle (ambiguous org practices) • Possible to have a strong organic climate- consensus on informal/ambiguous climate • Climates tend to be congruent w/ members' values. Orgs climates congruent w/ shared values of members, & climates stronger when congruent (this is consistent with the argument that people seek out organizations in which they "fit"). • Supports ASA Theory

Rudolph & Baltes (2008)

(Diversity) - Response to Landy- Endorsements of negative stereotypes are strongly related to performance ratings, and biases are prevalent enough that stereotyping is likely to have important implications at work - Need to continue research because it's relevant - if you are unlucky enough to be evaluated by an individual who endorses a neg stereotype toward your group, then the neg effect will be quite large (about 1 in 5 pple would endorse a neg stereotype; so they claim very high amount)

Greenwald (2008)

(Diversity) - Response to Landy- Small effect sizes of race in work settings on personnel decisions (that Landy says are not of major concern) produce large effects in real life - IAT isn't as big of a problem as he says- they've been studied in non-student samples - Experiments are efficient and help establish cause and effect

Wessel & Ryan (2008)

(Diversity) -Response to Landy -Individuating info reduces stereotypes' main effects by shifting the views of evaluators (as Landy suggests), but doesn't eliminate them - II does not eliminate effects of behavioral confirmation effects/self fulfilling prophecy effects/Pgymalion Effects on the type of II being received. More likely to confirm stereotypes. - II may reduce biases in evals, but stereotypes still influence other DVs such as predicted future performance and job suitability even in the presence of individuating info

Hebl, Tickle, & Heatherton (2000)

(Diversity) • Both stigmatized & nonstigmatized individuals fear/are uncertain about each other & experience anxiety before/during interactions. Anxiety perpetuates avoidance. • Can be attenuated by (1) Self-acceptance, (2) sometimes acknowledgement on the part of the stigmatized individual, (3) Increased contact •*Contact hypothesis*- increasing the contact between stigmatized and nonstigmatized should facilitate ease of interaction. There's mixed evidence and the efficacy of contact seems to depend on quality rather than quantity.

Landy (2008)

(Diversity) *Also in Selection* • Stereotyping research might have little relevance to the workplace. Characteristics of work decisions vary substantially from the characteristics of stereotyping research. Research needs to start incorporating these characteristics before we can determine whether findings regarding stereotyping should inform practice • Individuating information (eg. exposure to and experiences with the person, identifying information, social processes) significantly reduces the need to rely on stereotypes, and this information is abundant in the workplace, but not in experiments. • Meta analyses are suspect (garbage in garbage out) and because it aggregates data from a long time ago with modern data, and the workplace has changed substantially over that period of time • Research based on Implicit Association Tests suspect (methodological issues, lack proof that IAT predicts behavior)

Lau & Murninghan (2005)

(Diversity) *Faultline Model*: Strong FLs lead to more interpersonal connections w/in subgroups, view members w/in subgroup more favorably - Effects of communication between subgroups depends on the strength of group FLs. - Weak FLs (but NOT strong)-> more cross-subgroup interactions improve group outcomes (conflict, psychological safety, group satisfaction). - Work communications effective for weak FL groups but NOT strong. Intragroup communications not uniformly helpful - Contradicts assimilation & contact hypotheses-->Takes more than contact for groups to connect positively

Kanter (1977)

(Diversity) Effects of diversity depend on ratios of majority to minority members (Skewed, Tilted, Balanced) • Skewed groups (large amt of maj, small amt of another) give rise to "Tokens" *Visibility* (of axns)->Performance pressures-> Overachieve , limit visibility *Polarization*->Boundary heightening (Dominants exaggerate commonality & token's difference)->Social isolation->Try to become insiders, prove loyalty by defining themselves as exceptions, turning against own category *Assimilation*->Role entrapment (distortion token characteristics to fit preexisting generalizations- e.g., woman in mother role) • Bc of these patterns, Tokens operate under handicaps in work settings: (1) Social isolation excludes them from learning (2) Performance pressures make errors more costly (3) Likely to accept distorting roles which permit them to disclose only limited parts of themselves

Ragins et al (2012)

(Diversity- Climate) • Living in racially dissimilar communities--> Whites' stronger intentions to move ONLY, not people of color • Diversity climate (perceiving the climate as inclusive) alleviated this effect (lower moving intentions) • People of color-> Moving intentions better predicted by diversity climate • Although both Whites and people of color report stronger intentions to leave communities that are experienced as having adverse diversity climates, this relationship plays a stronger role in moving intentions for people of color than for Whites • Study hypotheses based on job embeddedness theory!! *To increase JE & decrease moving intentions for people of color, it's important to live in positive diversity climate. Also important for white, but whites care more about living in racially dissimilar communities (whereas people of color don't care)*

Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)

(Diversity- Selection) Self fulfilling prophecies occur in work related racial interactions--interviewers' biases can shape interviewees' behavior. • Black applicants treated w/ less immediacy (interviewer stays further away, spent less time) • Lack of immediacy-->black applicants perform less well, reciprocate w/ less immediacy, rate interviewer less favorably • Interviewers' biases cause them to behave in such a way (less immediacy) that elicits unfavorable behaviors out of minority applicants (worse performance) •Nonverbal immediacy cues mediate the performance of an applicant in a job interview • Rater bias--> nonverbal immediacy cues--> poor applicant performance

Jex & Britt (2008)

(Intro/Overview/History) - *Organizational Psychology*: Scientific study of individual and group behavior in formal organizational settings - Helps orgs become more productive, provide higher qual. services, more financially successful - Focuses on *formal organizations*, which are continuous over time (exist longer than founding members) and exist to fulfill some explicit purpose, usually stated in writing - Scientist-practitioner model - Began with the Hawthorne Studies

McGregor (1957)

(Intro/Overview/History) - Directive/controlling types of management (Theory X) aren't going to be motivating for workers because they fail to satisfy their higher level needs (social and egoistic). Instead, we should shift more towards a Theory Y approach, which satisfies these needs by allowing for collaboration and self-direction. This theory takes advantage of basic human nature, which propels people to work hard and develop themselves. -*Theory X*- Mgmt organizes elements/ppl through control & active intervention to achieve goals -*Theory Y* - Self control & self direction; Decentralization, job enlargement, participation

Skarlicki et al. (2008)

(Justice) - Indis who react more strongly to moral issues (symbolization) more likely to sabotage customer as a result of mistreatment. - Moderation suppressed by internalization (indi's moral traits central to self-concept). - EE sabotage results in lower individual performance bc diverts energy & resources away from work. - *EEs engage in customer-directed sabotage as a reaction to unfair treatment from customers, over and above their fairness perceptions of the company & its agents.*

Ambrose & Cropanzano (2003)

(Justice) - Info indis have about procedures & outcomes change over time, which affects the relative impact of justice judgments on attitudes (*JS, OC, TO intent*) - PJ perceptions: Most impactful (1) Prior to an allocation decision & (2) Soon after the allocation decision; No additional impact over time. - DJ affecst org attitudes after the allocation decision is made-- most influential 1 year later - The relationship between procedural justice, distributive justice, and attitudes is dynamic. The effect of procedural and distributive justice depends, to some extent, on when it is assessed.

Gilliland (1993)

(Justice) During selection process, DJ & PJ shapes org & indi outcomes. - *PJ Rules*= (1) Job relatedness, (2) Opportunity to perform, (3) Reconsideration opportunity, (4) Admin consistency, (5) FB (6) Selection info, (7) Honesty, (8) Interpersonal effectiveness of administrator, (9) 2-way communication, (10) Propriety of questions - *DJ Rules*: Equity, equality, needs - Org outcomes: Whether ppl recommend job to others, influences performance, satisfaction, result in legal consequences, acceptance/rejection of job offer - Indi outcomes: SE towards job, job search process, work behavior (OCB, JS OC) *Make sure your selection procedures exhibit procedural and distributive justice*

Hackman & Oldham (1975)

(Motivation/Job Design) - Job Characteristics Model/Job Diagnostic Survey - Core Job Dimensions: (1) Task Variety (2) Task Identity (3) Task Significance (4) Autonomy (5) Feedback - Crit Psych States: (1) Meaningfulness of work (2) Responsibility for outcomes (3) Knowledge of results - Outcomes: (1) Internal motivation, (2) JP, (3) JS, (4) Absenteeism, (5) TO

Stajkovic & Luthans (2001)

(Motivation/Job Design) -5 Step Organizational Behavior Modification Model: (1) Identify/communicate performance expectations so workers understand (2) Determine how they'll be measured and tell EEs (3) Functional analysis (determine what stimulates the occurrence of the performance-related behavior & what may be impeding it (4) Reward desired behavior (5) Evaluation - Money, systemically administered using the O.B. Mod. Model, had a greater impact on EE performance than pay for performance routinely administered with no systematic application steps. - O.B. Mod. Had stronger effects on performance than social recognition and performance feedback. (Money>social recognition>feedback) - Systematically implement monetary rewards to improve performance

Locke & Latham (2009)

(Motivation/Job Design) • Ordonez et al. simply pointed out the negative effects of goal-setting from particular articles and avoided stating the positive effects. In general, they argue that Ordonez et al. practiced poor scholarship. • Rather than conducting or integrating research, they chose to draw their central theme from anecdotal evidence. Further, they employ unrepresentative citations from the literature, the misreporting of results, and the use of emotionally laden metaphors rather than dispassionate language. Moreover, almost all the pitfalls of goal setting they cite, rather than being original, have already been published—by us.

Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio (2008)

(Org Change/Dev) • Change agents contribute to the occurrence of resistance through their own actions and inactions. May find it because they're looking for it, or blame their failings on resistance even though they failed because of their own errors. • Contribute to resistance by (1) Breaking agreements/violating trust (we need to manage relationships when we initiate change), (2) Failing to communicate (justify change, convince others that its necessary), (3) Misrepresenting what's happening, (4) Failing to mobilize action. • Deal w/ resistance by recognizing its legitimacy & acknowledging problems. • Resistance can be a resource for change-- people who resist tend to be very committed and involved.

Greiner, Cummings, & Bhambri (2002)

(Org Change/Dev) *4D Theory of CEO Turnover & Success*- Outsider CEOs have difficulty effecting change bc lack insider knowl - Successful org change = outcome of interpersonal processes (action orientation, collaborative/comprehensive) + environmental conditions (environmental slack/favorable market conditions, org receptivity) - 7 Steps successful CEOs use to effect change: (1) *Negotiate* change (financial incentives, determine board expectations & gain support), (2) *Achieve ST results* (credibility) (3) *Be a visionary*/Transition to LT strategic approach (4) *Implement restructure* & Achieve fit w/ new/old team; (5) *Communicate commitment to change* throughout org& how change caters to org values (6) *Monitor* change (accountability, resources support change); (7) *Empower* EEs to be agents of change/incorporate change into daily life

Hurtz & Williams (2009)

(Org Change/Dev) *Also in Training & PA* Model of participation in self-development activities; Largest effect on participation = recognized availability of activities> Need to advertise/publicize ; LGO--> attitudes; Attitudes --> Intentions to participate--> participation; Target climate (learning org), manage attitudes and be mindful of reactions to past experiences - If it's voluntary, people don't do it. You have to attack attitudes, make people see value in development - Foster pos attitudes by encouraging orientation towards learning; providing developmental opportunities that are seen as useful, enjoyable, instrumental; Encouraging a social and org environment that is positive/supportive of development activities

Argyris (1974)

(Org Structure/Systems) - *Personality & Organization Theory*- Orgs form when goals are too complex for individuals; More formal and centralized organizations exert more control, and the more centralized they become, the less autonomy and control employees have *Problem* = (!!!)People who have needs which are incongruent to the needs of the organization experience conflict and find ways to express it (try to exert more control, leave, disengage, exert less effort, accept that work is meaningless/become more motivated by higher pay) *Solution = Job enlargement (horizontal vs. vertical)*- enrichment of the job either by adding tasks that provide intrinsic satisfaction (horizontal) or increasing the worker's control over his/her tasks (vertical).

Mintzberg (2005)

(Org Structure/Systems) - Organizations & roles within them are relatively stable and composed of 5 basic parts: (1) *Operating core*: EEs perform basic work/production of products/services (highly standardized) (2) *Strategic Apex*: Ppl w/ overall responsibility (CEO, top level managers). Concerned with global issues (minimal standardization) (3) *Middle Line*: Connects operating core to formal authority; "chain of command" or mid level mgrs (4) *Technostructure*: Analysts who serve the org by affecting the work of others; standardize processes, outputs, and skills (5) *Support Staff*: Highly specialized units that exist to provide support to the org outside the operating work flow

Katz & Kahn (2005)

(Org Structure/Systems) -*Systems Theory*- Orgs are open systems that receive energy from & exert force on their environment. -Resistant to change (homeostasis). -Bc these are open systems, can't understand them w/o considering environment-->different orgs will vary as a function of environ/environ forces will influence functioning.

Woodward (1965)

(Org Structure/Systems) • Orgs that design their formal structures to fit the type of production tech they employ are likely to be commercially successful • Orgs with similar production systems will have similar structures • Contingency theory- good org performance must fit situational demands (tech used, market demand, product diversity) • Technologies directly determine differences in org attributes (span of control, centralization of authority, formalization of rules/procedures)-- More complex-->More specialized workers needed • Purely focused on org structure

Kozlowski & Klein (2000)

(Org Structures/Systems) - General Systems Theory - having general centralized goals - Org psych theories need to take a multilevel perspective, taking more of a *meso* approach, as organizations are driven by both top down and bottom-up (emergent processes). -Organizations are dynamic and reciprocal (worker-->org; org--> worker)

Ryan & Ford (2010)

(PICaA) • I/O psychologists have identity problem- bad at defining how we're different from OB & HR, and because we don't have a clear identity, I/O psychologists don't include it as part of their self schema • Need to adhere to what makes us unique (Scientist practitioner model) •3 overall problems (1) Distinctiveness not made to newcomers (should talk about related field and how we're different); (2) Brain drain- people leaving IO programs to go to business programs; (3) Too much focus on being relevant than studying Org psych

Cable & Kay (2012)

(PICaA) •*Self verification striving* (SVS) - Indi diff in how important it is for ppl to promote the survival of their self conceptions when they enter new social environments. Involves trying to preserve a sense of coherence about oneself. More motivated to communicate strengths & limitations despite potential costs. • *Interviewers make better predictions about the future success of high SVS applicants* • High SVS applicants-->(1) Found work that resulted in greater job satisfaction & (2) Organizational commitment after entry, (3) higher JP (4) OCB • Might account for low interview validity • Encourage applicants to act authentically during org entry process

Roberts (2005)

(PICaA) *Social Identity Impression Management*- Part social ID construction, strategically influencing others' perceptions of one's own social ID to form desired impression. Includes: (1) *Social Recategorization*: Increase social mobility by changing the social categories to which they're assigned (Change behavior to match/mismatch group; Decategorization; Assimilation) (2) *Positive Distinctiveness*: Increase group value; Communicate different is valuable (Integration: incorporate social ID into prof. ID by communicating favorable attributes of the group & challenging others' negative stereotypes; Confirmation: capitalize on social identity stereotypes in order to gain desired outcomes) • Ineffective IM strategies (lack credibility & authenticity) may result in disengagement, increased cognitive load (and thus decreased performance), poor interpersonal relationships, and lack of wellness.

Pratt et al (2006)

(PICaA) ID construction triggered by *work-identity integrity violations*: Mismatch btw self concept & what you do. • Resolved through ID customization processes (Enriching, Patching, Splinting) • Org practices, (feedback, role models) help facilitate process by improving understanding of work & professional identity • Self views/identities are the lens through which we view our work and influence our behavior at work • PETERS: People constantly compare their professional ID to the work they do (work identity integrity assessment) When there is a discrepancy btw ID and work, they change ID to reflect what they do. Shows importance of congruence between professional id and self and the role it can play

French & Raven (1959)

(Power/Leadership) 5 Bases of Power: (1) Referent (based on high level of identification/respect, ability to attract others/build loyalty), (2) Expert (skill/expertise), (3) Reward (ability to reward), (4) Coercive (Threat of punishment), (5) Legitimate (Relative position & duties, formal authority delegated) Propose: 1. For all 5: Stronger base = Greater power 2. Pwr size/range varies, referent=broadest range 3. Attempts to utilize pwr outside range will reduce pwr 5. Coercion-->decreased follower atxn & high resistance; Reward power->increased attxn & low res 6. More legitimate the coercion, less it will produce resistance & decreased attraction

Lord & Brown (2001)

(Power/Leadership) • Leaders impact subs' internal processes by influencing their self concept (i.e. values & identity), which affects behavior. Values & identities=mediational processes that link exogenous (i.e. culture & leadership) to internal processes, which in turn affect behavior. • Culture → leadership → values → identity → behavior • Identities organize patterns of values and mediate the effects of values on behavior. • Goal commitment is greater when goals are activated through identities.

Wang et al (2005)

(Power/Leadership) •TL will create a high-quality LMX, which "demands" reciprocity, which will require the employees to "give back" via TP & OCBs •Supports ideas that: (1) TL behaviors=social currency, nourishing high-quality LMX (2) TL-(+)->task performance & OCB (3) TL enhance follower receptivity to role expanding offers and extra role behaviors, through processes of personal and/or social identification (4) LMX makes TL more personally meaningful

Walumbwa et al (2010)

(Power/Leadership) * REDACTED* • Authentic leaders have followers who engage in more OCB, are more engaged, identify with them, and are more empowered • AL > identification w/ sup, empowerment > OCB, work engagement • It is beneficial for managers to emphasize transparency, balanced processing, self awareness and high ethical standards to enhance employee engagement and citizenship behaviors

Uhl-Bien et al. (2007)

(Power/Leadership) Need new leadership theory appropriate for post-Industrial orgs-- Past have been too top down/stifle innovation •*Complex Leadership Theory*- Leadership too complex to be described as only the act of indis; Complex interplay of interacting forces. • Leaders need to enable emergence, rather than control. Take on 3 roles: (1) *Administrative leadership* (to the extent that it doesn't stifle creativity) (2) *Adaptive* (emergent interactive dynamic) (3) *Enabling*- Foster conditions that catalyze adaptive leadership/allow emergence • It's about balancing hierarchical top down administrative duties with the emergent, bottom-up creativity generated within organizations & managing these interactions

Krackhardt (1992)

(Socialization & Mentoring) - Capitalize on strong ties (philos) to facilitate networking - Change is the product of strong, affective, time honored relationships, which build trust. In order to facilitate successful change as an outsider, one must fully understand the strong ties between people withing the organization, or "philos" relations. - Power is enhanced through an understanding of the philos network, rather than mere routine information or advice. It required trust, which is better represented in a philos network than in an affectively neutral advice network - Change is the product of strong, affective, and time-honored relationships. Change is the product of philos -*Networking/socializations is a matter of building strong ties*

Morrison (2002)

(Socialization & Mentoring) - Newcomers become socialized by developing certain configurations of relationships with insiders: 1) Informational networks that cut across org units--> org knowledge 2) Info networks w/ high status EEs-->task mastery & role clarity 3) Large friendship networks-->OC + Social integration. - Newcomer distinguishes between set of informational sources and set of friends. *Informational sources have a greater impact on the newcomers' learning. Friends have a greater impact on assimilation.* - A newcomer needs informational network for acquiring info, and a friendship network for feeling integrated into the org

Chao et al (1994)

(Socialization & Mentoring) - Socialization processes continue throughout one's time at an organization and may involve 6 content areas: (1) Performance proficiency (2) People (establishing successful/satisfying relationships) (3) Politics (success in gaining info about which people are knowledgeable & powerful) (4) Language (unique jargon) (5) Org Goals & Values (6) Org History - EEs who develop content areas are more successful in terms of: (1) Income, (2) Satisfaction, (3) Career involvement, (4) Adaptability, (5) Sense of personal identity - Content areas predict effectiveness above/beyond tenure--> Don't use tenure as a measure of socialization - Content areas vary for people who change jobs w/in & btw orgs-->Socialization important for established organizational members AND newcomers (promotions, transfers, reassignment)

Higgins & Thomas (2001)

(Socialization & Mentoring) - While the quality of an individual's primary developmental relationship affects short-term career outcomes (work satisfaction and intentions to remain), it is the composition of one's entire constellation of developers that accounts for longer term career outcomes (Retention & Promotion) - Primary dev. rel qual-> (ST) Work Satis + Intent to remain - Constell. hierarchy-->Promotion - Constell. quality (amount of career assistance provided)->Retention. - Constellation perspective explained more variance than the primary developer perspective. - It's not just about the mentor-mentee relationship, but rather, about having a constellation of high quality relationships with developers of a higher status and who provide you with career assistance.

Eby et al (2010)

(Socialization & Mentoring) MENTEES: - Bad mentoring experiences >good --> (1) Intentions to stay in mentoring relationship, (2) Psychological withdrawal, & (3)Depressed mood @ work - Good> bad in predicting overall relationship quality MENTORS - Bad>Good --> relationship quality & intentions to stay in the relationship - When it comes to relationship quality, bad is stronger than good for mentors, and good is stronger than bad for mentees

Louis (1980)

(Socialization & Mentoring) Sense-making model of cognitive processes used to deal with surprise • EEs form assumptions about future events, & then experience unexpected events (surprise), which triggers need for explanation and interpretations of discrepancies & revision of cognitive scripts.When individuals make sense of new experiences, they rely on inputs from past experiences (schemas), but schemas are insufficient/might result in misinterp. • Need info to help fix their cognitive maps and attach meaning to surprises as they arise. • Imperative that insiders help them and provide insight. • Newcomers have special sense-making needs-- need help interpreting events in the new setting, including surprises, and help in appreciating situation-specific interpretation schemes or cultural assumptions.

Boyd et al. (2009)

(Stress/Coping/Work Life Balance) - JS<-(-)->Withdrawal - We should care about what kinds of coping strategies employees use because it has implications for their emotional exhaustion and job anxiety, and subsequently, their job satisfaction and withdrawal. Problem-focused better because less strongly related to job anxiety and emotional exhaustion -Decrease role conflict and increase role clarity to maximize adaptive (problem-focused coping)

Bolino & Turnley (2005)

(Stress/Coping/Work Life Balance) - OCBs may have a negative impact on employee well being (particularly for female employees)

Olson-Buchanan & Boswell (2006)

(Stress/Coping/Work Life Balance) - People who strongly identify with a role (work vs. life) let that role leak into other areas/integrate that role into other domains by role referencing (eg talking about role, display photos) - EEs w/ high role integration have: (1) Fewer negative reactions to interruptions of one domain in the other (2) Set fewer boundaries for communication technologies during nonwork time (3) Higher WFC

Webster et al. (2011)

(Stress/Coping/Work Life Balance) - Primary appraisal is of vital importance with regards to stressor-outcome relationship.- Whether stressors are viewed as a challenge or hindrance (or both) mediates the stressor-outcome relationship - Role conflict, role ambiguity, workload seen as a challenge or hindrance; responsibility only seen as a challenge - Hindrance appraisals are much more problematic-- related to negative work outcomes ((1) Emotional exhaustion, (2) Physical symptoms, (3) Job dissatisfaction, (4) TO intentions) - Appraising workload & responsibility as a challenge was positively related physical strain-->Challenge stressors may not be as beneficial as previously thought

Jex et al (2001)

(Stress/Coping/Work Life Balance) - Self-efficacy & active coping -(-)-> Psych strain - Avoidance coping -(+)->Psych strain - EEs who experience the least amount of psych strain: (1) High SE, (2) Use active coping, (3) Do NOT use avoidance coping - SE buffers against the effects of stressors on psychological strain, only among EEs who also report frequent use of active coping methods (High SE employees who use active coping methods are less likely to respond to stressors with strain) - Self-efficacy is most likely to moderate the effect of some stressors when it is accompanied by active coping methods and when avoidance coping methods are not used. *High SE EEs who use active coping and do NOT use avoidant coping are less likely to experience psychological strain in response to organizational stressors*

Kossek et al. (2006)

(Stress/Coping/Work Life Balance) • EEs who perceive greater psychological job control over when/where/how they work have lower: *(1) Turnover intentions, (2) FWC, (3) Depression.* • Integration Boundary management strategies-(+)->FWC • Best predictors of well being: (1) Higher job control; (2) Segmentation Boundary management strategy • Telecommunicate -(+)->JP • *Flexibility (control, telecommunicate) is good (JP & WB) so long as you segment work from nonwork*

LePine (2005)

(Teams) Team composition with respect to members' cognitive ability & goal orientation has important implications for how they adapt to unforeseen change - Higher cognitive ability team-(+)->adaptation to unforeseen change-- GMA= good for adaptation - High Team PGO-(-)-> Adaptation--> PGO bad for adaptation, particularly in the face of difficult goals - LGO teams--> difficult goals made adaptation more likely (LGO + Difficult goals good for adaptation) - Difficult and specific goals may be detrimental for PGO teams (agrees with Ordonez) - Team GMA, low PGO, and high LGO (but ONLY when paired with difficult goals) conducive to team adaptation. - If team LGO--> give difficult goals to promote adaptability, but if team PGO--> Difficult goals actually hurt adaptability!

Marks et al (2001)

(Teams)Temporally-based framework of team processes- Need to distinguish between *Emergent States* (characterize dynamic, contextually-dependent team properties) & *Team processes* (members' interdependent acts that convert inputs into outcomes through cognitive/verbal/behavioral activities directed toward organizing task work to achieve collective goals), composed of: *Team Performance Episodes* (temporal cycles of goal-directed activity), characterized by: *Transition proc.*:Eval/planning for goal (Mission Analysis, Goal Specification, Strategy Formulation) *Action proc*: Activities leading directly to goals (Monitoring progress, System Monitoring- Track resources/environ, Team monitoring/backup behavior- Assisting team members to perform their tasks w/ feedback, coaching, task completion assistance; Coordination) *Interpersonal proc*: During both action & transition; lay the foundation for other processes (Conflict management, Motivation/ confidence building, affect mgmt)