International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2007 (International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology)

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2007 Volume 22 Edited by Gerard P. Hodgkinson The Uni...

Author: Gerard P. Hodgkinson | J. Kevin Ford

282 downloads 3630 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2007 Volume 22 Edited by

Gerard P. Hodgkinson The University of Leeds, UK and J. Kevin Ford Michigan State University, USA

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2007 Volume 22

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2007 Volume 22 Edited by

Gerard P. Hodgkinson The University of Leeds, UK and J. Kevin Ford Michigan State University, USA

C 2007 Copyright

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England Telephone (+44) 1243 779777

Email (for orders and customer service enquiries): [email protected] Visit our Home Page on www.wiley.com All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP, UK, without the permission in writing of the Publisher. Requests to the Publisher should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England, or emailed to [email protected], or faxed to (+44) 1243 770620. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The Publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Other Wiley Editorial Offices John Wiley & Sons Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741, USA Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Boschstr. 12, D-69469 Weinheim, Germany John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd, 42 McDougall Street, Milton, Queensland 4064, Australia John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2 Clementi Loop #02-01, Jin Xing Distripark, Singapore 129809 John Wiley & Sons Canada Ltd, 6045 Freemont Blvd, Mississauga, ONT, L5R 4J3 Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data International review of industrial and organizational psychology. —1986—Chichester; New York; Wiley, c1986– v.: ill.; 24cm. Annual. ISSN 0886-1528 1/4 International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1. Psychology, Industrial—Periodicals. 2. Personnel management—Periodicals. [DNLM: 1. Organization and Administration—periodicals. 2. Psychology, Industrial—periodicals. W1IN832UJ] HF5548.7.157 158.7005—dc 19 86-643874 AACR 2 MARC-S Library of Congress [8709] British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN-13 978-0-470-03198-8 (HB) Typeset in 10/12pt Plantin by TechBooks, New Delhi, India Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall This book is printed on acid-free paper responsibly manufactured from sustainable forestry in which at least two trees are planted for each one used for paper production.

CONTENTS About the Editors

vii

List of Contributors

ix

Editorial Foreword

xi

1. Socialization in Organizational Contexts Blake E. Ashforth, David M. Sluss and Spencer H. Harrison

1

2. The Costs – and Benefits – of Human Resources Wayne F. Cascio 3. Strategies for Reducing Work-Family Conflict: Applying Research and Best Practices from Industrial and Organizational Psychology Debra A. Major and Jeanette N. Cleveland 4. Coping Research and Measurement in the Context of Work Related Stress Philip Dewe and Cary L. Cooper 5. Organizational Learning Linda Argote and Gergana Todorova

71

111

141 193

6. Cultural Variations in Individual Job Performance: Implications for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 21st Century Rabi S. Bhagat, James R. Van Scotter, Pamela K. Steverson and Karen South Moustafa

235

7. Conducting Meaningful Research in a Fast-paced and Volatile World of Work: Challenges and Opportunities Anne Marie Ryan and Elaine D. Pulakos

265

Index

291

Contents of Previous Volumes

305

ABOUT THE EDITORS Gerard P. Hodgkinson Leeds University Business School, The University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK J. Kevin Ford

Department of Psychology, 315 Psychology Building, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824, USA

Gerard P. Hodgkinson is Professor of Organizational Behaviour and Strategic Management and Director of the Centre for Organizational Strategy, Learning and Change at the University of Leeds, UK. He earned his BA, MSc and PhD degrees at Wolverhampton Polytechnic and the Universities of Hull and Sheffield, respectively. He has authored or co-authored over 50 articles and chapters and two books on topics relevant to industrial and organizational psychology and in 2001 he was elected a Fellow of both the British Psychological Society and the British Academy of Management, in recognition of his pioneering contribution to the psychology of strategic management as an emergent field of study. In recent years this and related work on managerial and organizational cognition has been taken forward through the award of a Fellowship of Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM), the UK’s research initiative on management funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), and will continue through the newly launched Centre for Organizational Strategy, Learning and Change at the University of Leeds. From 1999–2006 he was the Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Management and currently serves on the Editorial Boards of the Academy of Management Review, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Organization Science. A practising chartered occupational psychologist, he has conducted numerous consultancy assignments for leading private and public sector organizations. Further information about Gerard and his work can be found at the following addresses: (1) http://www.leeds.ac.uk/lubs/; (2) http://www.aimresearch.org. J. Kevin Ford is a Professor of Psychology at Michigan State University. His major research interests involve improving training effectiveness through efforts to advance our understanding of training needs assessment, design, evaluation and transfer. Dr. Ford also concentrates on understanding change dynamics in organizational development efforts and building continuous learning and improvement orientations within organizations. He has published over 50 articles and chapters and four books relevant to Industrial and Organizational

viii

A BOUT THE E DITORS

Psychology. Currently, he serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology and Human Performance. He is an active consultant with private industry and the public sector on training, leadership, and organizational change issues. Kevin is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. He received his BS in psychology from the University of Maryland and his MA and Ph.D. in psychology from the Ohio State University. Further information about Kevin and his research and consulting activities can be found at http://www.io.psy.msu.edu/jkf.

CONTRIBUTORS Linda Argote

David A.Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 152133890, USA

Blake E. Ashforth

W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85282, USA

Rabi S. Bhagat

Department of Management, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA

Wayne F. Cascio

The Business School, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Campus Box 165, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364, USA

Jeanette N. Cleveland

Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA

Cary L. Cooper

Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4WY, UK

Philip Dewe

Department of Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK

Spencer H. Harrison

W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

Debra A. Major

Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529-0267, USA

Elaine D. Pulakos

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209, USA

Ann Marie Ryan

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1117, USA

David M. Sluss

Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 1705 College Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

Karen South Moustafa

School of Business and Management Sciences, Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA

x

C ONTRIBUTORS

Pamela K. Steverson

Department of Management, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA

Gergana Todorova

David A. Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 152133890, USA

James R. Van Scotter

E.J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA

EDITORIAL FOREWORD This is the twenty-second volume of the International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In line with previous volumes, the chapters we have commissioned have been authored by a number of the world’s leading researchers, reflecting the rich diversity of advances occurring both within the mainstream and at the leading-edge of the field. Continuing the tradition of state-of-the-art critical overviews that have established this series as the major reference work of choice for individuals seeking authoritative, up-to-the minute coverage of developments from around the globe in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Blake Ashforth and colleagues offer a wide-ranging and insightful critique of theory and research on ‘socialization in organizational contexts’ and Wayne Cascio contributes an in-depth appraisal of advances in assessing ‘the costs – and benefits – of human resources’, centred on the metrics used to assess the linkages between key HRM practices and outcomes at the level of the individual and the organization. Equally comprehensive and informative are the reviews by Philip Dewe and Cary Cooper on ‘coping research and measurement in the context of work related stress’ and Rabi Bhagat and colleagues on ‘cultural variations in individual job performance’. Further thought provoking contributions in the present volume address the challenges in ‘conducting meaningful research in a fast-paced and volatile world of work’ (Anne Marie Ryan and Elaine Pulakos) and review developments in relation to ‘organizational learning’ (Linda Argote and Gergana Todorova) and ‘strategies for reducing work-family conflict’ (Debra Major and Jeanette Cleveland). GPH JKF June 2006

Chapter 1 SOCIALIZATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS Blake E. Ashforth Department of Management, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, USA

David M. Sluss Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, USA

and Spencer H. Harrison W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, USA The survival of an organization depends partly on its ongoing ability to integrate new members into the fold while simultaneously allowing if not encouraging organizational change. Organizational socialization is the process by which individuals become part of an organization’s pattern of activities (Anderson, Riddle & Martin, 1999). This broad definition accommodates the impact of both the organization on the individual and the individual on the organization (the latter is often referred to as individualization or personalization), and–given that socialization is continuous–recognizes that individuals may be organizational newcomers or veterans. Why does socialization matter? First, because work contexts are complex, dynamic, designed for multiple purposes, and, for the newcomer, more or less novel, their meaning is inherently equivocal. As various perspectives (e.g., social learning theory, Bandura, 1977; social information processing theory, Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; social comparison theory; Festinger, 1954) maintain, individuals socially construct meaning, giving particular weight to the views of credible people–in this case, veteran insiders. For example, Salzinger (1991) studied two cooperatives that specialized in domestic worker placement. In one, management regarded domestic work as stopgap work and provided no training. In the other, management regarded domestic work as a profession, provided training, and held supportive meetings where workers discussed their International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2007, Volume 22. C 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Edited by G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford. Copyright

2 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 experiences. Members of the first co-op came to regard their work as unimportant, whereas members of the second came to regard it as a skilled occupation. The work was essentially the same: it was the social construction of the work that differed. Through socialization, newcomers gain a sense of what the organization is all about and why it’s important, as well as their place within it. Second, socialization facilitates work adjustment. Research has connected various forms of socialization to many adjustment variables, ranging from attitudes (particularly job satisfaction and organizational commitment) to behavior (e.g., performance, role innovation), and personal change (e.g., in values, beliefs) to stressors (particularly role ambiguity and role conflict) (e.g., Bauer, Morrison & Callister, 1998; Jablin, 2001; Nelson, 1987; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a; Wanous, 1992). As Fisher (1986, p. 101) noted, depending on the socialization process, ‘the outcomes . . . can vary from outright rebellion to creative change of the organization by the new member to rigid conformity; from satisfaction and commitment to disillusionment and turnover’ (see also Bauer et al., 1998). Effective socialization helps transform the newcomer into a contributing member, thereby replenishing if not rejuvenating the organization as a system. Finally, early socialization experiences appear to strongly affect the course of long-term adjustment, triggering either a success cycle or a failure cycle (Hall, 1976). Positive experiences can foster learning, confidence, and credibility, thereby paving the way for further growth opportunities and additional learning, confidence, and credibility. For example, Berlew and Hall (1966) found that AT&T managers randomly given initially demanding assignments tended to perform better and have higher salaries four to five years later than managers randomly given less demanding assignments. Bravo, Piero, ´ Rodriguez and Whitely (2003) found, in a sample of office technology workers and machine operators, that having a role model and a set timetable for assumption of the new role predicted lower role conflict (directly) and lower role ambiguity (indirectly), both of which were associated with developing career strategies. As Van Maanen and Schein (1979; Schein, 1971; Van Maanen, 1982) argue, socialization is most intense at boundary crossings, whether vertical (rank or level), horizontal (one’s function), or inclusionary (one’s centrality)–in short, ‘up, around, and in’ (Schein, 1971, p. 418). Organizations are concerned about the fit of the individual, and the individual is receptive to organizational cues about what needs to be learned. Indeed, the degree of novelty can provoke ‘upending experiences’–i.e., ‘deliberately planned or accidently created circumstances which dramatically and unequivocally upset or disconfirm some of the major assumptions which the new man holds about himself, his company, or his job’ (Schein, 1968, p. 4). Upending experiences can ‘unfreeze’ (Lewin, 1951) the individual, motivating learning and possibly personal change.

S OCIALIZATION IN O RGANIZATIONAL C ONTEXTS

3

Organizational entry involves all three boundaries and so is particularly intense (Louis, 1980), and, given the notion of success and failure cycles, particularly consequential. Not surprisingly, then, most socialization research has focused on the aftermath of organizational entry for relative newcomers to the labor force–as we will in this chapter. (See Black, 1992, and Hill, 1992, for examples of managers; Nicholson & West, 1988, Kramer, 1996, and Kramer & Noland, 1999, for examples of job change, transfer, and promotion; Hall, 1980, for later career socialization issues; Feldman, 1989, regarding the resocialization of veterans; and Spenner & Otto, 1985, for an example of research on the longer-term effects of work and the organization on individual change and adjustment.) Later, under ‘Questioning our Default Assumptions,’ we briefly extend our focus to other groups. The chapter is divided into three sections. First, we review certain historical perspectives on organizational socialization, including some early roots of socialization research, socialization stage models, socialization tactics, socialization content (newcomer learning), and newcomer proactivity. Second, we examine cross-currents in socialization research, that is, major themes that flow across the historical perspectives. These include organizational context, localized socialization, individual differences, and the role of time. Third, we briefly question the apparent default assumptions embedded in socialization research, such as the notion that socialization pertains to raw recruits and traditional work arrangements. Directions for future research will be offered throughout the chapter. However, given space constraints, we offer only a few methodological recommendations (for discussions of methodological issues see the reviews by Bauer et al., 1998, Fisher, 1986, Jablin, 2001, Saks & Ashforth, 1997a, and Wanous & Colella, 1989). As we will see, the research on socialization is as diverse as it is intriguing.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES As a process that mediates between the organization and the individual, socialization can be–and has been–broached from a number of perspectives. We outline five such perspectives, in rough chronological order: early roots of socialization research, socialization stage models, socialization tactics, socialization content (newcomer learning), and newcomer proactivity.

Early Roots of Socialization Research Current models of organizational socialization have many roots. Three of the most important are life course socialization, occupational socialization, and socialization in total institutions.

4 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Life course socialization Eclectic perspectives on socialization through the life course, particularly adult socialization, have informed thinking on organizational socialization (e.g., Becker, 1964; Brim, 1966; Clausen, 1968; Mortimer & Simmons, 1978; Rosow, 1965). Socialization occurs in diverse social domains–including family, school, youth organizations, and part-time jobs–as one matures and adopts new or altered roles in those domains. Jablin (2001) reviews the impact of various social domains on workplace socialization. He concludes that families, particularly parents, have a huge influence on vocational choice, general attitudes to work, stereotypes of genderappropriate work, and skills for role negotiation and information-seeking. Indeed, ‘our homes may be one of the most important sources of on-the-job training’ (p. 737). Educational institutions (from preschool to college) affect vocational choice, learning strategies, interpersonal competencies, and knowledge of organizational activities and attributes (e.g., status differentiation, hierarchy, division of labor). Organized sports teach members about teamwork, discipline, and concentration. Finally, the media–especially television programs–often transmit distorted and stereotypic information about organizational life and specific occupations. Jablin quotes Lichter, Lichter and Amundson (1997, p. 79), who analyzed prime-time shows over 30 years: ‘no other occupation or institution was criticized as heavily as business, in terms of either the frequency or proportion of negative thematic portrayals.’ Further, organizations are often depicted as places ‘where workers tell off bosses and warm personal relationships are infinitely more important than economic productivity’ (Lichter, Lichter & Rothman, 1994, p. 419). The upshot of these social domains is that individuals are predisposed to view work, organizations, and specific occupations in certain ways even before they actually begin working. Bush and Simmons’ (1981) review of the life course socialization literature suggests several provocative ideas that are reflected in various models of organizational socialization. First, role acquisition is a key element of socialization. Social domains consist of networks of interlocking roles, and the newcomer necessarily enters one or more roles when entering a domain. A role situates the individual, providing a platform for interaction, learning, stress coping (regarding role ambiguity, conflict, and overload), and possibly role redefinition. Second, both continuity and discontinuity characterize adult life. Role transitions tend to build on earlier transitions, but unique circumstances may precipitate change. Even the small shifts in values and behaviors that typify shortterm adjustments may result in dramatic changes over the long-term. Third, foreshadowing our later discussion of stages of organizational socialization, various stage models of life course socialization have been proposed. However, the universality of such models remains controversial. Accordingly, we argue later that stage models should be seen as heuristics for thinking through


5

potential socialization challenges. Fourth, contrary to conventional wisdom, role transitions (other than those involving loss) are often experienced positively rather than negatively. (This is likely to be particularly true in organizational contexts because organizational entry, promotions, and transfers are normative and typically desirable.) Lutfey and Mortimer’s (2003) more recent review of the life course socialization literature suggests several additional ideas that have permeated the organizational literature. First, foreshadowing organizational research on newcomer proactivity, symbolic interactionist perspectives suggest that individuals are not passive recipients of socialization, but active players who seek out opportunities to engage others in their environment, who socially construct their environment, and who attempt to alter that environment. Second, whereas childhood socialization is focused on learning basic values (e.g., independence, honesty) and skills (e.g., language, social competence), adult socialization is focused on learning context-specific skills. (In the same vein, Schein, 1971, p. 413, argues that organizational socialization focuses less on personality than on more ‘labile selves.’) In sum, diverse research on socialization over the life course reveals that newcomers are far from blank slates on which the organization can simply inscribe itself, and that organizational scholars can profit greatly from research on socialization in other social domains.

Occupational socialization A second major root of socialization models is ethnographic research on particular occupations (and, to a lesser extent, organizations) and the educational institutions that bestow occupational credentials on students. The Chicago School of Sociology provided much of the impetus, with classic studies of occupations ranging from executives to teachers, and physicians to thieves (see Barley, 1989, for an overview). These and other ethnographic studies are largely descriptive, opting for richly nuanced discussions of the lived experiences of individuals in specific settings. The Chicago sociologists eschewed rigorous construct definitions and conceptual frameworks in favor of organic heuristics that could be extended to other occupations and life histories (Barley, 1989). These tendencies remain alive today, with many occupational (and organizational) ethnographies offering only loose ties with the conceptual literature. Indeed, ethnographies can be profitably viewed as secondary data, providing much grist for ongoing theory development (Hodson, 2001). These ethnographies reveal the vibrant nature of occupational cultures: their patterned rounds of life, their ideologies and value systems, and their rituals, narratives, jargon, and markers of progress and status (Coffey & Atkinson, 1994; Trice, 1993; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). The ideologies are

6 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 particularly noteworthy as they routinely privilege the occupation and explain away uncomfortable possibilities. For example, neophyte nuclear weapons scientists are socialized to think that their efforts are preserving world peace rather than escalating weapons research and thereby threatening peace (Gusterson, 1996). Given the symbolic interactionist tradition that inspired many ethnographies, a major emphasis is on how occupational members are embedded in rich interpersonal networks and socially construct their reality (e.g., Adler & Adler, 1991; Hallier & James, 1999; Ibarra, 1999; Van Maanen, 1975). Socialization thus appears to be as much about proactive role-making as reactive role-taking (Graen, 1976). Two foci, in particular, of occupational (and organizational) ethnographies continue to offer much promise for socialization theory development. One is the phenomenology of socialization, the raw experience of exploring and becoming immersed in occupational and organizational life. Quantitative treatments of socialization tend to focus on relatively bloodless constructs like job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance, assessed in periodic snapshots. In contrast, ethnographies are rife with ‘real time’ instances of joy, aggression, ambivalence, hope, doubt, cynicism, empathy, frustration, and sharing–in short, the stuff of living. Ethnographies can be plumbed for a better understanding of what drives the range of human experience and with what effects. For example, emotions provide potent signals about what matters and how one should respond (e.g., fight or flight). Scott and Myers (2005) describe how novice firefighters are trained to read and calibrate their anxiety in the face of danger; Schweingruber and Berns (2005) discuss how–through stories, role plays, positive framing, and positive self-talk–neophyte door-todoor book salespeople are inoculated against emotionally debilitating failure; and Cahill (1999) describes how death is normalized for mortuary science students–through autopsy films, routine exposure to cadavers and associated smells, and the use of jargon–so that they do not fear death or experience revulsion when working with cadavers (cf. Ashforth & Saks, 2002; Reio & Callahan, 2004). A second promising focus is the ‘lumpiness’ of socialization, the events that may serve as ‘turning points’ (Cressey, 1932; Hughes, 1958) in one’s progression from outsider to insider. Quantitative treatments of socialization tend to implicitly assume a more or less stable set of forces that steadily push and pull on newcomers (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). In contrast, Louis (1980) describes how surprises prompt sensemaking; Gundry and Rousseau (1994) and Teboul (1997) discuss how newcomers learned about their organization’s culture and their place within it by decoding critical incidents; Stohl (1986, p. 232) suggests that messages from ‘older and wiser’ veterans regarding specific events can evolve into memorable maxims that frame the newcomers’ understanding of the organization’s normative system; and Bullis and Bach (1989) found that graduate students reported a variety of turning points during their first eight months, from representing the organization to handling


7

disappointments. Planned events such as orientation sessions, hazings, developmental assignments, status reviews, and parties, and unplanned events such as an invitation to lunch from coworkers, an overheard remark, negative feedback from a client, and being entrusted with privileged information, have manifest and latent, substantive and symbolic lessons (e.g., one is valued, one has much to learn) (e.g., Gundry & Rousseau, 1994; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1991). One much studied category of events is rites of passage (Hallier & James, 1999; van Gennep, 1960). These are more or less ritualized affairs with actors, scripts, settings, and props, a major purpose of which is to facilitate, test, and/or affirm the newcomer’s assumption of the relevant identity, thereby recognizing ‘a “change of soul”’ (Caplow, 1964, p. 176; Ashforth, 2001). Anderson-Gough, Grey, and Robson (2001, p. 117) describe how audit trainees became fixated on their upcoming professional exams, viewing them less as a test of expertise and more of ‘the general “character” or “calibre” of the examinee.’ Kadushin (1969) found that music students came to think of themselves as professionals rather than as students when they won talent competitions, performed for pay, and joined the union. Thus, ethnographies can also be studied for how the nature, variety, timing, and sequencing of events affects the trajectory of socialization. Additionally, peers, supervisors, and mentors–the primary ‘“agents” of socialization’ (Bauer et al., 1998, p. 167)–impart a great deal of information to newcomers in narrative form, that is, as event-driven stories, myths, and folklore that vividly highlight both positive and negative cultural cues in action (Brown, 1985; Kitchell, Hannan, & Kempton, 2000; Pentland, 1999; Swap, Leonard, Shields & Abrams, 2001). Given the rich details, engaging storylines, and recognizable characters, narratives invite the listener to vicariously experience and collude in deriving the ‘moral.’ Thus, narratives provide memorable vehicles for identification and knowledge–including the tacit knowledge that is otherwise difficult to articulate. Many ethnographies are rife with such storytelling, providing scholars with insight into how newcomers construct a sense of the workplace from the bricolage of events. Socialization in total institutions A third major root of socialization models involves the ‘total institution,’ defined by Goffman (1961, p. xiii) as ‘a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life.’ Ethnographic studies of military institutions (Dornbusch, 1955), correctional institutions (Wheeler, 1969), prisoner of war camps (Schein, 1961), and psychiatric hospitals (Goffman, 1961), among others, provided rich descriptions of how individuals were actively remade in the organization’s image. Much like the occupations noted above, a major appeal of total institutions for

8 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 scholars appears to be their relatively unique mission, strong culture, and rigorous ‘people processing’ mechanisms (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). For much the same reason, ethnographic research has also been popular in organizations that approximate total institutions, such as the demanding and emotionally intense workloads of professional schools (Becker, Geer, Strauss & Hughes, 1961), the residence living of college (Van Der Ryn, 1971), and the physical isolation of company towns (Walkowitz, 1978). Research on socialization in total and near-total institutions has continued apace, with more recent examples including studies of a fire department (Scott & Myers, 2005), trawler (Bourassa & Ashforth, 1998), and medical schools (Hafferty, 1991; Pratt, Rockmann & Kaufmann, 2006). Because total and near-total institutions exercise strong control over their members and are often intent on rebuilding those members, they reveal certain socialization processes in their most extreme form. They also create the impression that socialization is about situationism, where a strong situation overwhelms the newcomer, rather than about interactionism, where individual differences interact with situational variables (Schneider, 1983), or about proactivity, where the newcomer actively investigates and affects the situation. A common theme in the early ethnographies of total institutions is the tactics–particularly divestiture–that would come to be known as institutionalized socialization (described later). Bourne (1967), for example, described the personal changes wrought by U.S. Army basic training. Recruits are isolated at a fort, their heads are shaved, civilian clothes are traded for a uniform, and minor infractions are relentlessly punished, such that the recruits ‘are forced into a highly infantile role’ (p. 195). This role induces disillusionment with oneself and the army. However, aided by lenient scoring, the recruits are then reinforced for their ‘skilled’ rifle shooting. In rapid succession, the recruit becomes proficient in hand-to-hand combat, tactical skills, and other capabilities. Although the dropout rate is approximately only 1%, the recruit is induced to feel pride at successfully surviving the training and becoming a member of the army. In nine short weeks, the recruit’s tattered civilian identity has been remade into that of a skilled soldier. Although we have cast life course socialization, occupational socialization, and socialization in total institutions as ‘early roots’ of socialization research, scholars continue to study these areas and generate intriguing findings. Moreover, much of the qualitative research that historically informed these areas remains riveting reading even today–and is still capable of generating novel insights into the dynamics of socialization. However, as Van Maanen (1984, p. 238) notes, ‘Organizational researchers have overstudied relatively harsh and intensive socialization and . . . understudied socialization of the more benign and supportive sort.’ Although accounts of ‘harsh and intensive socialization’ may be gripping, they wrongly imply that socialization is only about dramatic and revolutionary transformation. Mundane and evolutionary change also plays a major role in socialization.


9

Socialization Stage Models Many researchers have attempted to distill the socialization process into a generalizable sequence of stages. However, stage models have not attracted much research attention during the last 20 years. This may be attributable to their mixed empirical support, the ascendance of other socialization perspectives (particularly socialization tactics and newcomer proactivity), and the pessimistic evaluation they received in Fisher’s (1986) influential review. Indeed, Bauer et al. (1998, p. 153, their emphasis) state that ‘these models were not true “process” models in that they focused on the sequence of what occurs during socialization, yet paid relatively little attention to how those changes occur.’ Stage models are prescriptive in that each stage is based on more or less successfully resolving the challenges of the previous stages. As such, we believe that stage models continue to provide a useful heuristic for thinking through the challenges that newcomers (and their employers) tend to face. As Wanous (1992, p. 210, his emphasis) puts it, ‘Even if research has yet to establish the precise sequences of events, it is probably correct to consider the issues raised by the stage models to be relevant for most newcomers at some point early on in their careers with an organization.’ Accordingly, we refrain from delving into the details that differentiate one model from another. Instead we provide a general comparison of how existing stage models are aligned and, to a lesser extent, misaligned to underscore assumptions and trends across the models. In making this comparison we have omitted models that were derived from specific professions in order to increase comparability and generalizability (Fisher, 1986, provides a solid review of some of these more specific models). Table 1.1 compares the models across four relatively agreed upon stages: anticipation, encounter, adjustment, and stabilization. Anticipation occurs before organizational entry and includes activities through which individuals develop expectations regarding the organization in preparation for entry (e.g., job search, asking questions of family, friends, and contacts, reading media accounts and organizational self-portrayals). Similarly, during this stage the organization is often providing some combination of idealistic and realistic images of itself (through, for example, press releases, recruitment and selection activities, and internships). Encounter involves new members actually entering the organization and confronting its realities and contending with the discrepancies between expectations and experience. The result is often visceral; a sense of conflict (Wanous, 1992), shock (Hughes, 1959), and surprise (Louis, 1980) that prompts learning. Adjustment involves individuals resolving the demands of their new reality, such as becoming integrated into interpersonal networks and changing one’s self-image, as well as insider and organizational activities designed to foster newcomer adaptation. These processes produce a mutual sense of commitment (Anderson & Thomas, 1996). Finally, stabilization focuses on the signals and actions that indicate that individuals are bona fide

Table 1.1

Socialization stage models


11

organizational insiders, including promotion, sharing of organizational secrets, lower stress, termination of mentoring, and integration into a group (Anderson et al., 1999; Kram, 1988; Nelson, 1987). There appears to be more consensus across the models on the occurrence of the first stages, perhaps because they have events that more clearly demarcate transitions (e.g., hiring can be viewed as an event marking the transition from anticipatory socialization to encounter), whereas the events demarcating later stages are often more subtle and gradual (Wanous, 1992). We have organized the table to highlight three different categories of stage models: initial models, integrative models, and specialized models. Although there is considerable overlap between the second and third categories in terms of when they were published, these three categories provide a rough view of the evolution of stage models. With the exception of Porter, Lawler and Hackman (1975), who distilled their model from a review of research, all of the initial models were derived from or informed by empirical research conducted by their originators. The initial models tend to depict socialization as a linear, lockstep sequence (Wanous, 1992). A comparison of these four models reveals that, even from the outset, socialization researchers had difficulty agreeing upon when socialization starts and ends: some researchers consider anticipatory socialization integral to socialization whereas others do not, and some consider stabilization as integral to socialization whereas others do not. We have named the second set of stage models ‘integrative models’ because the authors were attempting to blend the initial models. The majority of the integrative models are derived from reviews of the extant literature and tend to be less detailed and descriptive than the initial models. Their authors tend to agree that stage models serve more as heuristics (Fisher, 1986) or conceptual frameworks (Bauer et al., 1998). These integrative models have also helped to solidify the importance of anticipatory socialization as a precursor to the dynamics of actual organizational entry. The final set of stage models, ‘specialized models,’ deal with the impact of mentors (Kram, 1988) and groups (Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Anderson et al., 1999; Moreland & Levine, 2001) as socialization agents, and highlight the effects of communication (Jablin, 1987), the importance of role transitions (Nicholson, 1987), and the relationship between socialization and stress (Nelson, 1987). Taken as a whole, these models enrich our understanding of socialization in three ways. First, whereas the initial models described socialization as a linear process, the specialized models highlight non-linearity–the stages are less discrete and more fluid as elements of the stages may overlap, specific elements may not occur (e.g., lack of reality shock), and events and emergent issues may cause a newcomer to recycle through the stages (e.g., Hess, 1993). Moreover, if viewed together, these models underscore the fact that individuals are often being socialized into multiple collectives simultaneously (e.g., occupation, team, department, organization, industry). For example, Anderson et al. (1999) note that individuals can be undergoing

12 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 socialization into multiple groups simultaneously but be in different stages across the groups. Similarly, an individual could be fully socialized into, say, a mentor relationship but still be beginning socialization into a new group or role. Second, the specialized models display a greater sensitivity to the beginning and ending phases. The initial models tend to disagree about the occurrence of the anticipation and stabilization stages, whereas the integrative models are more apt to ignore the stabilization stage. In agreement with the integrative models, the specialized models demonstrate agreement on the importance of anticipation. In contrast, the specialized models show a greater inclination toward extending socialization into stabilization and even beyond. This inclination is probably related to the level of detail that can be provided by restricting the scope of the model. For instance, Nelson’s (1987) stress model emphasizes outcomes of stress and in so doing, extends the impact of socialization beyond the organization, into the individual’s family and into addictive behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and drug abuse. Moreland and Levine’s (2001) model notes that even after stabilization, if mutual commitment erodes, groups may need to resocialize members and that this will either produce better persongroup convergence or lead to the individual’s exit. Anderson et al. (1999) note that exit affects both the individual and the group as each tries to make sense of what has occurred and justify the exit. The process of justification has the potential of surfacing relational issues within the group and potentially changing group norms (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991). Finally, these specialized models expose the importance of proximal, local elements in socialization. We discuss the importance of localized socialization later; however, in reference to stage models, models that focus on proximal sources of socialization provide a more precise picture of how interpersonal and group relationships may literally guide individuals through the stages of socialization and hence the rites that lead to ‘insidership.’ In other words, if socialization stage models are viewed as a fluid gestalt, like a set of ocean waves, models focused on proximal sources would act as the subsurface currents generating the force of the waves. For example, the assignment of a mentor to a newcomer, what Kram (1988) refers to as ‘initiation,’ is a clear signal of entry. Similarly, the final stage of mentorship, in which the newcomers detach from their mentors and redefine themselves as independent actors, provides a rich turning point that signifies insidership. These proximal, interpersonal transitions provide the momentum that helps drive the newcomer through the process of socialization. Future socialization research should more actively integrate the heuristics of stage models with other socialization perspectives. Chen and Klimoski’s (2003) study of the impact of team expectations on newcomer performance provides a good example. These authors use a three-stage model (anticipation, encounter, and adjustment) as a heuristic to generate and test their framework. The authors note that specific theories do not indicate when each socialization


13

phase begins and ends, but the three stages provide a conceptual rationale for the causal relations between their constructs as well as a methodological rationale that guided their three data collection periods. Such studies check our assumptions regarding what occurs in each stage and thereby help cultivate our understanding of the flow of events over the course of socialization. Socialization Tactics Prior to Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) landmark work, socialization research tended to focus on discrete activities such as newcomer orientation, training, apprenticeship, and mentoring. What was missing, however, was an overarching framework that suggested how and why such practices had the effects that they did. Van Maanen and Schein argue that organizations implement six bipolar tactics to integrate new employees. First, the collective (vs. individual) tactic involves grouping newcomers together and putting them through common learning experiences. Second, the formal (vs. informal) tactic includes separating the newcomers from organizational insiders via activities such as training and orientation classes. Third, the sequential (vs. random) tactic takes the newcomer through a lock-step series of adjustment experiences. Fourth, the fixed (vs. variable) tactic entails following a set timetable for moving from one adjustment experience to another. Fifth, the serial (vs. disjunctive) tactic involves learning the new job from a role model such as a mentor, supervisor, or more experienced peer. Finally, investiture (vs. divestiture) affirms the newcomer’s incoming identity, capabilities, and attributes such as when one is hired because of one’s previous training or experience. Jones (1986) argues that the collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture tactics form a constellation termed institutionalized socialization wherein the organization encourages lock-step integration into the organizational milieu.1 The opposite set of tactics (i.e., individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divesture) form individualized socialization wherein the newcomer is left on his or her own to walk the tightrope of adjustment. A 1997 review by Saks and Ashforth (1997a) reported that institutionalized socialization is associated with lower role ambiguity, role conflict, and intentions to quit, and higher task mastery, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The positive attitudinal effects may be attributable not only to the instrumental payoff of institutionalized socialization (e.g., enhancing role clarity), but to the symbolic payoff noted earlier (i.e., demonstrating that the newcomer is valued) (Riordan, Weatherly, Vandenberg & Self, 2001). Research since 1997 has reinforced these findings (Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999; Bravo et al., 2003; Cooper-Thomas, van Vianen & Anderson, 2004; Fogarty, 2000; 1

It should be noted that Van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 253) argue that the fixed and investiture tactics discourage a ‘custodial orientation.’ However, subsequent research, cited later, has generally supported Jones’ reformulation.

14 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Hart & Miller, 2005; Hart, Miller & Johnson, 2003; Riordan et al., 2001; Seibert, 1999; cf. Jaskyte, 2005). Recent research has expanded the number of outcome variables; specifically, institutionalized tactics predict increased person-organization fit (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004; Gruman, Saks & Zeig, 2006; Kim, Cable & Kim, 2005), person-job fit (Gruman et al., 2006; Riordan et al., 2001), social integration (Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999; Bravo et al., 2003; Gruman et al., 2006), on-the-job embeddedness (Allen, 2006), organization-based self-esteem (Riordan et al., 2001), increased expatriate adjustment (Feldman, Folks & Turnley, 1998; Harvey & Kiessling, 2004; Palthe, 2004), fewer perceived psychological contract violations (Robinson & Morrison, 2000), lower turnover (Allen, 2006), and, at the subunit level, knowledge transformation and exploitation (although not knowledge acquisition and assimilation) (Jansen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda, 2005). Interestingly, Riordan et al. (2001) found that the collective tactic was positively associated with turnover at a large bank six months after entry. Riordan et al. speculate that perhaps newcomers in high-turnover positions were socialized collectively for reasons of efficiency. However, the finding is also consistent with Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) suggestion that collective socialization may occasionally backfire: incipient ill will may become contagious and gain momentum. One particularly intriguing consequence of the socialization tactics is role innovation. Research generally indicates that institutionalized socialization is negatively associated with role innovation or, alternatively, that individualized socialization is positively associated with innovation (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Baker, 1995; Jones, 1986; King & Sethi, 1992; Mignerey, Rubin & Gorden, 1995). At first blush, this makes good sense because the ‘sink or swim’ approach implied by individualized socialization encourages–indeed, almost mandates–that newcomers find their own way, increasing the likelihood of innovation (even if unintended). However, it should be remembered that the tactics connote only a process, not particular content. While studies suggest that organizations tend to use the institutionalized tactics to encourage role conformity, these tactics can instead be used to encourage newcomers to innovate, albeit in a more deliberate and structured manner than in the default approach of the individualized tactics (Ashforth & Saks, 1996). Although there has been progress on the research directions suggested by both Bauer et al. (1998) and Saks and Ashforth (1997a), the work is still somewhat under-developed. As shown above, research has started to explore links between socialization tactics and other important adjustment outcomes. Another recent advancement concerns investigations into the link between institutionalized socialization and newcomer learning. Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002) found that institutionalized tactics predicted learning in the social, interpersonal, role, and organizational domains, and Anakwe and Greenhaus (1999) report that institutionalized socialization was associated


15

with task mastery. Hart and Miller (2005) found that the fixed and serial tactics lead to information about performance proficiency. Klein and Weaver (2000) also found that an orientation program (a formal tactic) was positively related to learning about goals/values, organizational history, and people (but not about politics, performance information, and language). We argue later that learning is central to the socialization process; clearly, more research on the link between socialization tactics and learning is needed–especially on the possibly mediating role of learning with respect to newcomer adjustment. Scholars have also begun to consider how different conditions moderate the influence of socialization tactics on adjustment outcomes. For example, Kim et al. (2005) found that the relationship between institutionalized socialization and person-organization fit was enhanced by the newcomer proactive behaviors of positive framing and general socializing (but not by information- and feedback-seeking) and dampened by relationship-building with one’s supervisor (but not by networking). Griffin, Colella and Goparaju (2000) conceived of socialization tactics as antecedents to and moderators of the newcomer proactivity process. Given the wide range of possible moderators, researchers should follow the above leads by including contextual variables that both drive and condition the use of socialization tactics (see our later discussions of ‘Organizational Context’ and ‘Localized Socialization’). In short, while there has been progress, scholars have yet to fully map the moderating and mediating variables within the socialization process. In addition to our previous suggestions, we see three promising directions for future research. First, studies routinely focus on individuals’ perceptions of their organization’s tactics: this approach needs to be revisited. To be sure, individual perceptions allow for variation across individuals within an organization and may therefore be appropriate for tactics that are more or less tailored to the individual (e.g., serial, investiture). However, most studies assume that the individual is acting as a reliable informant for organization-level practices. This assumption needs to be assessed with more objective measures of an organization’s socialization tactics (e.g., archival measures, observation) and/or by testing for agreement and then aggregating individuals’ responses. Further, in complex organizations with differentiated functions and occupations, it would be useful to assess whether subunits rather than the organization per se should be the referent for measures of socialization tactics. Second, studies tend to assume that the six socialization tactics cluster at one pole or the other of the single institutionalized-individualized continuum. However, research summarized by Ashforth, Saks and Lee (1997) indicates that the tactics do not always covary. Perhaps most problematic is the investituredivestiture tactic. If investiture is measured according to Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) original notion of affirming a newcomer’s incoming identity (rather than as social support; see Jones, 1986), then investiture tends to be only weakly correlated with the other tactics (Ashforth et al., 1997). Bourassa and Ashforth (1998) suggest that although investiture tends to be positively

16 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 associated with the tactics of institutionalized socialization in most organizations, it is negatively associated in organizations that actively practice divestiture–that is, that seek to strip away newcomers’ incoming identity–as part of a structured socialization program. Clear examples are total institutions such as the military (Bourne, 1967) and extended-sojourn fishing boats (Bourassa & Ashforth, 1998), as noted earlier. Further, given that socialization tactics may be used sequentially (e.g., collective socialization in a police academy, followed by individual socialization in a squad car), it may be useful to reassess the tactics during different phases of a socialization program or to devise measures that do not force a choice between one end of the continuum or the other. Third, research should broaden the focus from socialization tactics to sources of socialization tactics. Research has started to discern various sources of tactics, namely, the organization, group (via occupational and localized norms), and leader-newcomer relationship (see ‘Localized Socialization’ below). For example, Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg (2003) found from a multi-organization study that the newcomer’s organization, supervisor/mentor, and coworkers differentially affected adjustment outcomes. Similarly, Hart and Miller (2005) found that the organization and workgroup are each important sources of assimilation (see also Hallier & James, 1999, Holton & Russell, 1999, and Riddle, Anderson & Martin, 2000). As such, simultaneous investigation of the various sources of socialization tactics promises to provide more precise theoretical and practical predictions. For instance, do certain group tactics replace, enhance, or destabilize particular organizational tactics? Do the socialization tactic levels differentially influence newcomer proactivity, learning, and other adjustment outcomes? In sum, Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) model has justifiably generated much research interest: it offers a comprehensive framework for combining a number of discrete socialization practices that had generated their own separate literatures. Moreover, their model continues to offer much promise for future research. Socialization Content (Newcomer Learning) For socialization to effectively bring the newcomer into the fold, the newcomer should come to know and understand (i.e., learn) the norms, values, tasks, and roles that typify group and organizational membership. As such, newcomer learning lies ‘at the heart of any organizational socialization model’ (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005, p. 117; Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein & Gardner, 1994; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Klein, Fan & Preacher, 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). Indeed, Saks and Ashforth (1997a) place newcomer learning as the conduit by which socialization factors (i.e., organizational-level tactics, group-level tactics, proactive behavior) influence other proximal outcomes (e.g., role clarity, person-organization fit,


17

identification) as well as more distal outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance). Put more succinctly, the learning of content is at least as important as the process itself. Thus, scholars and practitioners need a solid understanding of newcomer learning and its dimensions, which dimensions are best tapped by specific socialization practices and antecedents, and which dimensions lead to specific adjustment outcomes. Most research on newcomer learning has focused on demarcating the domains of socialization content and documenting their effects, with less attention paid to what predicts these domains. Indeed, multiple socialization content or newcomer learning typologies have been proposed and tested (Chao et al., 1994; Fisher, 1986; Haueter, Macan & Winter, 2003; Morrison, 1993b, 1995; Myers & Oetzel, 2003; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Taormina, 1994, 1997; Thomas & Anderson, 1998). Although not completely aligned, these typologies tend to agree that learning spans the job and role, interpersonal and group relationships, and the nature of the organization as a whole (see Table 1.2). Generally, socialization content has been characterized (both theoretically and operationally) in three related ways: (1) as the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities (Chao et al., 1994; Haueter et al., 2003; Morrison, 1993b; Myers & Oetzel, 2003; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Taormina, 1994; Thomas & Anderson, 1998); (2) as general adjustment (including role clarity) (Chao et al., 1994; Myers & Oetzel, 2003; Taormina, 1994, 1997); and (3) as effective support from various sources during the socialization process (e.g., organization, group, supervisor) (Myers & Oetzel, 2003; Taormina, 1994, 1997). Following Fisher (1986), we strongly believe that socialization content is best conceptualized as newcomer learning–the first option above–or ‘what is actually learned during socialization’ (Chao et al., 1994, p. 730). The remaining two components (general adjustment and support) overlap with the inputs to newcomer learning (i.e., organizational socialization tactics, newcomer proactivity) and the outcomes of learning. Clearly, further research is needed to sort out learning domains that generalize across demographic groups, occupations, functions, organizations, and industries. This research may be complemented with group-, occupation-, function-, organization-, and industry-specific measures if researchers wish to drill down into particular settings and samples; however, such studies need to weigh the need for specificity against the needs for parsimony and generalizability. Toward richer models of antecedents and consequences It is somewhat difficult to offer authoritative comments on the antecedents and consequences of newcomer learning because of (1) the questionable factor structure of the most frequently used measure of learning–that of Chao et al. (1994; see Klein & Weaver, 2000, and Taormina, 2004), (2) the diversity of content measures used, and (3) the mixed support for the convergent and

Social info.

Social, Interpersonal support

Role

Technical and appraisal info.

Morrison (1993b, 1995)

Haueter, Macan & Winter (2003)

Myers & Oetzel (2003)

Task

Understanding

Coworker support Referent and appraisal info.

Understanding

Taormina (1994)

Thomas & Anderson (1998)

Goals & values, Org. history, Language, Politics

Performance proficiency

Group

Organization

Acculturation

Organization

Normative info., Org. info., Political info.

Organization

Chao et al. (1994)

Group

Role

Task

Organization

Ostroff & Kozlowski (1992)

Social/Group

Role

Newcomer Learning Domains

Training

Sources

Measures of socialization content categorized by domain

Task/Job

Measures of Socialization Content

Table 1.2

Familiarity with others, Recognition, Involvement, Job competency, Adaptability/Role negotiation

Future prospects

People

Adjustment

Other Components


19

discriminant validities of these measures.2 Given that learning is the heart of socialization, it is not surprising that learning (or at least certain domains of learning) has been associated with a variety of newcomer adjustment variables – albeit not always consistently. These variables include higher job satisfaction (Chao et al., 1994; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002, 2005; Haueter et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2006; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Taormina, 2004), organizational commitment (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002; Haueter et al., 2003; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Klein et al., 2006; Klein & Weaver, 2000; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Taormina, 2004), social or group integration (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003), role clarity (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Klein et al., 2006), task mastery (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003), performance (Reio & Wiswell, 2000), personal income (Chao et al., 1994), career involvement (Chao et al., 1994), identity resolution (Chao et al., 1994), and adaptability (Chao et al., 1994), changes in psychological contract expectations (Thomas & Anderson, 1998), and lower role ambiguity (Hart & Miller, 2005), stress (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), intentions to quit (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002, 2005, Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), and work withdrawal (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). Further, if learning is in fact the heart of socialization, then it should at least partially mediate the impact of socialization processes (and individual differences) on more distal indicators of newcomer adjustment. The initial results are very promising. In a sample of British Army recruits, Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002) found that newcomer learning fully mediated the influence of organizational socialization tactics on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In a sample of newly hired employees in a large educational institution, learning fully mediated the impact of an orientation program on organizational commitment (Klein & Weaver, 2000) and partially mediated the impact of realistic preentry knowledge and socialization agent helpfulness on role clarity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Klein et al., 2006). Reio and Wiswell (2000) found that learning partially mediated the relationship between trait curiosity and performance among service industry employees (albeit of mixed tenure). In a diverse sample of recent hires, Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg (2003) found that ‘proximal outcomes’ (which included task mastery and political knowledge) partially mediated the effect of several (although not all) antecedents on organizational commitment and work withdrawal. 2

Regarding the third point, Haueter et al. (2003) found weak validities for their Newcomer Socialization Questionnaire vis-à-vis Chao et al.’s (1994) measure, and Ashforth, Sluss, and Saks (2006) found only moderate validities for Morrison’s (1995) measure vis-à-vis Chao et al.’s measure. And although Taormina (2004) found strong convergent and discriminant validity for his Organizational Socialization Inventory measure vis-à-vis Chao et al.’s measure, four of Chao et al.’s six content domains loaded on only one of Taormina’s four domains, and one of Taormina’s four domains had no parallel in Chao et al.

20 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 However, Allen, McManus and Russell (1999) did not find that learning mediated the relationship between peer mentoring and stress among MBA students. Beyond these mediation studies, most of the research on antecedents of socialization content has focused on training (e.g., Haueter et al., 2003), socialization tactics (reviewed earlier), newcomer proactivity (reviewed later), and, as noted, ‘sources’ (e.g., coworkers, experimentation, organizational documents; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). At first blush, one might expect that antecedents–and consequences–at the same target level as the learning domain (i.e., job/task, interpersonal/group, or organization) would display the strongest relationships. For instance, Haueter et al. (2003) found that job training and job satisfaction were more strongly related to task learning than to group or organization learning, and Klein and Weaver (2000) found that an organizational-level orientation program was associated with knowledge of the organization’s history and goals/values (although not language). However, some antecedents may provide information about multiple target levels (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). For instance, Haueter et al. (2003) also report that having a mentor was associated with task, group, and organization learning, and Klein and Weaver (2000) also report that the orientation program was associated with Chao et al.’s (1994) measure of ‘people’ learning. Further, we argue later under ‘Localized Socialization’ that what one learns about one’s supervisor and/or mentor may generalize to what one believes about the organization as a whole. This generalization process may reduce associations between learning and consequences at the same target level. The key point is that scholars need to determine (rather than assume) what is being communicated via a given antecedent of learning, and how learning about a given target may affect various foci of adjustment. Part of the difficulty is that there is no overarching theory of work adjustment that explains how these various foci are related; thus researchers tend to default to some variation of the ‘big three’ (i.e., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to quit). As this brief review suggests, more research is needed on the antecedents of newcomer learning, particularly on contextual and individual difference factors that affect (1) the relevance of specific learning domains, (2) the organizational delivery of these domains, and (3) newcomers’ willingness and ability to actually learn the domains. In short, the process of learning–who, what, where, why, when, and how–remains somewhat murky (cf. Weiss, 1990). Regarding the consequences of learning, research is needed on (1) conceptual models that explain how and why specific domains affect specific outcomes, and (2) mediation, that is, the role of learning in connecting socialization process (and the relevant antecedents) and content to newcomer adjustment. Mediation needs to be more thoroughly investigated in a variety of settings, using a variety of socialization and adjustment variables. Indeed, mediation models will


21

likely pave the way to more holistic and inclusive models of organizational socialization. The role of discourse As a glance at our reference section suggests, communication scholars have conducted a great deal of research on organizational socialization (see the reviews by Jablin, 1984, 1987, 2001). These scholars examine communicative practices and their effects on newcomers and other organizational members as they negotiate their relationships (McPhee & Zaug, 2000). One of the relatively unique contributions of communication scholars is research on discourse, the body of communication about a given topic (Ainsworth & Hardy, 2004; Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004). Whereas the literature on socialization content reviewed above focuses on the specific lessons imparted (what?), discourse analysis also focuses on discursive practices, the communication processes through which the lessons are imparted (how? who? when? where?). As Barge and Schlueter (2004, p. 237) note, ‘Discourses are embedded with assumptions regarding who can speak, about what, when, through what medium, and with what intent.’ Discursive practices not only shape the form of messages about a given topic, but convey symbolic cues beyond the literal content, helping produce and reproduce the organization’s culture. For example, in a study of memorable messages received by newcomers in diverse organizations, Barge and Schlueter found that over 80% of the newcomers perceived the sender’s intent to be benevolent. This affective tone likely enhanced the persuasiveness of the messages. And whereas the socialization content literature focuses on organizationally bounded communications, Gibson and Papa (2000) document how the assimilation of factory workers was facilitated by what they were told informally by relatives, friends, and neighbors who worked or had worked at the factory. Discourse analysis thus provides a powerful complementary tool to conventional research on content. Newcomer Proactivity Entering a new role often fosters much uncertainty for the newcomer regarding the meaning of the situation and what he or she is expected (and able) to do–e.g., What’s required of me? Why does this matter? Can I master the necessary skills? Will my coworkers like me? Is this the right job and organization for me? Following uncertainty reduction theory, newcomers seek to reduce this uncertainty (Kramer, 1994; Lester, 1987; Teboul, 1994) and tend to believe that they receive less information from socialization agents than they actually need (Jablin, 1984). Moreover, much of the information that newcomers receive passively is generic, whereas a major concern of newcomers is the translation and application of generic information to their specific situation

22 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 and concerns (Ashforth, 2001; Morrison, 1995). Thus, research suggests that newcomers obtain more information–and more useful information–from relatively active means (Comer, 1991; Morrison, 1995; Teboul, 1994). As one of Comer’s (1991, p. 78) participants put it, ‘Asking is the quickest and most efficient solution for problems.’ Research on newcomer proactivity explores the means by which newcomers actively seek information about their work environment and their role and performance within it as a means of reducing uncertainty (Ashford & Black, 1996; Crant, 2000). At least three distinct typologies of proactivity have been formulated with regard to newcomers. First, Miller and Jablin (1991) offered seven tactics: (1) overt questions, (2) indirect questions, typically used when newcomers are uncomfortable about seeking information about a particular topic and/or from a particular source, (3) third parties, i.e., using secondary sources (e.g., when the primary source is unavailable or the newcomer is uncomfortable), (4) testing limits (e.g., breaking rules), in order ‘to gain insight into targets’ attitudes toward particular behavior or issues’ (pp. 106–107), (5) disguising conversations (e.g., joking), in order to subtly raise issues, (6) observing, and (7) surveillance, i.e., monitoring (e.g., eavesdropping on a conversation). Based on a factor analysis using an undergraduate sample (which was subsequently validated with employed graduates), Miller (1996) collapsed indirect questions and disguising conversations into ‘indirect’ information-seeking, and collapsed observing and surveillance into ‘observing.’ Jablin (2001) concluded from a literature review that newcomers use overt/direct and observing tactics most frequently, that coworkers and supervisors are the most common targets of information-seeking, and that as the perceived social cost of informationseeking increases, newcomers use the overt/direct tactic less and the ‘covert’ tactics more. It is evident that Miller and Jablin’s (1991) tactics are inherently social in that they require the presence of others. Nonsocial practices, such as trial and error and reading documents (e.g., websites, manuals) (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), could also be profitably incorporated into Miller and Jablin’s (1991) framework. Second, Ashford and Black (1996) were interested in how individuals secure a sense of control in the workplace and thus included behavioral tactics (and one cognitive tactic) that facilitate understanding, connection to others, influence, and self-management. Their operationalization of proactivity comprises: (1) information-seeking, i.e., trying to learn about how the organization operates,3 (2) feedback-seeking, i.e., soliciting information about one’s performance, (3) relationship-building, i.e., striving to form a positive bond with others,4 (4) general socializing, i.e., participating in social events, (5) networking, i.e., 3

4

We view this focus as somewhat restricted. Given the desire of newcomers to situate themselves in the organizational context (Katz, 1980), information-seeking likely also focuses on the newcomer’s specific role in the organization. Although Ashford and Black (1996) operationalized this construct in terms of one’s boss, it could obviously be extended to other potential socialization agents, such as one’s coworkers.


23

socializing with people outside of one’s unit, (6) job-change negotiating, i.e., attempting to modify one’s tasks and others’ expectations of one, and (7) positive framing (the single cognitive tactic), i.e., trying to see things in an optimistic manner. Both the information- and feedback-seeking tactics essentially combine Miller and Jablin’s (1991) seven tactics (e.g., using surveillance to learn about workgroup norms). Third, self-regulation ‘is defined by processes that enable an individual to guide his or her goal-directed activities over time and across changing circumstances, including the modulation of thought, affect, and behavior’ (Porath & Bateman, 2006, p. 185). Self-regulation can be seen as a form of proactivity because it motivates the newcomer to actively engage with his or her work context. Using Manz’ (1983) measure, Saks and Ashforth (1996) assessed the following six ‘self-management’ tactics among novice accountants: (1) self-goal-setting, in order to provide direction and set standards for oneself, (2) self-observation, i.e., monitoring one’s behavior and its causes, (3) cueing strategies, i.e., using prompts to remind one to do or to avoid something,5 (4) self-reward, in order to reinforce desired behavior, (5) self-punishment, in order to decrease undesired behavior, and (6) rehearsal, in order to practice desired behavior. As Ashford and Taylor (1990) note, effective self-regulation requires that newcomers know what they should be doing and how well they are doing it–potentially tall tasks for newcomers. These three typologies suggest several directions for future research. First, given the varying foci–Miller and Jablin (1991) focus on social tactics, Ashford and Black (1996) focus on control, and Manz (1983) focuses on self-regulation–in what respects do the typologies converge and diverge, and do they necessarily address different research questions (and relate to different antecedents and consequences)? In short, what is the nomological network of proactivity? Second, each typology focuses either entirely or largely on behaviors. But as Ashford and Black (1996, p. 212) state, ‘It may be useful for future socialization research to consider the ways in which individuals are cognitively and emotionally active during entry, not just behaviorally active.’ Indeed, by definition, self-regulation includes the modulation of cognition and affect as well as behavior (Porath & Bateman, 2006). What might be useful cognitive and affective tactics to consider? As examples, the literature on proactive coping suggests that, through pre-emptive cognitive appraisals and preliminary coping, individuals can cognitively recast potentially stressful events into challenges that elicit personal growth (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), and Ashforth and Saks (2002) discuss how newcomers ‘feel their way’ into new jobs through affect-related processes. Third, whereas most research focuses on the frequency with which the tactics are used, it remains unclear how efficacious the tactics are–and under what conditions (Jablin, 2001). For 5

This scale was subsequently deleted because of poor fit in a confirmatory factor analysis of the six scales.

24 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 example, Finkelstein, Kulas and Dages (2003) found that Miller and Jablin’s (1991) covert tactics were negatively associated with role clarity among new faculty and new employees of a retail organization: the authors speculate that ‘sneakier’ (p. 497) information-seeking may yield unreliable information. Fourth, in what combinations are the tactics used, how might their effects interact, and how might the newcomer’s choice of tactics change as he or she gains experience (Miller & Jablin, 1991)? Miller (1996), for instance, argues that because the social costs of information-seeking likely increase with experience, newcomers may rely more on covert/indirect tactics over time. Toward a model of antecedents and consequences Much of the research exploring the antecedents of newcomer proactivity has focused on individual differences (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; De Vos, Buyens & Schalk, 2005; Finkelstein et al., 2003; Teboul, 1995; Wanberg & KammeyerMueller, 2000). Although we review some of this work later under ‘Individual Differences,’ research has generally found that proactive personality, desire for control, extraversion, openness to experience, and self-efficacy, among other traits, predict newcomer proactivity. Regarding contextual antecedents of proactivity, research has found that institutionalized socialization tactics (discussed later under ‘Toward an Integrative Model’), task interdependence, and support from coworkers and managers are positive predictors of various proactive tactics, particularly information- and feedback-seeking (Feij, Whitely, Peiro & Taris, 1995; Gruman et al., 2006; Major & Kozlowski, 1997; Mignerey et al., 1995; Saks & Ashforth, 1997b). However, we know little about other potential contextual antecedents. One particularly promising potential antecedent discussed by Crant (2000) is organizational culture. Qualitative research has found that fire departments–more specifically, senior firefighters, station captains, and social norms–communicate the intensity and type of proactive behaviors that are expected from ‘booters’ (i.e., probationary firefighters) (Myers, 2005; Scott & Myers, 2005; see Harris, Simons & Carden, 2004, for similar findings regarding probationary police officers). Clearly, more research is needed on how organizational culture and the norms it promulgates influence the enactment of different proactive tactics. Turning to the consequences of newcomer proactivity, research has provided insight into how proactivity influences both proximal and distal outcomes. As reported in Saks and Ashforth (1997a), research has found that newcomer proactivity generally (but not always) predicts increased task mastery (Morrison, 1993a), acculturation (Morrison, 1993a), social integration (Morrison, 1993a), role clarity (Holder, 1996; Morrison, 1993a), job satisfaction (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), organizational commitment (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), internal motivation


25

(Saks & Ashforth, 1996), job performance (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993b), and adjustment (i.e., had adapted, were trusted, and felt independent; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), and decreased stress (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), task-specific anxiety (Saks & Ashforth, 1996), and intentions to quit (Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). More recently, however, based on a literature review, Morrison (2002a) reports mixed findings with regard to the influence of information-seeking (as a specific proactive behavior) on newcomer adjustment (Bauer & Green, 1998; Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Finkelstein et al., 2003; Gruman et al., 2006; Holder, 1996). Morrison suggests that these mixed findings are due to the wide variance in conceptualizing and measuring information-seeking behaviors (e.g., omnibus versus specific measures). Regarding other adjustment variables not mentioned in Saks and Ashforth’s (1997a) review, Chan and Schmitt (2000) found that information-seeking and relationship building predicted social integration. Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) found that relationshipbuilding predicted higher social integration, while feedback-seeking predicted lower turnover. Gruman et al. (2006) report that feedback-seeking and general socializing were associated with social integration, person-job fit, and personorganization fit, that (boss) relationship building was associated with personjob and person-organization fit, and that job change negotiation was negatively associated with person-organization fit. In a laboratory simulation, Thomas, Hu, Gewin, Bingham, and Yanchus (2005) found that individuals were more willing to mentor newcomers who appeared to be proactive. Finally, under the rubric of proactive self-regulation, Maier and Brunstein (2001) found that personal goal-setting predicted higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Further, low perceived goal attainability muzzled the positive influence of goal commitment on the outcomes whereas high goal attainability amplified the positive influence. In sum, newcomer proactivity has been linked to both learning and adjustment. Clearly, however, more research is needed, especially considering the mixed findings reviewed above. First, research is needed to clarify the specific relationships between the dimensions of proactivity and the dimensions of newcomer learning. Second, research is needed on the contextual factors that may predict a newcomer’s choice of proactive tactics (e.g., social cost, openness and credibility of source; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1995; Teboul, 1995) and that may moderate the impact of proactivity on learning and adjustment (e.g., learning culture, impression management norms; Hoff, Pohl & Bartfield, 2004; Watkins, 2003). Role innovation Although the newcomer proactivity literature emphasizes the active role that newcomers play in their socialization, it nonetheless tends to treat the status quo as a given that the newcomers seek to learn about and adapt

26 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 to.6 However, research on role-making, role development, role negotiation, individualization, and personalization–in short, role innovation–indicates that newcomers often actively shape their jobs and perhaps the wider work context, such that socialization is typically a meld of personal change and role change (e.g., Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Ashforth, 2001; Brett, 1984; Graen, 1976; Jablin, 2001; Nicholson, 1984).7 Increasing environmental turbulence and complexity have spawned organizational needs for flexibility and empowerment, such that role innovation is not only becoming commonplace for newcomers but more or less expected (Evans & Davis, 2005). When roles are explicitly framed for the newcomer as provisional works-in-progress, they are far less likely to be taken for granted as institutionalized facts to which the newcomer must adjust. Role innovation can occur unilaterally, as when a person alters the order and manner in which certain tasks are performed, or be negotiated, as when a person discusses possible changes with his or her supervisor and peers. Either form presupposes (1) newcomer power, which may be based, for example, on prior training and experience, a unique skill set, the accumulation of idiosyncrasy credits, a mandate to instigate change, job and team autonomy, role ambiguity and intersender role conflict, and newness of the role, and (2) the willingness and ability to use that power, which, inter alia may be based on unmet expectations, poor person-role fit, interpersonal competence, selfefficacy, and approachable and open peers and supervisors (Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Brett, 1984; Feldman, 1989; Jablin, 2001; Nicholson, 1984; Thornton & Nardi, 1975). Three points about role innovation should be underscored. First, contrary to some perspectives (see Ashforth’s, 2001, review), role innovation and personal change do not exist on a continuum, whereby work adjustment represents a compromise between the two. On the contrary, research indicates that the constructs are only weakly correlated (Ashforth, 2001): adjustment may reflect little personal and role change, much change in both, or different degrees of change in the two (Nicholson, 1984). Second, although role innovation has implicitly been viewed as intended, research on the socialization tactics and role innovation, summarized earlier, suggests that role innovation may instead be unintended and emergent. The more individualized the socialization 6

7

Ashford and Black’s (1996) notion of ‘job-change negotiating’ behavior is an exception. Further, in his major literature review, Crant (2000: 436) defines proactive behavior in terms similar to role innovation: ‘taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions.’ That said, Crant notes that other authors exclude the intent to actually change the situation from their conceptualization of proactive behavior and that it remains an ‘unresolved issue’ (p. 457) in the literature. Organizational communication scholars often distinguish between socialization as role-taking and individualization as role-making, reserving the term assimilation for both (Jablin, 1987; see the debate in the December 1999 issue of Communication Monographs, sparked by Kramer & Miller, 1999).

S OCIALIZATION IN O RGANIZATIONAL C ONTEXTS (passage of time)

Socialization Stage Models

(Institutionalized) Socialization Tactics

27

+ + Socialization Content (Newcomer Learning)

+

+

Newcomer Adjustment

+ Newcomer Proactivity

+

Figure 1.1 Integrating the major socialization perspectives–Adapted from Ashforth et al. (2006). Note: the dotted lines denote that socialization content does not fully mediate the links between tactics/proactivity and adjustment.

process, the more that the newcomer is left to sink or swim: in his or her naiveté, the newcomer may stumble onto different and perhaps better ways of enacting the role. Although individualized socialization tends to be associated with a variety of negative adjustment outcomes, the silver lining is that it does not reify assumptions that may no longer be functional. Third, that said, role innovation can be functional or dysfunctional for the organization (Staw & Boettger, 1990). Ashforth (2001) argues that role innovation is generally functional if the role is new, the means or ends are incompletely or incorrectly specified, creativity is expected, the context is dynamic, newcomers are accountable for outcomes and empowered to pursue them, and newcomers identify with the organization and have the requisite abilities to innovate.

Toward an Integrative Model While integrative models of socialization and work adjustment have been proposed (e.g., Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Chao, 1988; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Holton & Russell, 1999; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a), we wish to close this section with a discussion of how the particular perspectives considered thus far–socialization stage models, socialization tactics, socialization content (newcomer learning), and newcomer proactivity–may interact. (We view the ‘early roots of socialization’ as helping to fuel these perspectives.) As shown in Figure 1.1, we view these perspectives as complementary. Stage models set the general context for socialization by outlining the newcomer’s (and organization’s) needs as well as organizational

28 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 facilitators of socialization as the newcomer settles in. Socialization tactics represent a largely organization-driven process for realizing those needs, whereas newcomer proactivity represents a largely individual-driven process. And socialization content represents a proximal outcome–namely, learning–of these processes (Kim et al., 2005; Kraimer, 1997). Research summarized earlier bears directly on three links among these perspectives. First, given that organizations explicitly develop institutionalized socialization programs to impart certain information (versus the haphazard approach of individualized socialization), such programs are likely to be positively associated with learning. We cited research indicating that institutionalized socialization is associated with various forms of newcomer learning (although a consistent picture of how institutionalized socialization affects specific forms has yet to emerge). Second, given that newcomer proactivity is in part intended to ferret out information, proactivity should also be positively associated with learning (Kraimer, 1997). Although proactivity is manifested in various ways, the research summarized earlier supports this general contention. Third, given that socialization content facilitates sensemaking and reduces newcomer uncertainty, it seems likely that learning the content would be associated with more distal indicators of newcomer adjustment. The research cited earlier strongly supports this argument. Indeed, as noted, some research suggests that learning may partially or even fully mediate the impact of the work context on adjustment. What about other possible links between the perspectives? The role of stage models The stage models suggest that proactivity is likely to be high in the anticipation stage, given the uncertainty of job search, and higher still in the encounter stage, given not only the uncertainty of the new situation but its inevitable surprises as well, coupled with the greater opportunities for proactively engaging the new work context. For example, Graen, Orris and Johnson (1973) studied primarily clerical and secretarial positions and found that newcomers’ tendency to seek help from others tapered off steadily over 16 weeks, and Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle (2003) concluded from a literature review that feedback-seeking tends to decline as newcomers gain experience. Further, given that the encounter stage involves adapting to the new reality and that one’s immediate work context provides the greatest opportunities for proactivity, proactivity and learning are likely to be focused more on one’s task, coworkers, and supervisor than on the organization as a whole (see our later discussion of ‘Localized Socialization’). This may be one reason why organizational orientation programs were rated by recent business school graduates (Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983) and newcomers to a university, oil field service company, and electronics manufacturer (Nelson & Quick, 1991) as


29

only moderately helpful.8 Finally, the notion of stages implies that the impact of a given socialization program may fade over time as the newcomers learn and mature and other needs arise (Katz, 1980). For example, Ashforth and Saks (1996) found that the impact of institutionalized tactics on the adjustment of recent university graduates was stronger at four months of employment than at 10 months. The authors speculate that as newcomers became comfortable, they were less responsive to the constrained nature of the tactics. Newcomers in the adjustment stage may even resent such programs as demeaning. Socialization tactics → proactivity The potential link between socialization tactics and proactivity is also intriguing. It could be argued that institutionalized socialization, as an organizationdriven process, encourages a passive dependence on others and dampens newcomers’ need and desire to ferret out information on their own. However, we speculate that by providing structured opportunities for newcomer-focused learning (particularly via the serial and collective tactics), institutionalized socialization makes learning salient and relatively intense, and provides ready opportunities to be proactive–to ask questions, to build relationships, and so on (Mignerey et al., 1995; Saks & Ashforth, 1997b). In support, institutionalized socialization has been found to be positively associated with newcomers’ use of observation, information- and feedback-seeking, general socializing, and boss relationship building (Gruman et al., 2006; Mignerey et al., 1995; Saks & Ashforth, 1997b). (Indeed, as implied by Figure 1.1, proactivity was also found by Gruman et al. to partially mediate the influence of institutionalized socialization on adjustment.) Further, although neither Kim et al. (2005) nor Ashforth, Sluss, and Saks (2006) assessed the tactics-proactivity argument, the former reported an average correlation of .12 ( p ≤ .05) between subordinates’ rating of institutionalized socialization and their supervisors’ rating of their proactive behaviors, and the latter reported a correlation of .29 ( p ≤ .01) between newcomers’ rating of institutionalized socialization and of their own proactive behaviors. Teboul (1995) did not find a significant correlation between institutionalized socialization and proactive behaviors, but did find that that the perceived social costs of information-seeking mediated the relationship. That is, institutionalized socialization reduced the costs, which facilitated overt information-seeking and reduced covert informationseeking. 8

To be sure, orientation programs remain very important for helping newcomers contextualize their work, even if–in their concern over fitting into the local context–newcomers do not always appreciate it. Further, given the prevalence of orientation programs, newcomers may view their absence as a negative signal (the company doesn’t care about me).

30 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Additionally, although not depicted in Figure 1.1, proactivity has also been found to moderate the influence of socialization tactics on various adjustment variables such that institutionalized socialization is more strongly related to adjustment for less proactive newcomers (Gruman et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005). Consistent with the idea noted above that institutionalized socialization may dampen the need for information, Gruman et al. and Kim et al. argue that institutionalized socialization serves as a substitute for proactivity in that both processes foster information acquisition and uncertainty reduction. However, Kim et al. hypothesized and found an exception: positive framing enhanced the association between institutionalized socialization and newcomer adjustment (specifically, person-organization fit). The authors argue that positive framing leads newcomers to construe institutionalized socialization as helpful rather than as overbearing, such that newcomers become more receptive to the information provided. Further, Kim et al. unexpectedly found that general socializing also enhanced the association between institutionalized socialization and adjustment. The authors speculate that institutionalized socialization and general socializing interact to help newcomers build social networks that facilitate adjustment. Thus, while institutionalized socialization may substitute somewhat for newcomer proactivity, it appears that the two processes may at times operate more synergistically. We suspect that such synergies are actually quite common and that organizations have little to lose from encouraging proactivity in the context of institutionalized socialization. A related issue is the sequential use of socialization tactics, alluded to earlier, and their impact on proactivity. In the studies of probationary firefighters (Myers, 2005; Scott & Myers, 2005) and police officers (Harris et al., 2004) cited above, the newcomers were first exposed to institutionalized socialization in the fire and police academies, and then assigned to fire stations and police departments. In these assignments, socialization was more individualized in that newcomers were no longer groomed collectively and formally, according to a sequential process (however, the police officers were paired with veterans, thus maintaining serial socialization, and the firefighters were rotated through three stations over nine months, thus suggesting fixed socialization). The newcomers were expected to use the ‘theoretical’ foundational knowledge gained in the academies to proactively engage the ‘practical’ work in their fire stations and police departments. As one neophyte police officer put it, ‘You’ve got to go and get it yourself ’ (Harris et al., 2004: 211). In short, institutionalized socialization facilitated subsequent individualized socialization and proactivity. Indeed, the expectation of proactivity may be a major reason why the individualized socialization appears to have been effective for these newcomers. (However, Scott and Myers (2005) note that the shift from collective to individual tactics fostered some social isolation.) This issue of the sequential use of tactics and their effect on proactivity–as well as on learning and other outcomes–is very promising for future research.


31

Socialization tactics / newcomer proactivity → newcomer adjustment Finally, Figure 1.1 shows dotted lines between socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment and between newcomer proactivity and newcomer adjustment. These links signify that (1) the process of socialization provides intended and unintended symbolic cues that may directly affect adjustment, independent of the content imparted (e.g., institutionalized socialization symbolizes an investment in the newcomer, fostering commitment; Ashforth et al., 2006), and (2) in addition to newcomer learning, there are other proximal (adjustment) outcomes of socialization processes (e.g., social integration, role clarity) that are not indicated in the figure but which likely directly affect distal adjustment. In sum, despite their conceptual differences, we view socialization stage models, socialization tactics, socialization content (newcomer learning), and newcomer proactivity as quite complementary. Moreover, content appears to offer tremendous potential as the major linchpin between socialization processes and short- and long-term newcomer adjustment.

CROSS-CURRENTS IN SOCIALIZATION RESEARCH The historical perspectives outlined above have been affected dramatically by various cross-currents–themes that flow across the perspectives. We discuss four cross-currents that have been (or, in the case of ‘The Role of Time,’ may well be) particularly important: organizational context, localized socialization, individual differences, and the role of time. Organizational Context Given that socialization is the process by which individuals become part of an organization’s pattern of activities, and that meaning in–and of–the organization is equivocal, ‘it is remarkable that so little research has focused on the contextual factors that facilitate and constrain socialization practices and outcomes’ (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a: 269; Bauer et al., 1998). Indeed, the situated learning perspective (Lave & Wenger, 1991) holds that ‘learning cannot be separated from the social and physical context within which it occurs’ (Sonnentag, Niessen & Ohly, 2004, p. 261). Part of the problem may be that, just as there is no widely-recognized theory of work adjustment (as noted earlier), there is also no widely-recognized theory of organizational context (Johns, 2006). Rather, there are extensive literatures on atomized contextual elements of relevance to socialization, whether oriented toward the organizational level (e.g., identity and strategy, culture and climate, structure, human resource management practices, communication systems), the role, occupational, and group level (e.g., job design, occupational culture, socio-technical systems, leadership, group and team structure and dynamics, interpersonal similarity

32 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 and attraction), or toward extra-organizational facets and forces (e.g., national culture, legal and regulatory systems, educational and training institutions, changing employer-employee expectations, communities of practice, emerging organizational forms and practices) (cf. Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Van Maanen, 1976). Rather than attempt to review studies on these diverse contextual elements, a more fruitful question might be ‘How does the context of work affect the socialization process?’ As a starting point, we propose three mechanisms: (1) proximal versus distal influence, (2) simplifying versus complicating socialization, and (3) facilitating versus inhibiting socialization (cf. Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Mowday & Sutton, 1993). The first mechanism, proximal versus distal influence, refers to the degree to which the context has a direct and immediate effect rather than an indirect and delayed effect (Lewin, 1951). For instance, various models have been proposed that link organizational strategy, structure, or human resource management strategies to socialization tactics and other practices (e.g., Baker & Feldman, 1991; Taylor & Giannantonio, 1993; Versloot, de Jong & Thijssen, 2001). Despite the direct causal arrows in these models, the actual impact of such macro constructs on socialization is likely somewhat indirect and delayed. We view the proximal-distal context mechanism as particularly important and discuss it in detail later under ‘Localized Socialization.’ The remaining two mechanisms are discussed below under ‘Simplifying versus complicating socialization’ and ‘Facilitating versus inhibiting socialization.’ Simplifying versus complicating socialization A complicated socialization process is one that is relatively protracted and intense, often involving multiple hurdles and socialization agents. For instance, the socialization of doctors involves a lengthy and demanding progression from medical school to internship to residency, before individuals are allowed to practice on their own. Neither ‘simplifying’ nor ‘complicating’ are intended to be pejorative. Although a simple socialization process is, all else equal, preferable for both the newcomer (who is typically eager to shake the newcomer label) and the organization (which strives for efficiency), there are very sound reasons for a complicated process. Several examples will suffice. One example is job and role complexity. All else equal, the greater the need for hard-to-master knowledge, skills, and abilities, the more complicated the socialization process. Ashforth, Saks and Lee (1998) found that the greater the motivating potential of a newcomer’s job (e.g., autonomy, skill variety), the greater the use of institutionalized socialization tactics. However, the motivating potential of complex work may enhance newcomers’ desire to learn, partially shortening the otherwise long duration of socialization (Sonnentag et al., 2004; cf. Taris & Feij, 2004). Another example is task interdependencies, which require newcomers to coordinate their efforts with their peers. The greater the interdependencies and the more individuals


33

that are implicated, the more that socialization must occur not only at the individual level, but at the dyad, group, and even network levels. However, the interdependencies may enhance the motivation of task partners to socialize newcomers. Recruitment and selection are examples of contextual mechanisms that potentially simplify socialization (Anderson & Ostroff, 1997; Fisher, 1986; Myers, 2005; Wanous, 1992). For example, Chatman (1991) found that an initial alignment between the values held by accounting firms and by new auditors upon entry predicted quicker work adjustment. Similarly, effective educational and training institutions can pre-socialize individuals, simplifying the hiring organization’s socialization process. As these examples attest, simplifying conditions are analogous to Kerr and Jermier’s (1978) ‘substitutes for leadership’ except that they partially substitute for socialization. An interesting example is a strong organizational identity and culture; that is, a widely shared and deeply held sense of the central, distinctive, and relatively enduring attributes of the organization, including its values, beliefs, and norms. On one hand, a strong identity and culture acts as a beacon, attracting individuals who resonate with the organization, thereby simplifying the socialization of these self-selected newcomers. For example, Mael and Ashforth (1995) found that many U.S. Army recruits entered the army with relatively high organizational identification, despite having no direct experience of being a soldier. On the other hand, the richer and more distinctive the identity and culture, the more effort is nonetheless required to divest newcomers of their incoming identities and remake them in the distinctive image of the organization (e.g., Pratt, 2000).

Facilitating versus inhibiting socialization The context also varies in the extent to which it facilitates or eases rather than inhibits or impairs the socialization process. To be sure, conditions that complicate socialization may also be said to inhibit it. However, the contextual mechanisms are somewhat orthogonal insofar as a given level of complication (e.g., ‘breaking in’ a novice software programmer) can nonetheless be facilitated (or further inhibited) by various conditions. Some prime examples of conditions include a climate for learning and learning transfer (e.g., openness to inquiry and change, constructive feedback, tolerance of mistakes, opportunities to use learning), reward system practices that encourage learning and adjustment (e.g., pay for performance, skill-based pay), and adequate resources (see research by, for instance, Colquitt, LePine & Noe, 2000, Holton, Bates & Ruona, 2000, Sonnentag et al., 2004, and Tharenou, 2001). Conversely, prime examples of inhibiting conditions include role ambiguity, a politicized workplace (which inhibits trust and encourages defensive behavior), conflicting perspectives held by socialization agents, demographic dissimilarity, and

34 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 unpredictable change (e.g., Feldman, 1977; Jackson, Stone & Alvarez, 1993; Weick & Ashford, 2000). Morrison and Brantner (1992) surveyed surface warfare officers on U.S. Navy ships. The authors included an extensive battery of possible contextual predictors of role learning, and found that learning was facilitated by (positively associated either directly or indirectly with) cooperative and competent leadership, role clarity, subordinate competence (presumably because this allowed the officers more time to learn their jobs), having reasonable time for one’s job and personal development, and entering the job during a cycle when there was an opportunity to focus on central activities (i.e., when the ships were operating rather than undergoing repair and testing). Ashforth (2001) describes seven relatively micro factors that facilitate role transitions: low magnitude of change from the prior role, social desirability of the transition, the voluntary nature of the transition, the predictability of the transition (regarding exit from the prior role, the events surrounding exit and entry, and the onset and duration of socialization), the extent to which the transition is a collective one (i.e., with fellow newcomers), and the length of the transition period before the newcomer is expected to be ‘up to speed’ (although newcomers are often eager to shed their newcomer status [as noted earlier], a longer period eases adjustment). Myth-making? We will close our discussion of the context of socialization with Fogarty and Dirsmith’s (2001) provocative argument. Drawing on institutional theory (particularly Meyer & Rowan, 1977, and DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), they propose that formal socialization programs may reflect institutional myths–and pressures–about sound management. That is, managers may enact certain normatively expected programs in a bid to enhance their organization’s legitimacy, regardless of the instrumental value of these programs. This argument suggests a variety of intriguing speculations that are amenable to research. First, given normative expectations, socialization programs may look very similar across a given institutional context (e.g., orientation programs for commercial bankers), even if a variety of programs could satisfy instrumental needs. Second, if a particular socialization practice becomes normatively blessed, its diffusion may have a snowball or faddish quality as organizations scramble to appear current and responsive. Third, given the need for legitimacy, organizations may claim that they are conforming to normative expectations even when they are not, such that there is a wide gap between what an organization espouses to external constituents and what it does internally. Finally, given normative expectations, socialization programs may persist even if they have little substantive impact or are counterproductive. A possible example of some of these speculations is formal mentoring programs. Although some research casts doubt on the efficacy of such programs compared to informal mentoring (Chao, Walz & Gardner,


35

Organizational level

Local level (interpersonal, intragroup, etc.)

Individual level

Figure 1.2 Localized socialization: The local level as mediator of the relationship between the organization and the individual

1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999), they remain very popular in many organizations (cf. Scott & Meyer, 1991).9 In sum, socialization cannot be truly understood apart from the context in which–and for which–it occurs. Conceiving of the context in terms of simplifying vs. complicating factors, facilitating vs. inhibiting factors, and proximal vs. distal influence may help scholars better grasp how and why the context affects socialization dynamics. We now elaborate on the third dimension, proximal (i.e., localized) vs. distal influence. Localized Socialization Much of the theorizing and research on organizational socialization reviewed above focuses on the relationship between a newcomer and his or her organization (Anderson & Thomas, 1996). The meta-research question informing this work is ‘How can a newcomer become an effective member of the organization?’ However, we contend that a great deal of socialization is not so much ‘organizational’ as ‘tribal’ (see Figure 1.2). That is, newcomers are socialized largely 9

It should be noted that well-designed formal mentoring programs nonetheless ‘have the potential to reap the same benefits as informal mentoring’ (Wanberg, Welsh & Hezlett, 2003, p. 88, their emphasis).

36 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 through specific interpersonal and group-based interactions (Anderson et al., 1999; Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Jablin, 2001; Moreland & Levine, 2001; Reichers, 1987; Slaughter & Zickar, 2006; Stohl, 1986) that are grounded in localized contexts and focus largely on aspects of that context, and that result in newcomer change and actions that largely affect the localized context rather than the wider organization. The abstract and distal organization is made concrete and immediate–is made ‘real’–through such visceral interactions. First, the organization largely affects the individual via the localized context. An organizational value of, say, openness may remain vague and flat until brought to life by the efforts of one’s supervisor to speak frankly and encourage feedback, and organizational policies such as those regarding compensation and performance management are typically enacted by the subunit. A great deal of tacit knowledge about the organization is implicitly learned and fleshed out through immersion in rich, specific contexts (Chao, 1997). Indeed, in cases where the espoused theories of organizational messages and formal, off-the-job training are contradicted by the theories-in-use by peers, supervisors, mentors, and on-the-job training, the theories-in-use tend to hold sway (Argyris & Schon, ¨ 1978; DiSanza, 1995). Second, the localized context is the genesis of much interaction in its own right. This is particularly true as organizations continue to decentralize decision-making and delegate work to teams. Localized contexts allow spontaneous observation and conversation around emergent issues. Third, much of the content that newcomers aspire to learn–and find more useful–is lodged at the local level, such as task requirements (Morrison, 1995) and interpersonal and group norms (Katz, 1980). For example, based on a sample of management and engineering graduates, Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992, p. 869) found that ‘acquiring information about [the values, norms, goals, and culture of the organization] is less important than a focus on task, role or group issues during early job experiences.’ Further, most training in organizations is relatively informal and unstructured, occurring on-the-job in a more or less ad hoc manner (Chao, 1997). And research on transfer of training indicates that the effective transfer of material learned in formal training situations depends on the relevance and reinforcement of the material in the local context (Holton et al., 2000). Finally, the larger the organization, the more likely that a newcomer’s actions will primarily affect his or her immediate situation rather than the overall organization. Research on localized socialization has generally focused on one’s immediate workgroup, often under the rubric of occupational socialization (e.g., Coffey & Atkinson, 1994). As Anderson and Thomas (1996, p. 423) put it, ‘the work group often forms the primary medium through which the socialization process is enacted’ (see also Louis, 1990, and Moreland & Levine, 2001). Because the peers, supervisors, and mentors that constitute socialization agents are more likely than other members of the organization to be seen as similar to the newcomer, physically proximal, task and outcome interdependent, and


37

knowledgeable about proximal work-related issues, they are also more likely to be seen as not only available but credible referents. Thus, research indicates that newcomers look to these agents as credible sources of important information (Comer, 1992; Feldman & Brett, 1983; Louis et al., 1983; Nelson & Quick, 1991). Louis et al. (1983) and Nelson and Quick (1991) found that newcomers rated their interactions with peers as the most helpful–and available–of 10 socialization practices, including relatively formal activities such as off-site residential training. Similarly, Broad and Newstrom (1992) propose that buddy systems, support groups, and mentors can expedite the transfer of training to one’s immediate work context and needs. And Morrison (2002b), drawing on social network theory (e.g., Brass, 1995), found that new auditors with denser and stronger informational networks reported greater role clarity and task mastery (also, see Sherman, Smith & Mansfield, 1986). Although the socialization tactics literature describes the formal process of socialization, it does not elaborate on the specific mechanisms through which socialization actually occurs (Jablin, 2001; cf. LaPreze, 2003; Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). However, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory articulates three localized mechanisms–observation, imitation, and instruction–that appear to underlie socialization processes in most if not all social domains (cf. Bush & Simmons, 1981).10 The serial and collective socialization tactics, in particular, enable agents to act as instructors and role models, facilitating all the social learning mechanisms. For example, Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) found that observation of others was the most frequently used information source, followed by coworkers and supervisors (‘interpersonal sources’), experimentation, and formal organizational documents (also, see Burke & Bolf, 1986). Recalling the earlier discussion of newcomer proactivity, the socialization literature also indicates the prevalence of more covert social learning mechanisms–for example, indirect and third party questioning, disguising conversations, and surveillance–that mitigate the social costs of overt informationseeking (e.g., Fedor, Rensvold & Adams, 1992; Ouellet, 1994; Scott & Myers, 2005; Teboul, 1995; see Miller & Jablin, 1991). The potency of localized socialization is particularly apparent with regard to (1) newcomer identity and belonging, (2) social validation and support, and (3) mentors and supervisors as conduits to the organization. Newcomer identity and belonging Ashforth’s (2001) model of role transitions holds that entry into a new role activates psychological motives for meaning, control, identity, and belonging. The research on socialization content and newcomer proactivity reviewed above implicitly focuses mainly on meaning in the form of sensemaking (what?) and 10

Our earlier discussion of newcomer proactivity suggests at least a fourth major localized mechanism: asking questions of veterans.

38 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 purpose-seeking (why?), and on control as a drive for task mastery and influence (how?). In contrast, the identity motive speaks to a desire for a situated self-definition (who and where am I?) and the belonging motive speaks to a desire for attachment to situated others (who?). The operative word here is ‘situated.’ To feel comfortable and act with efficacy, newcomers must understand at least their local context and their particular place within it (Katz, 1980; Van Maanen, 1977). In short, they must be grounded. For example, Mansfield (1972) found that newcomers assigned to a series of short-term positions found it difficult to develop a coherent identity. Further, optimal distinctiveness theory maintains that individuals strive to balance a sense of assimilation (to be part of a collective) with a sense of differentiation (to be unique), and this tends to be best realized in relatively small, exclusive groups rather than large, inclusive ones (Brewer, 1991). What this means for organizational contexts is that newcomers are more likely to vest their identities in their local context rather than in the larger, more amorphous organizational context–and the larger the organization, the more likely this is. Thus, research indicates that organizational members tend to identify more strongly with–and feel more committed to–their occupations and subunits than the organization (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Moreland & Levine, 2001; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). Regarding the belonging motive, Baumeister and Leary (1995, p. 497) argue that individuals have a ‘pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal interactions.’ Although the belonging motive may be satisfied by other social domains (e.g., one’s neighborhood), the sheer number of hours that many individuals spend at work tends to activate the motive in the work domain as well. The same factors noted above that make peers, supervisors, and mentors credible referents–interpersonal similarity, physical proximity, localized expertise, task and outcome interdependence, and, thus, frequent interaction–also tend to make these socialization agents attractive from an attachment standpoint. Thus, belongingness tends to be localized as well and the desire to form attachments with one’s potential socialization agents is likely to increase one’s receptivity to any lessons the agents impart. Social validation and support As noted above, entering a new role typically fosters uncertainty regarding one’s competence and social acceptance. Because of the tribal nature of newcomers’ organizational experiences, they tend to look to their peers, supervisors, and mentors not only for information and feedback, but for social validation. Indeed, like most individuals, newcomers tend to see themselves through the eyes of valued others (Felson, 1992). Validation occurs when these valued others reinforce the newcomer’s (1) behaviors (e.g., role enactment, conformity to core organizational norms, organizational citizenship behaviors), (2) performance (e.g., output, low absenteeism, role innovation–or role conformity, depending


39

on what is socially desirable in the context), and (3) identity markers (e.g., attire, mannerisms, use of jargon) (Ashforth, 2001). This reinforcement signals and affirms that the credibility gap between the newcomer and the claimed identity is narrowing. Granfield (1991, p. 31) dubbed this process ‘making it by faking it.’ For example, Ibarra (1999) describes how neophyte investment bankers and management consultants adopted and refined the behaviors of their senior role models. As their colleagues and clients began to treat them as bona fide professionals, they began to view themselves as such. Thus, social validation helps the newcomer to feel authentic in his or her new organizational role, emboldening more confident and therefore more persuasive role performance. Although it is frequently argued that the uncertainties associated with organizational entry are very stressful, implying a negative experience, it may be more accurate to say that the uncertainties generate arousal, which may be interpreted by the newcomer either negatively (e.g., an unwelcome threat) or positively (e.g., a welcome challenge) (Ashforth, 2001; Nicholson & West, 1989). The more negative the interpretation, the more likely that the newcomer will seek and appreciate social support from his or her socialization agents (Katz, 1985). Support can be instrumental (i.e., focused on solving problems) and/or expressive (i.e., focused on alleviating symptoms, as through displays of empathy). Research on the honeymoon effect (e.g., Fichman & Levinthal, 1991), newcomer expectations (e.g., Wanous, Poland, Premack & Davis, 1992), and newcomer adjustment (e.g., Vandenberg & Self, 1993) suggests that after an initial period of euphoria–often caused partly by newcomers’ unrealistically high expectations–adjustment tends to decline fairly steadily as reality shock sets in, before stabilizing. Ironically, however, organizational members appear more likely to offer support before and at the time of entry rather than when it may be needed most–when the euphoria burns off. Mentors and supervisors as conduits to the organization Mentors are typically defined as senior colleagues who facilitate personalized newcomer adjustment through advice, training, protection, and social support (Kram, 1988). Because mentor-newcomer relationships usually do not carry as many impression management concerns as do manager-newcomer relationships (Morrison & Bies, 1991), newcomers tend to more freely seek information and advice from mentors. Research suggests that mentors help newcomers learn about and adjust to their new jobs and organizations (e.g., Allen et al., 1999; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993; Wanberg et al., 2003).11 11

However, as Wanberg et al. (2003) note, the preponderance of cross-sectional research designs and the absence of controls for protégés’ attributes and work-related experiences raise questions about causality–particularly since mentors tend to prefer promising newcomers (Allen, Poteet & Russell, 2000).

40 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Mentors as well as supervisors may play an additional, vital role for newcomers–that of a conduit to identifying with and feeling committed to the wider organization. Sluss and Ashforth (2005) argue that identification with a manager (or mentor) tends to generalize to the organization through four mechanisms. First, social influence occurs when the newcomer internalizes the valued manager’s or mentor’s advice, opinions, and goals (cf. Ben-Yoav & Hartman, 1988; Weiss, 1977), including their presumably positive views of the organization. For instance, Shamir, Zakay, Brainin and Popper (2000) found that when a military unit leader emphasized the unit’s collective identity, the soldiers and staff responded in kind by identifying with the unit. Second, anthropomorphization occurs when the newcomer projects the manager’s or mentor’s perceived attributes on the abstract and equivocal organization. Pratt (2000) found that newcomers to Amway tended to view the company through the prism of their relationship with their supervisors–ascribing the relationship’s qualities to the company. Third, given the desire to maintain cognitive consistency, behavioral sensemaking occurs when newcomers regard behavior that reflects their relationship with their manager/mentor as similarly reflecting their relationship with the organization (e.g., working hard to meet managerial goals suggests a desire to also meet organizational goals)–and vice versa. Finally, affect transfer occurs when the assumed overlap between the manager/mentor and the organization induces the feelings associated with one to nonconsciously spread to the other. For example, Vandenberghe, Bentein, and Stinglhamber (2004) found that nurses’ affective commitment to their supervisors predicted organizational commitment, and Morrison (2002b) found that the strength, status, and range (i.e., the number of organizational units represented) of new auditors’ friendship networks was associated with organizational commitment. In sum, most of the newcomer’s understanding of and attachment to the wider organization may be mediated through localized sources. Indeed, much of what has been described as organizational socialization may actually be more localized–if not tribal–socialization. As Figure 1.2 suggests, interpersonal and intragroup dynamics may mediate the impact of the organization on the individual and vice versa. Although we would not go as far as Moreland and Levine (2001, p. 87) to claim that ‘much of the work on organizational socialization is misguided,’ we do believe that research needs to incorporate localized structures and processes as mediators of the relationship between organization-level predictors and newcomers’ learning and adjustment. The notion of localized socialization raises other intriguing ideas. As one example, research on intergroup dynamics indicates that groups often seek positive distinctiveness, defining themselves as foils of one another and thereby exaggerating intergroup differences and intragroup similarities (Turner, 1985). Given that newcomers are often more motivated to please their immediate peers than more distal management, they are likely to conform to if not internalize these exaggerations. In this way, localized socialization is likely to perpetuate the resulting stereotypes, institutionalizing intergroup biases and conflict. For


41

instance, Collinson (1992) describes how shop-floor workers defined themselves as the antithesis of management, socialized coworkers accordingly, and policed one another to ensure the worker-management gulf remained. As a second example, given the transient nature of such groups as project teams and task forces, and given the impact that a newcomer may have on his or her group, newcomer socialization may occur simultaneously with the socialization of the group itself (Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Wanous, Reichers & Malik, 1984). For instance, Anderson et al. (1999) propose a group-level socialization stage model (listed as a specialized model in Table 1.1) that directly parallels their individual-level stage model. How and to what extent might models of socialization tactics, socialization content (newcomer learning), and newcomer proactivity be generalized to the collective level (e.g., Danielson, 2004)? Individual Differences Individual differences span a wide range of variables: demographic attributes, including past experience; personality traits; values, beliefs, and attitudes; behavioral styles; knowledge, skills, and abilities; and goals, aspirations, and needs. Reviews of socialization research have documented a variety of individual differences that have been considered as independent, moderating, mediating, and outcome variables (Ashforth, 2001; Bauer et al., 1998; Colquitt et al., 2000; Fisher, 1986; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a; Sonnentag et al., 2004). That said, given that socialization involves a continuous interaction between individuals and organizations, there have been repeated calls for more interactionist approaches to socialization, that is, for approaches that consider how individual differences play out in socialization dynamics over time (Griffin et al., 2000; Jones, 1983; Reichers, 1987; Taylor & Giannantonio, 1993). Given space limitations, we will focus on individual differences that are directly related to what was said earlier to be the heart of socialization: making sense of the new situation and learning the expected capabilities. ‘Making sense’ entails processing information both provided to (i.e., organizational tactics) and obtained by (i.e., newcomer proactivity) the newcomer. Individual differences affect the motivation and capability for this sensemaking process. Motivation for sensemaking and learning Previous work experience provides schemata for interpreting the new situation, thus facilitating adjustment (Brett, 1984). For example, Beyer and Hannah (2002) interviewed engineers and other professionals in the semiconductor industry who were assigned to a consortium. These authors found that individuals with longer and more diverse work experience had more diverse identities, which provided flexibility for making sense of and adjusting to their new roles. However, research has found that experience facilitates (Black, 1988), inhibits (Adkins, 1995; Morrison & Brantner, 1992), and has no effect (Anakwe &

42 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Greenhaus, 2000; Finkelstein et al., 2003; Pinder & Schroeder, 1987) on adjustment. Why the mixed support? Ashforth (2001) speculates that previous experience is most likely to be misapplied when the newcomer is confronting moderate change. Under little change, past learning can be readily and appropriately applied to the new setting. Under great change, the newcomer is apt to recognize the limited relevance of past learning, prompting informationseeking and receptiveness. Thus, Aiman-Smith and Green (2002) found that the more novel a new technology was to factory workers, the less time they took to become proficient at operating the technology. Under moderate change, however, the apparent similarity of the present to the past may induce ‘false confidence’ (Adkins, 1995, p. 856), whereby the newcomer inappropriately applies previously learned schema to the new setting and is less receptive to new information. Alternatively, even if the newcomer is receptive to learning, the need to first unlearn well-entrenched schemata may delay learning (Morrison & Brantner, 1992). A literature review by Sonnentag et al. (2004) indicates that one’s dispositional learning goal orientation (i.e., a desire to increase one’s competence via new skills) is associated with task-specific self-efficacy, self-set goal difficulty, effort, feedback-seeking, and task performance. However, much of this research is based on undergraduate students (e.g., Bogler & Somech, 2002). In an organizational example, Godshalk and Sosik (2003) found that protégés who matched their mentors in terms of having a high learning goal orientation reported receiving more psychosocial support from their mentors than did protégés who did not match their mentors or who matched on a low orientation. It seems likely that a learning goal orientation would be particularly effective in complex roles and situations. Similarly, research indicates that trait curiosity is associated with workplace learning (Reio & Callahan, 2004), and a proactive personality predicts task mastery, group integration, political knowledge, and job performance (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Thompson, 2005). Ashford and Black (1996) found that state desire for control is related to information-seeking, general socializing, networking, job change negotiation, and positive framing, but not to feedback-seeking and relationship-building with the boss. Presumably, trait desire for control would also predict proactivity. Black and Ashford (1995) report that trait desire for feedback is associated with newcomer personal change, although some research suggests otherwise (see Ashforth’s 2001 review for further details). In the context of organizational training, a meta-analysis by Colquitt et al. (2000) indicates that one’s motivation to learn (i.e., a desire to assimilate the training material) is positively associated with declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, and post-training self-efficacy. Interestingly, motivation to learn is not predicted by conscientiousness (but is predicted by an internal locus of control). Motivation to learn, however, is only partly dispositional as Colquitt et al. found that it is strongly influenced by the perceived valence of training outcomes (cf. Tharenou, 2001).


43

In addition to the task, role, and organization, the newcomer also learns about the overall obligations and inducements found in the psychological contract. In this connection, De Vos et al. (2005) found that individual work values and an internal locus of control influenced specific information-seeking efforts– for example, valuing promotion predicted information-seeking about financial rewards and an internal locus of control predicted information-seeking about job content (i.e., ‘challenging, varied, and interesting work,’ p. 42). Taken together, these findings indicate that particular needs and preferences for information appear to motivate newcomers to seek corresponding types of information (cf. Morrison, 2002a). Capabilities for sensemaking and learning A variety of individual differences–cognitive ability, learning style, extraversion, openness to experience, and self-monitoring–have been shown to facilitate newcomer adjustment (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998; Sonnentag et al., 2004; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). With regard to proactive behavior, extraversion and openness to experience were found to predict proactive feedbackseeking, while extraversion also predicted relationship-building (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). This research underscores the importance of what Hall (1986) refers to as meta-competencies–skills for learning to learn, including how, what, where, and when to learn, and whom to learn from (Fisher, 1986). Meta-competencies suggest a willingness and ability to explore and experiment, to proactively engage one’s situation, to draw on a variety of experiences to make sense of one’s situation, and to adapt one’s role identity and career narratives to the demands of the situation (Ashforth, 2001). Hall (1986) argues that, in the face of increasing environmental and career turbulence, meta-competencies are becoming more important. One possible meta-competency is employability–a disposition to proactively improve and change oneself to meet situational demands (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004). As such, employability may be an important predictor of proactive behavior and newcomer learning, as well as role innovation. A second possible meta-competency is core self-evaluation or ‘more simply, positive self-concept’ (Judge & Bono, 2001, p. 80). Core self-evaluation is a latent construct measured by an amalgam of generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). Traditionally, self-efficacy has been found to predict, moderate, and mediate various processes within socialization (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). For example, recent research indicates that newcomer self-efficacy predicts perceived control and problem-focused coping (Ashforth & Saks, 2000), task mastery, role clarity, and social integration (Gruman et al., 2006), and higher performance expectations (Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Self-efficacy was also found to moderate the relationship of entry stressors on adjustment outcomes; specifically, role conflict predicted decreased organizational commitment and identification for

44 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 those newcomers with low self-efficacy (Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Building on the findings from self-efficacy as well as locus of control, core self-evaluation may have a strong and holistic influence on newcomer adjustment. Toward dynamic interactionism Interactionism is often operationalized in socialization research as an algebraic interaction (A × B), for example, where self-efficacy is argued to moderate the impact of institutionalized socialization on newcomer behavior. However, moderation effects are notoriously difficult to detect in field settings, partly because of restricted range in the individual and situational variables (McClelland & Judd, 1993). More importantly, the interaction between individuals and organizations can assume many forms (Frese, 1982; Schneider, 1983). In particular, individuals typically select and actively perceive the situations they are in; they usually have some discretion over their behavior and this behavior–whether by design or accident–may alter the situation; the situation tends to affect different individuals in different ways; and the individuals decide to remain or exit the situation and are more likely to be retained by the organization if they display desired attributes. The upshot is what Hattrup and Jackson (1996) term dynamic interactionism, whereby persons and situations reciprocally affect each other such that there are continuous changes in both over time. In short, ‘people and settings are difficult to separate’ (Schneider, 1983, p. 11). Accordingly, it may be quixotic to predict sensemaking and learning–or other newcomer endeavors (Ashford & Taylor, 1990)–from a static set of individual differences, no matter how comprehensive the set may be. What is needed is research that tracks socialization as an evolving synthesis of newcomer, role, and context, where current states in all three are regarded as provisional and interactive. The Role of Time Although socialization is an inherently dynamic process, time has thus far been relegated to a relatively minor supporting role in the literature. The following topics merely hint at the vast potential to be realized when time is explicitly incorporated in socialization models. Rate of socialization Figure 1.3 captures a tacit assumption in the socialization literature regarding the amount of cumulative learning over time (cf. Taormina, 1997). Anticipatory socialization leads to some learning prior to the boundary crossing, but most learning occurs shortly after the crossing, when the newcomer is immersed in the setting; diminishing returns then set in, with the amount of


Figure 1.3

45

Newcomer learning over time

learning ultimately approaching the asymptote. Our earlier observation about socialization lumpiness is not inconsistent with this model: what appears lumpy with a ‘high-resolution lens’ that tracks day-to-day progress may appear smoother with a low-resolution lens that follows the learning trajectory over a sweep of months (or even years for very complex jobs). An intriguing research question is how newcomers in fact aggregate or bracket the experience of time (George & Jones, 2000) and the effect this has on the perceived smoothness and satisfactoriness of their socialization: what may seem like haphazard episodes to one may seem like a pleasantly meandering road to another. Interestingly, Brown (1985) found that nursing home employees with five months or less work experience tended to recite specific stories to an interviewer when discussing their work, whereas employees with five to 12 months experience tended to recite specific stories with morals, and employees with over 12 months experience tended to tell prototypic or mythic stories in the service of a larger point about the values and operations of the organization. Brown concluded that the evolution in stories signaled an increasing awareness of the bigger organizational picture: the disparate threads of everyday life were gradually woven into a compelling pattern. A critical issue is the slope of the learning curve, that is, the rate of socialization (Reichers, 1987). As noted earlier, a relatively rapid rate is desirable for both the newcomer and organization (Reichers, 1987), provided that it does not overtax either. Despite the importance of the rate, Reicher’s observation of 20 years ago–that the rate has been ‘largely overlooked’ (p. 279) in socialization research–is still true today (however, see Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005, for a recent exception, and Chan & Schmitt, 2000, and Lance, Vandenberg, & Self, 2001, for recent examinations of the rate of change in other proximal and distal outcomes of socialization). Holding the magnitude of the transition constant, and consistent with the notion of localized socialization, Reichers (1987) argues that interaction frequency predicts the socialization rate.

46 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Interaction frequency is in turn likely influenced by institutionalized socialization (particularly the serial and collective tactics), newcomer (and veteran) proactivity, the factors noted earlier regarding the appeal of socialization agents (i.e., similarity to the newcomer, physical proximity, task and outcome interdependence, and knowledgeablity about the workplace), as well as a host of well-known management practices covered in any textbook on organizational behavior or industrial/organizational psychology (e.g., supportive leadership, clear effort-reward contingencies). For example, Pinder and Schroeder (1987) found that individuals transferred to more difficult jobs reported becoming proficient more quickly if they received ‘support’ (an amalgam of cooperation and supervisor/coworker support). We would add that the impact of interaction frequency on the socialization rate is likely moderated by interaction quality–the extent to which the interaction provides useful information. Quality is associated with information that is accurate and timely, tailored to the newcomer’s developmental needs, and delivered via a medium that is appropriate to the information’s richness and via a constructive manner that enhances receptiveness (cf. Kraiger, 2003). Time lags and duration of effects As alluded to earlier, learning has been posited to facilitate such proximal outcomes as role clarity, skill acquisition, and personal change, which in turn facilitate more distal outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance, and role innovation/conformity (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). (It should be noted that the impact of learning and the proximal outcomes on the distal outcomes is not necessarily positive: as the literatures on psychological contract violations and unmet expectations suggest, one could experience unpleasant surprises that turn one against the job, subunit, and/or organization.) The distinction between proximal and distal outcomes suggests the importance of conceptualizing time lags in the socialization process and variables that may shorten or lengthen them, as well as possible feedback loops (e.g., organizational commitment may motivate further learning) (cf. Chan & Schmitt, 2000; George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, 2001). Although research cited earlier does suggest that learning–or at least the pursuit of learning through proactivity–precedes various newcomer adjustment variables, the conceptualization of the lag process has been scanty. For instance, it is unclear which effects are instantaneous (e.g., learning that one’s peers are friendly may foster rapid social integration) and which are delayed (e.g., learning how to perform a complex task may only affect performance over the next task cycle). An additional temporal consideration is the duration of the effects (cf. George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, 2001). Mitchell and James discuss the possibility of an ‘entropic period’ in causal models, whereby the impact of X on Y (in this case, learning on proximal outcomes, and both of these on distal outcomes) may become attenuated. For example, it was noted earlier that stage


47

models of socialization imply that the impact of a given socialization program may fade over time as newcomers mature and their needs evolve. Relative stability and instability On one hand, literature reviews have suggested that newcomers tend to adjust relatively rapidly to their new jobs and organizations (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a) and that adjustment is relatively stable (Bauer et al., 1998; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). For example, Chen and Klimoski (2003) found that newcomers in information technology project teams took only two to three months to perform up to expectations, despite the complexity of their role, and Bauer and Green (1994) found that the adjustment of doctoral students assessed three weeks after entry into their programs was the best predictor of adjustment assessed after nine months. On the other hand, research on the honeymoon effect, unmet expectations, and psychological contract violations, cited earlier, suggests that the mean level of newcomer attitudes tends to decline, even if the earlier levels continue to predict later levels. Moreover, a great deal of variance in the later levels remains unaccounted for by the earlier levels. Further, research on gamma change (Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976) indicates that the very meaning of a construct may change during socialization. For instance, Vandenberg and Self (1993) found that newcomers reconstituted constructs so severely during their first six months on the job that the differences between their initial and later measures of affective commitment and continuance commitment were uninterpretable. Thus, it appears that the stability/instability conundrum can be seen as a classic case of ‘the glass is half-full’ vs. ‘the glass is half-empty’; that is, both views have some merit. Given that socialization reviews have emphasized the glass being half-full, why might the glass also be half-empty? First, as the socialization stage models suggest, a newcomer’s needs, aspirations, attention, expectations, and behaviors may evolve as he or she gains experience (e.g., Chan & Schmitt, 2000). Further, as these changes occur, socialization agents are likely to view and treat the newcomer differently (cf. situational leadership theory, Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). For example, laboratory research by Greenberg (1996) indicates that raters give higher-than-normal evaluations for good performance but lowerthan-normal evaluations for poor performance if they believe the individual to be new to the organization. Such differential treatment is signaled partly through symbolic markers of status (e.g., derogatory names) and rites of passage (e.g., newcomer probation period) (see Bourassa & Ashforth, 1998, for examples of each on a trawler). Second, some adjustments occur more quickly than others (Fisher, 1986), as suggested by the distinction between proximal and distal outcomes (Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). Newcomers may quickly mimic desired behaviors, but it may take much longer to learn tacit norms, accept

48 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 organizational values, and deeply internalize occupational and organizational identities (Ibarra, 1999; Schein, 1978). Ashforth’s (2001) ABC (affect/behavior/cognition) model of role transitions holds that newcomers can think/feel their way into a role, as with anticipatory socialization, or behave their way, as with sudden immersion wherein newcomers are required to enact the role before they have internalized and feel comfortable with it. Further, the literature on socialization content, discussed earlier, indicates that knowledge in the job and possibly social domain is acquired more quickly than knowledge in the organizational domain (Morrison, 1995; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Taormina, 1997; cf. Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005). Indeed, Feldman (1977) found that hospital employees felt accepted by their coworkers after about three months, but did not feel competent until about six months into their new jobs. The relativity of organizational tenure and time Rollag (2004) notes that researchers use organizational tenure to differentiate newcomers from veterans and assume that tenure is a proxy for acculturation. Further, Rollag cites research suggesting that the mere label of ‘newcomer’ strongly affects how socialization agents regard and act toward the individual. Using data from four entrepreneurial start-up organizations, he demonstrates how one’s self-perception of newcomer status, of work and advice network centrality, and of whether one seeks or provides information depend more on one’s tenure relative to other organizational members than on one’s absolute tenure. Thus, ‘the rate of transition from thinking and acting like a newcomer to thinking and acting like an oldtimer is strongly driven by organizational growth and turnover’ (Rollag, 2004, p. 864). In a rapidly growing organization with high turnover, a person with tenure of mere months may be socially constructed as a veteran–regardless of his or her actual learning and adjustment–with its attendant implications for how that person interacts with others. As Rollag notes, the person may even conclude that he or she has ‘outgrown’ the organization’s socialization efforts long before achieving mastery. Conversely, in a stable organization with low turnover, a person with tenure of many years may still be seen as ‘the new kid on the block.’ Rollag’s research provocatively underscores that ‘newcomer’ and ‘veteran’ are socially constructed labels and that there are no inherently fixed timeframes for becoming socialized. One’s temporal orientation, or characteristic approach to time, also suggests some intriguing possibilities (Ancona, Okhuysen & Perlow, 2001; Lutfey & Mortimer, 2003). For instance, a newcomer who is characteristically oriented to the future is more inclined to set long-term goals than a newcomer oriented to the present. Given the motivating potential of goal-setting, this future orientation may prove self-fulfilling: the newcomer may focus on amassing the skill set necessary for his or her longer range career goals, and may tolerate and even seek out developmental assignments that others would regard as undesirable.


49

However, the structured aspirations may render him or her more vulnerable to frustration if the career does not progress as intended. Conversely, the presentoriented newcomer may experience a more reactive career, opportunistically seizing chances as they appear and eschewing the delay of gratification required for personal development. However, opportunism may nonetheless allow one to amass a diverse set of marketable skills. Wiener (1996) interviewed individuals who entered Hollywood stunt work after unwittingly compiling the necessary skills through such experiences as rodeo riding and crop dusting. Given the turbulence of modern economies, opportunism may become more common for a large segment of the work force. Some organizations may even prefer newcomers who are oriented to the present, as it reduces the demand for costly and possibly untenable career planning and development initiatives. As demonstrated, the notion of time raises a host of provocative issues for future research.

QUESTIONING OUR DEFAULT ASSUMPTIONS A casual perusal of the organizational socialization literature may lead one to conclude that socialization theory and research generally focus on raw recruits in traditional work arrangements, entering their first full-time, white-collar jobs in relatively large organizations, resulting in some impact on traditional organizational behavior outcomes. Although these ‘default assumptions’ are frequently questioned in the literature, most studies nonetheless implicitly invoke them. We state these assumptions below rather baldy to surface how constricting they are and to suggest a few of the many possibilities to be realized from relaxing them. Assumption #1: Socialization Pertains to Raw Recruits and First Full-Time Jobs Socialization research has traditionally been dominated by studies of firsttime workers and raw recruits. This focus is too narrow and disregards other important boundary crossings that necessitate socialization. Indeed, it is likely that the resocialization of veterans occurs as frequently as the socialization of newcomers because organizations are increasingly replacing promotion with lateral moves that require forgetting aspects of old roles, learning new roles and schemata, speaking new languages, and developing new relationships (Ashforth, 2001; Rousseau & Arthur, 1999). In short, careers are becoming more transitory (Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004), necessitating that individuals negotiate movement within and between organizations. Hence, organizations are rife with instances of desocialization and resocialization that have little to do with first-timers (Feldman, 1989; Hall, 1980). Examining lateral moves offers many promising areas for advancing theory (e.g., Feldman &

50 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Brett, 1983; Nicholson & West, 1988). For example, organizations often use lateral moves to disseminate knowledge across the organization (Lazarova & Tarique, 2005); however, such moves may also necessitate ‘selective forgetting’ (Ashforth, 2001, p. 190) and put the newly moved individual into a group that is suspicious or unwilling to learn new information. Individuals that successfully negotiate such situations may provide rich examples of an attitude of wisdom (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996; Weick, 1993) in which individuals in transition must balance experience with the novelty of the current situation. Moreover, such examples highlight the bidirectional nature of socialization; that is, how the group socializes the new member and how the new member socializes the group by deploying new knowledge. Assumption #2: Socialization Pertains to Traditional Work Arrangements Organizations are increasingly relying on alternative work arrangements, such as telecommuting, virtual teams, and contingent work, to maintain flexibility (Avery & Zabel, 2001; Garsten, 1999). The use of such arrangements is massive. For example, nearly one-third of U.S. employees rely on some form of telecommuting (‘Emergent workers,’ 2006) and organizations often use telecommuting as an incentive in lieu of pay raises (Moore, 2005). Some studies have reported that such changes have a deleterious effect on socialization. For instance, in a quasi-experimental field study, Wesson and Gogus (2005) found that newcomers learning through computer-based training reported lower levels of understanding socially rich content compared to cohorts attending socially-based orientations. One reason may be that computer-facilitated socialization is not as facile as observation at disseminating tacit, normative knowledge (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). However, Flanagin and Waldeck (2004) suggest that organizations can use technology to facilitate anticipatory socialization and later stages of socialization when individuals already have a good grasp of social norms and can use them to contextualize potentially ambiguous information. Future research should continue exploring the use of technology in socialization. For example, does technology reduce stress (Nelson, 1987) and surprise (Louis, 1980) because it provides access to a greater number and variety of information sources or does it increase stress by adding possibly discordant voices to the choir? As many as 50% of U.S. organizations rely on temporary workers (Foote & Folta, 2002). Socialization–more specifically, inadequate socialization–seems to have a reciprocal relationship with temporary work. Inadequate socialization during a first job often leads the individual to being offered temporary rather than permanent positions (Ruiz-Quintanilla & Claes, 1996; Winfree, Kielich, & Clark, 1984). In turn, temporary workers often receive poorer socialization than their permanent counterparts (Foote, 2004; Sias, Kramer &


51

Jenkins, 1997). Thus, individuals may find themselves in a negative spiral, becoming organizational wanderers that seek full membership but achieve only quasi-insider status. In contrast, other workers deliberately choose this ‘liminal’ lifestyle (Garsten, 1999) and seem to relish the process of continually entering new settings and negotiating ambiguity. Contrary to the negative spiral of under-socialization leading to temporary work, this perspective on temporary work suggests a positive spiral of learning and discovery. Future studies should examine and compare these spirals to better understand the dynamics that produce one instead of the other. For instance, are there individual differences that lead some people to seek out and thrive in temporary work environments, whereas others flounder and find themselves trapped in temporary situations they see as suboptimal? Assumption #3: Socialization Pertains to Well-Educated, White-Collar Occupations Fisher (1986: 105) observed that socialization research has ‘tended to concentrate in the same few occupations.’ This critique still holds–the vast majority of socialization studies use well-educated, white-collar samples, ignoring a broader range of workers and occupations. Research exploring these often ignored samples promises to increase the generalizability of our current theories as well as extend and modify them. For example, Gibson and Papa (2000) studied the communication patterns of manufacturing workers and found that the anticipatory socialization stage often began in adolescence, preparing future employees for organizational entry years before it occurred. This long anticipatory stage created a foundation for ‘organizational osmosis’ (p. 79), an effortless assimilation of norms that made the transition from outsider to insider appear seamless. Gibson and Papa determined that this long albeit informal socialization process generated an occupational identity centered on hard physical labor that in turn provided a context of normative control–individuals that do not take vacations are ‘real men’ that work ‘like dogs,’ whereas those that don’t fit either ‘break’ or ‘quit.’ This research suggests that the anticipatory socialization stage can be seen as an incubation period in which identities are shaped that differentially enable or inhibit success in a given occupation (Cohen-Scali, 2003). As suggested earlier with regard to occupational ethnographies, future research should take advantage of such rich and thick situations (Folger & Turillo, 1999) in occupations other than white-collar ones, in order to broaden our understanding of socialization. These understudied populations also offer promising venues for theory testing because they often provide contexts that serve as more stringent tests of socialization theories. For example, Sluss (2006) studied how newcomers in the tele-services industry identify with their relationship with their managers and how this dyadic connection generalizes to or augurs the newcomers’

52 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 identification with the organization as a whole. The high rate of turnover in the industry and the generally low educational level served as a caustic backdrop that had the potential to obviate these processes. The fact that the hypotheses held suggests the universal importance of these mechanisms across a wide range of organizations and occupations. Autry and Wheeler (2005) used a similar logic to study the impact of orientation duration on person-organization fit in the warehousing industry. Assumption #4: Socialization Pertains to ‘Traditional’ OB Outcomes Over 20 years ago, Fisher (1986) argued that there was an urgent need for research that focuses on outcomes that are specific to socialization, such as role innovation and internalization of organizational norms, in addition to traditional OB outcomes such as performance and commitment (also, see Ashford & Taylor, 1990, and Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). While this statement remains true today, there is a welcome trend toward focusing on proximal and socializationspecific indicators of adjustment. For example, in addition to examining how learning mediates the impact of socialization on distal outcomes, noted earlier, Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg (2003) also examined the mediating role of group integration and role clarity. Socialization research should continue this trend, particularly because it underscores the unique contribution that socialization offers to understanding organizational dynamics. Assumption #5: Socialization Pertains to Large Organizations Many socialization studies examine cohorts of graduates entering large, mature firms (Bauer et al., 1998). However, we know little about how organizational size actually affects socialization. Given that smaller organizations lack the economies of scale and often the resources of larger organizations to utilize formal socialization practices, it seems likely that smaller firms would rely more heavily on informal practices (Ashforth et al., 1998). For instance, service workers in smaller chains of English pubs learned to interpret customers’ emotional cues through trial and error, observation, and after-work social interaction, rather than through formal training (which they often derided in other chains) (Seymour & Sandiford, 2005). Similarly, women socialized in smaller newspaper organizations felt greater freedom to express gendered values whereas women in larger newspaper organizations felt that, to be accepted, their distinctive attributes needed to ‘disappear’ (Rodgers & Thorson, 2003, p. 672). Although these findings suggest that large organizations exert greater pressure toward conformity, this need not be the case. While smaller organizations tend to use more informal processes, they may rely heavily on restrictive, normative control systems in which members police one another (Barker, 1993). Future


53

research should contrast the use of normative controls during socialization in organizations of varying size. We can also turn the causal direction of the question above on its head and ask, how does socialization affect size? Geeraerts (1984) argues that the socialization of managers plays a crucial role in an organization’s ability to grow. Education and previous experience tend to socialize professional managers (in contrast to founders/owners) to institute strategic policies–such as functional specialization and acquisitions–that facilitate organizational growth. Given the impact that such strategies can have on organizational performance, the dynamic relationship between socialization and organizational structure and size deserves further study. Assumption #6: Socialization is the Same Across National Cultures ‘Globalization and the challenge of managing across borders are now the norm instead of the exception’ (Steers et al., 2004, p. 383), yet we know relatively little about socialization in international contexts (Bauer et al., 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). One of the largest unanswered questions is the impact that national cultures have on learning styles (Claes & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998; Taormina & Bauer, 2000): because learning is central to the socialization process, organizations working across borders need to understand how different groups of employees may learn. For example, newcomers in Hong Kong ask fewer questions regarding their performance than newcomers in the U.S. (Morrison, Chen & Salgado, 2004), and U.S. interns at Japanese firms described receiving very little performance feedback from their Japanese supervisors even though the supervisors felt that they were providing an adequate amount (Masumoto, 2004). Yamazaki and Kayes (2004) suggest that successful adaptation to different cultures requires a broad set of learning competencies. However, cross-cultural differences may be deeply embedded, presenting a greater challenge than simply developing competencies. For instance, Choi and Nisbett (2000) argue that the prevalence of paradoxical thinking that pervades eastern cultures prevents individuals from sensing surprise because their sensemaking schemata allow for contradictions. In other words, when contradictions are not experienced as such, the individual is less likely to ask ‘why did this occur?’ (Wong & Weiner, 1981). The lack of surprise undermines inquiry and sensemaking. This line of thinking suggests that individuals of different cultural backgrounds experiencing the same socialization process may have drastically different experiences (Chao, 1997) and emerge with disparate interpretations of how to negotiate the organization. Research needs to investigate how cultural differences in sensemaking and schema formation may differentially affect information-seeking, learning, and other socialization dynamics (Bauer & Taylor, 2002).

54 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007

CONCLUSION As this sojourn through decades of research suggests, organizational socialization has a diverse family tree. It ranges from interviews with teachers to laboratory research on feedback-seeking, and from survey research on novice accountants to ethnographic research in military boot camps. This is as it should be: the construct of socialization–like the process of socialization itself–is a generative one. Individuals cannot become functioning members of organizations and organizations cannot sustain themselves without socialization. Socialization is core to understanding the courtship and marriage of individuals and organizations. The topics of socialization stages, socialization tactics, socialization content (newcomer learning), and newcomer proactivity have provided a solid foundation for understanding the dynamics of the socialization process. Perhaps the biggest research challenge in the years ahead will be understanding how organizations might socialize for instability as well as for stability. As the conditions confronting organizations–and individuals’ careers–become increasingly turbulent, particular research attention will need to be paid to task/project- and group-specific socialization, to newcomer proactivity, and to role innovation. Perhaps more than ever, socialization research is critical to understanding and helping organizations as they move into an uncertain future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We thank Gerard Hodgkinson, Karen Myers, and Alan Saks for their very helpful comments on an earlier draft.

REFERENCES Adkins, C. L. (1995). Previous work experience and organizational socialization: A longitudinal examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 839–862. Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards & blackboards: College athletes and role engulfment. New York: Columbia University Press. Ahuja, M. K. & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management, 29, 161–185. Aiman-Smith, L. & Green, S. G. (2002). Implementing new manufacturing technology: The related effects of technology characteristics and user learning activities. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 421–430. Ainsworth, S. & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and identities. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick & L. L. Putnam (eds), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 153–174). London: Sage. Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management, 32, 237–256.


55

Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847–858. Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E. & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453–470. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L. & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Protégé selection by mentors: What makes the difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271–282. Anakwe, U. P. & Greenhaus, J. H. (1999). Effective socialization of employees: Socialization content perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11, 315–329. Anakwe, U. P. & Greenhaus, J. H. (2000). Prior work experience and socialization experiences of college graduates. International Journal of Manpower, 21, 95–111. Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A. & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 512–529. Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L. & Martin, M. M. (1999). Socialization processes in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (eds), The handbook of group communication: Theory and research (pp. 139–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anderson, N. & Ostroff, C. (1997). Selection as socialization. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (eds), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 413–440). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Anderson, N. & Thomas, H. D. C. (1996). Work group socialization. In M. A. West (ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 423–450). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C. & Robson, K. (2001). Tests of time: Organizational time-reckoning and the making of accountants in two multi-national accounting firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 99–122. Argyris, C. & Schon, ¨ D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ashford, S. J. & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214. Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R. & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799. Ashford, S. J. & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative approach. In G.R. Ferris & K.M. Rowland (eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 8, pp. 1–39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ashforth, B. E. & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (eds), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 31–48). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178. Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (2000). Personal control in organizations: A longitudinal investigation with newcomers. Human Relations, 53, 311–339. Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (2002). Feeling your way: Emotion and organizational entry. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (eds), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 331–369). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

56 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M. & Lee, R. T. (1997). On the dimensionality of Jones’ (1986) measures of organizational socialization tactics. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 200–214. Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M. & Lee, R. T. (1998). Socialization and newcomer adjustment: The role of organizational context. Human Relations, 51, 897–926. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M. & Saks, A. M. (2006). Socialization tactics, proactivity, and learning: How process and content influence adjustment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta. Autry, C. W. & Wheeler, A. R. (2005). Post-hire human resource management practices and person-organization fit: A study of blue-collar employees. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 58–75. Avery, C. & Zabel, D. (2001). The flexible workplace: A sourcebook of information and research. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Baker, H. E., III & Feldman, D. C. (1991). Linking organizational socialization tactics with corporate human resource management strategies. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 193–202. Baker, W. K. (1995). Allen and Meyer’s 1990 longitudinal study: A reanalysis and reinterpretation using structural equation modeling. Human Relations, 48, 169–186. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barge, J. K. & Schlueter, D. W. (2004). Memorable messages and newcomer socialization. Western Journal of Communication, 68, 233–256. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437. Barley, S. R. (1989). Careers, identities, and institutions: The legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (eds), Handbook of career theory (pp. 41–65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, T. N. & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of newcomer involvement in work-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 211–223. Bauer, T. N. & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 72–83. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W. & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bauer, T. N. & Taylor, S. (2002). Toward a globalized conceptualization of organizational socializations [sic]. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesyaran (eds), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 409–423). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497– 529. Becker, H. S. (1964). Personal change in adult life. Sociometry, 27, 40–53. Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Strauss, A. & Hughes, E. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ben-Yoav, O. & Hartman, K. (1988). Supervisors’ competence and learning of work values and behaviors during organizational entry. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 23–36. Berlew, D. E. & Hall, D. T. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of expectations on performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 207–223. Bettenhausen, K. L. & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20–35.


57

Beyer, J. M. & Hannah, D. R. (2002). Building on the past: Enacting established personal identities in a new work setting. Organization Science, 13, 636–652. Black, J. S. (1988). Work role transitions: A study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 277–294. Black, J. S. (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics, tenure, and role innovation. Group & Organization Management, 17, 171–192. Black, J. S. & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in or making jobs fit: Factors affecting mode of adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48, 421–437. Bogler, R. & Somech, A. (2002). Motives to study and socialization tactics among university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 233–248. Bourassa, L. & Ashforth, B. E. (1998). You are about to party Defiant style: Socialization and identity onboard an Alaskan fishing boat. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 27, 171–196. Bourne, P. G. (1967). Some observations on the psychosocial phenomena seen in basic training. Psychiatry, 30, 187–196. Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. In G. R. Ferris (ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 13, pp. 39–79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bravo, M. J., Piero, ´ J. M., Rodriguez, I. & Whitely, W. T. (2003). Social antecedents of the role stress and career-enhancing strategies of newcomers to organizations: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 17, 195–217. Brett, J. M. (1984). Job transitions and personal and role development. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 2, pp. 155–185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. Brim, O. G., Jr. (1966). Socialization through the life cycle. In O. G. Brim, Jr. & S. Wheeler (eds), Socialization after childhood: Two essays (pp. 1–49). New York: Robert E. Krieger. Broad, M. L. & Newstrom, J. W. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Brown, M. H. (1985). That reminds me of a story: Speech action in organizational socialization. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 27–42. Buchanan, B., II. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533– 546. Bullis, C. & Bach, B. W. (1989). Socialization turning points: An examination of change in organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53, 273– 293. Burke, R. J. & Bolf, C. (1986). Learning within organizations: Sources and content. Psychological Reports, 59, 1187–1198. Bush, D. M. & Simmons, R. G. (1981). Socialization processes over the life course. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 133–164). New York: Basic Books. Cable, D. M. & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23. Cahill, S. E. (1999). Emotional capital and professional socialization: The case of mortuary science students (and me). Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 101–116. Caplow, T. (1964). Principles of organization. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Chan, D. & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190–210.

58 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Chao, G. T. (1988). The socialization process: Building newcomer commitment. In M. London & E. M. Mone (eds), Career growth and human resource strategies: The role of the human resource professional in employee development (pp. 31–47). New York: Quorum Books. Chao, G. T. (1997). Unstructured training and development: The role of organizational socialization. In S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas & M. S. Teachout (eds), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 129–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J. & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743. Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M. & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636. Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484. Chen, G. & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591–607. Choi, I. & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradiction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 890–905. Claes, R. & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1998). Influences of early career experiences, occupational group, and national culture on proactive career behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 357–378. Clausen, J. A. (ed.) (1968). Socialization and society. Boston: Little, Brown. Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (eds) (1994). Occupational socialization and working lives. Aldershot, England: Avebury. Cohen-Scali, V. (2003). The influence of family, social, and work socialization on the construction of the professional identity of young adults. Journal of Career Development, 29, 237–249. Collinson, D. L. (1992). Managing the shopfloor: Subjectivity, masculinity and workplace culture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A. & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678–707. Comer, D. R. (1991). Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from peers. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 64–89. Comer, D. R. (1992). Factors that make peers effective information agents for organizational newcomers. Journal of Management Systems, 4, 13–27. Cooper-Thomas, H. & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423–437. Cooper-Thomas, H. D. & Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational socialization: A field study into socialization success and rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 116–128. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., van Vianen, A. & Anderson, N. (2004). Changes in personorganization fit: The impact of socialization tactics on perceived and actual P-O fit. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 52–78. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. Cressey, P. G. (1932). The taxi-dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and city life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


59

Danielson, M. M. (2004). A theory of continuous socialization for organizational renewal. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 354–384. Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. De Vos, A., Buyens, D. & Schalk, R. (2005). Making sense of a new employment relationship: Psychological contract-related information seeking and the role of work values and locus of control. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 41–52. DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. DiSanza, J. R. (1995). Bank teller organizational assimilation in a system of contradictory practices. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 191–218. Dornbusch, S. M. (1955). The military academy as an assimilating institution. Social Forces, 33, 316–321. Emergent workers make up one-third of workforce. (2006). HRMagazine, 51(1), p. 16. Evans, W. R. & Davis, W. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and organizational performance: The mediating role of internal social structures. Journal of Management, 31, 758–775. Fairhurst, G. & Putnam, L. L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 2–26. Falcione, R. L. & Wilson, C. E. (1988). Socialization processes in organizations. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (eds), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 151–169). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fedor, D. B., Rensvold, R. B. & Adams, S. M. (1992). An investigation of factors expected to affect feedback seeking: A longitudinal field study. Personnel Psychology, 45, 779–805. Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433–452. Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activities in socialization. Human Relations, 30, 977–990. Feldman, D. C. (1989). Socialization, resocialization, and training: Reframing the research agenda. In I. L. Goldstein (ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 376–416). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feldman, D. C. & Brett, J. M. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 258– 272. Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R. & Turnley, W. H. (1998). The socialization of expatriate interns. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 403–418. Felson, R. B. (1992). Coming to see ourselves: Social sources of self-appraisals. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway & H. A. Walker (eds), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 185–205). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Fichman, M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: A new perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 16, 442–468. Fiej, J. A., Whitely, W. T., Peiro, ´ J. M. & Taris, T. W (1995). The development of careerenhancing strategies and content innovation: A longitudinal study of new workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 231–256.

60 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T. & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 473–502. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 4, pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Flanagin, A. J. & Waldeck, J. H. (2004). Technology use and organizational newcomer socialization. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 137–165. Fogarty, T. J. (2000). Socialization and organizational outcomes in large public accounting firms. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12, 13–33. Fogarty, T. J. & Dirsmith, M. W. (2001). Organizational socialization as instrument and symbol: An extended institutional theory perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 247–266. Folger, R. & Turillo, C. J. (1999). Theorizing as the thickness of thin abstraction. Academy of Management Review, 24, 742–758. Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter & C. Zahn-Waxler (eds), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 745–774). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Foote, D. A. (2004). Temporary workers: Managing the problem of unscheduled turnover. Management Decision, 42, 963–973. Foote, D. A. & Folta, T. B. (2002). Temporary workers as real options. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 579–597. Frese, M. (1982). Occupational socialization and psychological development: An underemphasized research perspective in industrial psychology. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 209–224. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J. & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14–38. Garsten, C. (1999). Betwixt and between: Temporary employees as liminal subjects in flexible organizations. Organization Studies, 20, 601–617. Geeraerts, G. (1984). The effect of ownership on the organization structure in small firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 232–237. George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26, 657–684. Gibson, M. K. & Papa, M. J. (2000). The mud, the blood, and the beer guys: Organizational osmosis in blue-collar work groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 68–88. Godshalk, V. M. & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 417– 437. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K. & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133–157. Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago: Rand McNally. Graen, G. B., Orris, J. B. & Johnson, T. W. (1973). Role assimilation processes in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 395–420. Granfield, R. (1991). Making it by faking it: Working-class students in an elite academic environment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20, 331–351.


61

Greenberg, J. (1996). ‘Forgive me, I’m new’: Three experimental demonstrations of the effects of attempts to excuse performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 165–178. Griffin, A. E. C., Colella, A. & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer and organizational socialization tactics: An interactionist perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 453–474. Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M. & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behavior: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 90–104. Gundry, L. K. & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Critical incidents in communicating culture to newcomers: The meaning is the message. Human Relations, 47, 1063–1088. Gusterson, H. (1996). Nuclear rites: A weapons laboratory at the end of the Cold War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hafferty, F. W. (1991). Into the valley: Death and the socialization of medical students. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Hall, D. T. (1980). Socialization processes in later career years: Can there be growth at the terminal level? In C. B. Derr (ed.), Work, family, and the career: New frontiers in theory and research (pp. 219–233). New York: Praeger. Hall, D. T. (1986). Breaking career routines: Midcareer choice and identity development. In D. T. Hall & Associates, Career development in organizations (pp. 120–159). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hallier, J. & James, P. (1999). Group rites and trainer wrongs in employee experiences of job change. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 45–67. Harris, R., Simons, M. & Carden, P. (2004). Peripheral journeys: Learning and acceptance of probationary constables. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 205–218. Hart, Z. P. & Miller, V. D. (2005). Context and message content during organizational socialization: A research note. Human Communication Research, 31, 295–309. Hart, Z. P., Miller, V. D. & Johnson, J. R. (2003). Socialization, resocialization, and communication relationships in the context of an organizational change. Communication Studies, 54, 483–495. Harvey, M. & Kiessling, T. (2004). The negative effects of being a ‘late’ newcomer during an expatriation assignment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 551–576. Hattrup, K. & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual differences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy (ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 507–547). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H. & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 20–39. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hess, J. A. (1993). Assimilating newcomers into an organization: A cultural perspective. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 189–210. Hill, L. A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery of a new identity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hoff, T. J., Pohl, H. & Bartfield, J. (2004). Creating a learning environment to produce competent residents: The roles of culture and context. Academic Medicine, 79, 532– 539. Holder, T. (1996). Women in nontraditional occupations: Information-seeking during organizational entry. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 9–26.

62 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Holton, E. F., III, Bates, R. A. & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000). Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 333– 360. Holton, E. F., III & Russell, C. (1999). Organizational entry and exit: An exploratory longitudinal examination of early careers. Human Performance, 12, 311–341. Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Hughes, E. C. (1959). The study of occupations. In R. K. Merton, L. Broom, & L. S. Cottrell (eds), Sociology today: Problems and prospects (pp. 442–458).New York: Basic Books. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764–791. Jablin, F. M. (1984). Assimilating new members into organizations. In R. N. Bostrom (ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 8, pp. 594–626). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts & L. W. Porter (eds), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 679–740). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (eds), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and method (pp. 732–818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K. & Alvarez, E. B. (1993). Socialization amidst diversity: The impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 45– 109). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J. & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 999–1015. Jaskyte, K. (2005). The impact of organizational socialization tactics on role ambiguity and role conflict of newly hired social workers. Administration in Social Work, 29, 69–87. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464–474. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits– self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability– with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E. & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331. Kadushin, C. (1969). The professional self-concept of music students. American Journal of Sociology, 5, 389–404. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779–794. Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 81–127). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Katz, R. (1985). Organizational stress and early socialization experiences. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (eds), Human stress and cognition in organizations (pp. 117–139). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


63

Kerr, S. & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403. Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D. M. & Kim, S.-P. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 232–241. King, R. C. & Sethi, V. (1992). Socialization of professionals in high-technology firms. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 3, 147–168. Kitchell, A., Hannan, E. & Kempton, W. (2000). Identity through stories: Story structure and function in two environmental groups. Human Organization, 59, 96– 105. Klein, H. J., Fan, J. & Preacher, K. J. (2006). The effects of early socialization experiences on content mastery and outcomes: A mediational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 96–115. Klein, H. J. & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53, 47–66. Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski & I. B. Weiner (eds), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 171–192). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kraimer, M. L. (1997). Organizational goals and values: A socialization model. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 425–447. Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kramer, M. W. (1994). Uncertainty reduction during job transitions: An exploratory study of the communication experiences of newcomers and transferees. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 384–412. Kramer, M. W. (1996). A longitudinal study of peer communication during job transfers: The impact of frequency, quality, and network multiplexity on adjustment. Human Communication Research, 23, 59–86. Kramer, M. W. & Miller, V. D. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational socialization research: In support of contemporary conceptualizations of organizational assimilation. Communication Monographs, 66, 358–367. Kramer, M. W. & Noland, T. L. (1999). Communication during job promotions: A case of ongoing assimilation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 335– 355. Lance, C. E., Vandenberg, R. J. & Self, R. M. (2000). Latent growth models of individual change: The case of newcomer adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 107–140. Lankau, M. J. & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790. LaPreze, M. W. (2003). Supervisors’ behavior during new employees’ socialization: Scale development. Psychological Reports, 93, 379–392. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lazarova, M. & Tarique, I. (2005). Knowledge transfer upon repatriation. Journal of World Business, 40, 361–373. Lester, R. E. (1987). Organizational culture, uncertainty reduction, and the socialization of new organizational members. In S. Thomas (ed.), Culture and communication: Methodology, behavior, artifacts, and institutions (pp. 105–113). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers. Lichter, S. R., Lichter, L. S. & Amundson, D. (1997). Does Hollywood hate business or money? Journal of Communication, 47, 68–84.

64 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Lichter, S. R., Lichter, L. S. & Rothman, S. (1994). Prime time: How TV portrays American culture. Washington, DC: Regnery. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251. Louis, M. R. (1990). Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers and lay ethnographers. In B. Schneider (ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 85–129). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z. & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866. Lutfey, K. & Mortimer, J. T. (2003). Development and socialization through the adult life course. In J. Delamater (ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 183–202). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Mael, F. A. & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309– 333. Maier, G. W. & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). The role of personal work goals in newcomer’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1034–1042. Major, D. A. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Newcomer information seeking: Individual and contextual influences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 16–28. Mansfield, R. (1972). The initiation of graduates in industry: The resolution of identitystress as a determinant of job satisfaction in the early months of work. Human Relations, 25, 77–86. Manz, C. C. (1983). The art of self-leadership: Strategies for personal effectiveness in your life and work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Masumoto, T. (2004). Learning to ‘do time’ in Japan: A study of US interns in Japanese organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4, 19–37. McClelland, G. H. & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390. McPhee, R. D. & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 10(1–2), 1–17. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. Mignerey, J. T., Rubin, R. B. & Gorden, W. I. (1995). Organizational entry: An investigation of newcomer communication behavior and uncertainty. Communication Research, 22(1), 54–85. Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking behaviors during organizational entry. Communication Studies, 47, 1–24. Miller, V. D. & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120. Mitchell, T. R. & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547. Moore, S. (2005). The wages of prosperity. Wall Street Journal, p. A9. Moreland, R. L. & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner (ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173–183. Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589.


65

Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 131–155. Morrison, E. W. (2002a). Information seeking within organizations. Human Communication Research, 28, 229–242. Morrison, E. W. (2002b). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160. Morrison, E. W. & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16, 522–541. Morrison, E. W., Chen, Y.-R. & Salgado, S. R. (2004). Cultural differences in newcomer feedback seeking: A comparison of the United States and Hong Kong. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 1–22. Morrison, R. F. & Brantner, T. M. (1992). What enhances or inhibits learning a new job? A basic career issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 926–940. Mortimer, J. T. & Simmons, R. G. (1978). Adult socialization. In R. H. Turner, J. Coleman & R. C. Fox (eds), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 4, pp. 421–454). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Mowday, R. T. & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (eds), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 195–229). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Myers, K. K. (2005). A burning desire: Assimilation into a fire department. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 344–384. Myers, K. K. & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation: Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51, 438–457. Nelson, D. L. (1987). Organizational socialization: A stress perspective. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 311–324. Nelson, D. L. & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizations: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543–554. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191. Nicholson, N. (1987). The transition cycle: A conceptual framework for the analysis of change and human resources management. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 5, pp. 167–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Nicholson, N. & West, M. A. (1988). Managerial job change: Men and women in transition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Nicholson, N. & West, M. (1989). Transitions, work histories, and careers. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (eds), Handbook of career theory (pp. 181–201). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874. Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170–183. Ouellet, L. J. (1994). Pedal to the metal: The work lives of truckers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Palthe, J. (2004). The relative importance of antecedents to cross-cultural adjustment: Implications for managing a global workforce. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 37–59. Pentland, B. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24, 711–724.

66 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Pinder, C. C. & Schroeder, K. G. (1987). Time to proficiency following job transfers. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 336–353. Porath, C. L. & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192. Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493. Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W. & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 235–262. Ragins, B. R. & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287. Reio, T. G., Jr. & Callahan, J. L. (2004). Affect, curiosity, and socialization-related learning: A path analysis of antecedents to job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 3–22. Reio, T. G., Jr. & Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 5–30. Riddle, B. L., Anderson, C. M. & Martin, M. M. (2000). Small group socialization scale: Development and validity. Small Group Research, 31, 554–572. Riketta, M. & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A metaanalytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490–510. Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J. & Self, R. M. (2001). The effects of pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics on newcomer attitudes and turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 159–176. Robinson, S. L. & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525–546. Rodgers, S. & Thorson, E. (2003). A socialization perspective on male and female reporting. Journal of Communication, 53, 658–675. Rollag, K. (2004). The impact of relative tenure on newcomer socialization dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 853–872. Rosow, I. (1965). Forms and functions of adult socialization. Social Forces, 44, 35–45. Rousseau, D. M. & Arthur, M. B. (1999). The boundaryless human resource function: Building agency and community in the new economic era. Organizational Dynamics, 27(4), 7–18. Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. & Claes, R. (1996). Determinants of underemployment of young adults: A multi-country study. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 49, 424– 438. Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). Proactive socialization and behavioral selfmanagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 301–323. Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (1997a). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234–279. Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (1997b). Socialization tactics and newcomer information acquisition. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 48–61.


67

Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’ adjustment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 43–62. Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253. Salzinger, L. (1991). A maid by any other name: The transformation of ‘dirty work’ by Central American immigrants. In M. Burawoy, A. Burton, A. A. Ferguson, K. J. Fox, J. Gamson, N. Gartrell, L. Hurst, C. Kurzman, L. Salzinger, J. Schiffman & S. Ui, Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis (pp. 139–160). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Schein, E. H. (1961). Coercive persuasion. New York: W.W. Norton. Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9(2), 1–16. Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 401–426. Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organization needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Schweingruber, D. & Berns, N. (2005). Shaping the selves of young salespeople through emotion management. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 679– 706. Scott, C. & Myers, K. K. (2005). The socialization of emotion: Learning emotion management at the fire station. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 67– 92. Scott, W. R. & Meyer, J. W. (1991). The rise of training programs in firms and agencies: An institutional perspective. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 297–326). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitudinal quasiexperiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 483–502. Seymour, D. & Sandiford, P. (2005). Learning emotion rules in service organizations: Socialization and training in the UK public-house sector. Work, Employment & Society, 19, 547–564. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E. & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in military units: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 612–640. Sherman, J. D., Smith, H. L. & Mansfield, E. R. (1986). The impact of emergent network structure on organizational socialization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 53–63. Sias, P. M., Kramer, M. W. & Jenkins, E. (1997). A comparison of the communication behaviors of temporary employees and new hires. Communication Research, 24, 731– 754. Slaughter, J. E. & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A new look at the role of insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group & Organization Management, 31, 264–290. Sluss, D. M. (2006). Generalizing relational identification to and from organizational identification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta. Sluss, D. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (2005). Generalizing identification with individuals to and from identification with the organization. Paper presented at the Social Identity in Organizations conference, Amsterdam.

68 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C. & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work: Training and development. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (eds), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 249–289). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Spenner, K. I. & Otto, L. B. (1985). Work and self-concept: Selection and socialization in the early career. In A. C. Kerckhoff (ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 5, pp. 197–235). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Staw, B. M. & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534–559. Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Shaprio, D. L. (2004). The future of motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29, 379–387. Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34, 231–249. Sutton, R. I. & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718. Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M. & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 95–114. Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759– 769. Taormina, R. J. (1994). The organizational socialization inventory. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 133–145. Taormina, R. J. (1997). Organizational socialization: A multidomain, continuous process model. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 29–47. Taormina, R. J. (2004). Convergent validation of two measures of organizational socialization. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 76–94. Taormina, R. J. & Bauer, T. N. (2000). Organizational socialization in two cultures: Results from the United States and Hong Kong. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8, 262–289. Taris, T. W. & Feij, J. A. (2004). Learning and strain among newcomers: A threewave study on the effects of job demands and job control. Journal of Psychology, 138, 543–563. Taylor, M. S. & Giannantonio, C. M. (1993). Forming, adapting, and terminating the employment relationship: A review of the literature from individual, organizational, & interactionist perspectives. Journal of Management, 19, 461–515. Teboul, J. C. B. (1994). Facing and coping with uncertainty during organizational encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 190–224. Teboul, J. C. B. (1995). Determinants of new hire information-seeking during organizational encounter. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 305–325. Teboul, J. C. B. (1997). ‘Scripting’ the organization: New hire learning during organizational encounter. Communication Research Reports, 14, 33–47. Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 599–621. Thomas, H. D. C. & Anderson, N. (1998). Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts during organizational socialization: A study of recruits entering the British Army. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 745–767. Thomas, K. M., Hu, C., Gewin, A. G., Bingham, K. & Yanchus, N. (2005). The roles of protégé race, gender, and proactive socialization attempts on peer mentoring. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 540–555.


69

Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011–1017. Thornton, R. & Nardi, P. M. (1975). The dynamics of role acquisition. American Journal of Sociology, 80, 870–885. Trice, H. M. (1993). Occupational subcultures in the workplace. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vandenberg, R. J. & Self, R. M. (1993). Assessing newcomers’ changing commitments to the organization during the first six months of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557–568. Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K. & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47–71. Van Der Ryn, S. (1971). College live-in. In S. E. Wallace (ed.), Total institutions (pp. 68–86). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage (M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207–228. Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (ed.), Handbook of work, organization, and society (pp. 67–130). Chicago: Rand McNally. Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organization: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 15–45). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Van Maanen, J. (1982). Boundary crossings: Major strategies of organizational socialization and their consequences. In R. Katz (ed.), Career issues in human resource management (pp. 85–115). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Van Maanen, J. (1984). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of socialization. In J. L. Bess (ed.), College and university organization: Insights from the behavioral sciences (pp. 211–247). New York: New York University Press. Van Maanen, J. & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 287–365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B.M. Staw (ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Versloot, B. M., de Jong, J. A. & Thijssen, J. G. L. (2001). Organisational context of structured on-the-job training. International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 2–22. Walkowitz, D. J. (1978). Worker city, company town. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Wanberg, C. R. & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373–385. Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T. & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39–124). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wanous, J.P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation, and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wanous, J. P. & Colella, A. (1989). Organizational entry research: Current status and future directions. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (eds), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 7, pp. 59–120). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

70 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L. & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288–297. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E. & Malik, S. D. (1984). Organizational socialization and group development: Toward an integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9, 670–683. Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at all levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652. Weick, K. E. & Ashford, S. J. (2000). Learning in organizations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (eds), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and method (pp. 704–731). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 89–105. Weiss, H. M. (1990). Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 171–221). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Wesson, M. & Gogus, C. I. (2005). Shaking hands with a computer: An examination of two methods of organizational newcomer orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1018–1026. Wheeler, S. (1969). Socialization in correctional institutions. In D. A. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 1005–1023). Chicago: Rand McNally. Wiener, D. J. (1996). Burns, falls and crashes: Interviews with movie stunt performers. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Winfree, L. T., Jr., Kielich, L. & Clark, R. E. (1984). On becoming a prosecutor: Observations on the organizational socialization of law interns. Work and Occupations, 11, 207–226. Wong, P. T. & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask ‘why’ questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650–663. Yamazaki, Y. & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-cultural learning: A review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 362–379.

Chapter 2 THE COSTS – AND BENEFITS – OF HUMAN RESOURCES Wayne F. Cascio University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, USA In recent years there has been a growing interest in assessing the costs and benefits of human resources, at the firm level (Becker, Huselid & Ulrich, 2001; Huselid, Becker & Beatty, 2005), at the level of the HR function (Phillips & Phillips, 2005), and at the level of individual interventions (Wagner & Weigand, 2005). At the firm level, researchers strive to link human resource management (HRM) practices to important financial outcomes as well as to the broader strategy of an organization. In order for those linkages to be strong and meaningful, as Huselid et al. (2005) have noted, organizations face three significant challenges. The first is the perspective challenge, in which managers must undergo a change in how they view the workforce–from a cost to be minimized to the primary source of growth and value creation, especially in those jobs seen as pivotally important. The second challenge is the metrics challenge, in which decisions are made about the kinds of metrics that will assess and guide the workforce strategy. Relevant metrics emphasize the workforce culture, mind-set, competencies, and behaviors that demonstrate how the workforce executes strategy and impacts the bottom line. Finally, firms face an execution challenge in helping managers to use workforce data to improve the quality of decision making in their organizations. Each of these perspectives has been the subject of much discussion (e.g., Bossidy, Charan & Burck, 2002; Cascio, 2002; Weiss & Finn, 2005). My focus in this chapter is on metrics, specifically on metrics used to assess the linkages between HRM practices and important outcomes at the level of the individual and the organization. The review is organized around the following areas: research that links HRM and performance, costs and benefits of absenteeism, presenteeism, and employee turnover; worksite wellness programs; employee attitudes; and the costs

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2007, Volume 22. C 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Edited by G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford. Copyright

72 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 and benefits of selection and training programs. These topics are by no means exhaustive, but they are representative of topics at the macro- and micro-levels. I begin by considering issues associated with establishing the link between HRM and important organizational outcomes.

Linking HRM Practices to Financial, Organizational, and Behavioral Outcomes As Boxall and Purcell (2003) have noted, HRM is concerned at a broad level with choices, choices that organizations make from a wide variety of possible policies, practices, and structures for managing employees. Research that seeks to link sets or clusters of such choices to organizational outcomes has been very prominent in the past decade or so (e.g., Huselid, 1995; Kalleberg & Moody, 1994; MacDuffie, 1995). There have also been a number of critiques and methodological challenges to this body of work (e.g., Cappelli & Neumark, 2001; Gerhart, Wright, McMahan & Snell, 2000; Wall et al., 2004; Wright & Gardner, 2003). Boselie, Dietz and Boon (2005) reviewed 104 empirical research articles in this area that were published between 1994 and 2003, and assessed each study on a number of dimensions. Comments and conclusions about several of these follow.

Methodology and levels of analysis By far the most common approach was the quantitative survey method. In terms of level of analysis, 62 studies focused on the organizational level, 30 at the establishment level, 17 at the individual level, and just one at the industry level (Bailey, Berg & Sandy, 2001). Seven were explicitly multi-level studies. Of special concern is that 63 articles used single raters, of which 26 used a single HR respondent. Under these circumstances, there is no way to check for bias or differential levels of awareness of an organization’s HR practices, and it is not possible to average out errors by using multiple respondents from each organization. Gerhart, Wright and McMahan (2000) recommend that researchers use at least four raters per unit of analysis for HRM indicators, and at least three for performance indicators. Other authors suggest selecting the most appropriate respondents for each research question. Thus if the question is the overall effectiveness of the HRM system, that is, each firm’s overall approach to managing people, comprising its activities related to staffing, retention, development, adjustment, and change management (Cascio, 2006), senior managers are in the best position to address that issue. If the question is the effectiveness of individual HR practices, then the “customers” to whom those practices are directed–employees–are in the best position to comment on their effectiveness (Paul & Anantharaman, 2003).

T HE C OSTS – AND B ENEFITS – O F H UMAN R ESOURCES

73

A further concern is that there is as yet no generally accepted taxonomy of high-performance work practices. Generally these include three dimensions: relatively high skill requirements; work designed so that employees have discretion and opportunity to use their skills in collaboration with other workers; and an incentive structure that enhances motivation and commitment (Applebaum, Bailey, Berg & Kalleberg, 2000; Batt, 2002; Delery & Doty, 1996). Using an empirical approach, Boselie et al. (2005) identified 26 general categories of HR practices, and classified their 104 research articles in terms of the extent to which specific categories were used in the research they reviewed. The top four, in order, were: training and development, contingent pay and reward schemes, performance management (including appraisal), and recruitment and selection. These are consistent with the main objectives of a strategic approach to HRM (Batt, 2002), namely, to identify and recruit strong performers, provide them with the abilities and confidence to work effectively, monitor their performance toward the required performance targets, and reward them well for meeting or exceeding them. On the other hand, some popular features of strategic HRM were notably less common in empirical research, namely, good wages (high wages/salaries, fair pay), discretion over work tasks, employment security, diversity, and work-life balance (Boselie et al., 2005). The field would certainly benefit from theory development and empirical research that identifies specific practices that should be bundled together to comprise an HRM system, or that comprise primary and secondary clusters of practices in a broader HRM system.

Measurement issues An additional refinement from a theoretical perspective is to recognize that an HRM practice can be measured in three ways (Boselie et al., 2005): by its presence (a dichotomous scale that indicates yes or no); by its coverage (proportion of the workforce covered); and by its intensity (degree to which each employee is exposed to the practice). The overwhelming majority of studies reviewed relied only on measures of presence. This is expedient, but is it meaningful if researchers ignore the quality of implementation of a specific practice? A firm might offer a specific practice, such as a program to promote work-life balance, but if front-line supervisors discourage employees from taking advantage of the program (as is sometimes the case, Armour, 1999; Johnson, 1995), does the program still constitute a high-performance work practice?

Financial, organizational, and behavioral outcomes Such outcomes comprise varying definitions that researchers have used to define “performance.” Researchers have linked HR practices to financial

74 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 outcomes (e.g., profits, sales, market share); organizational outcomes (e.g., productivity, quality, measures of efficiency); and behavioral outcomes (e.g., attitudes, satisfaction with one’s job and company, commitment, intention to quit). It is true that financial outcomes are “bottom line” indicators of organizational success and sustainability, and they are certainly important to executives, investors, and capital markets, but one might question the meaningfulness of any direct relationship between HRM practices and financial outcomes. Guest (1997) referred to this problem as one of “causal distance.” That is, there are so many other variables, endogenous and exogenous, that influence financial results that any direct linkage of HRM practices to such results is not meaningful. Endogenous events include the introduction of new technology or production methods, new products, marketing or merchandising campaigns, just to name a few. Exogenous events may be wholly unrelated to the organization itself, such as acts of terrorism, changes in the price of oil, or the introduction of new laws and regulations. Both endogenous and exogenous events may affect financial results, and isolating the unique contribution of HRM practices to such results is a virtual impossibility. In light of these concerns, it makes both theoretical and methodological sense to attempt to link HRM practices to more proximal outcomes, those over which the workforce has some impact. Such outcomes might include productivity (Ichniowski & Shaw, 1999; Kato & Morishima, 2002), or product or service quality (MacDuffie, 1995). With respect to productivity, the most popular metric is sales per employee, yet it is important to remember that productivity is a measure of the output of goods and services relative to the input of labor, capital, and equipment. The more productive an organization or an industry, the better its competitive position because its unit costs are lower. If sales per employee is used as a measure of productivity, it is important to note that this is not a “pure” measure of productivity because sales levels are influenced by non-production factors such as price, marketing, and logistics (Boselie et al., 2005). A recent study found that innovative HR practices in manufacturing (e.g., production ideas drawn from non-managerial employees, job rotation, tying pay to performance) may account for as much as 89% of the growth in what economists call “multi-factor” productivity. Multi-factor productivity is a measure of how businesses enhance production by combining workers and machines using technology, production processes, and managerial practices (Mehring, 2004). Since specific measures of productivity or quality are likely to vary across industry sectors, it may only be possible to make direct comparisons among studies of HRM-firm performance results from studies that are industry specific and that use identical metrics of productivity or quality. Interestingly, Boselie et al. (2005) found that only 26 of the 104 studies they reviewed on HRM-firm performance linkages focused on employee attitudes


75

and behaviors, the very mechanisms that theoretically intervene between management or HRM practices and performance (see, for example, Rucci, Kirn & Quinn, 1998). The most popular outcome measures in this category were employee turnover and absenteeism. A final point with respect to outcome measures is similar to one I made with respect to inputs (HRM practices), namely, that many of the studies reviewed by Boselie et al. (2005) relied on the estimates of managers. Even though Wall et al. (2004) found that subjective self-reports compared favorably with objective measures in terms of reliability, it is important to note that the potential for social desirability bias, that is, presenting one’s own company results in a favorable light, is strong. Objective data, though perhaps more difficult to obtain, are preferable to subjective judgment calls from respondents (Boselie et al., 2005). Ruling out threats to valid inferences Unfortunately, most research designs and most studies of the HRM-firm performance relationship do not permit the causal arrow to point unequivocally toward HRM systems or any specific component of HRM systems as the explanation for observed results. To illustrate, consider a study by Batt (2002). The study examined the relationship between human resource management (HRM) practices, employee quit rates, and organizational performance in the service sector. Quit rates were lower in establishments that emphasized highinvolvement work systems. Such systems include selective hiring of employees, coupled with investments in initial training; a work design that provides opportunities for individual discretion and ongoing learning through collaboration with other employees; and incentives to perform well, such as ongoing investments in training, employment security, high relative pay, and performancemanagement systems that build trust. In short, Batt (2002) showed that a set of HRM practices was beneficial. Does that mean that investments in any specific practice, such as valid staffing procedures, incentives, or training per se “caused” the changes in the quit rates and sales growth? No, but Batt (2002) did not claim that they did. Rather, she concluded that the set of HR practices all contributed to the positive outcomes. It was impossible to identify the unique contribution of the set of HRM activities or any specific practice alone. In fact, Shadish, Cook and Campbell (2002) suggest numerous potential contaminants or threats to valid interpretations of findings from field research. The threats may affect: 1. Statistical conclusion validity–the validity of inferences about the correlation (covariation) between treatment (e.g., the set of HRM practices) and outcome; 2. Internal validity–the validity of inferences about whether changes in one variable cause changes in another;

76 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 3. Construct validity–the validity of inferences from the persons, settings, and cause-and-effect operations sampled within a study to the constructs these samples represent; or 4. External validity–the validity of inferences about the extent to which results can be generalized across populations, settings, and times. In fact, a wide variety of control variables or moderating-interaction effects (see Aguinis, 2004 for a discussion of this type of interaction) might explain more clearly the effects of independent variables on dependent variables. Such variables might include, for example, broad contextual characteristics, such as the type of industry or sector (manufacturing, services), or country-specific institutional frameworks; organizational characteristics, such as size, age, culture, or strategic orientation; HRM system characteristics, such as presence, coverage, and intensity (as noted earlier); and individual characteristics, such as age, gender, ethnicity, or commitment. Unfortunately, as several authors have noted (Batt, 2002; Delery, 1998; Wall & Wood, 2005; Wright & Sherman, 1999), much of the research in this area is theoretically undeveloped and has not specified the mediating employee behaviors that explain the relationship between HRM systems and firm performance. Techniques such as stepwise regression, structural-equation modeling, and hierarchical linear modeling (see Bliese, 2002; or Hofmann, 1997 for details of these procedures) can help to disentangle the many variables that might mediate this important relationship. The effects of time A variable that is often overlooked in correlational studies of the HRM-firm performance relationship is the time lag between the implementation of an HRM practice or set of practices and the realization of the full effects of the practices (Huselid & Becker, 1996; Kato & Morishima, 2002). Most studies in the literature are cross-sectional in nature, rather than longitudinal, and they do not investigate alternative time lags. In fact, different time lags can suggest different effects (Epstein, 1979, 1980; Meyer & Raich, 1983). Likewise, Pil and MacDuffie (1996) cautioned that immediately following the implementation of a change in HRM practices, performance may even drop a bit as the organization adapts. I will have more to say on this issue in the section on costing employee attitudes. As an example of the perils of correlational analysis, consider a longitudinal study by Schneider, Hanges, Smith and Salvaggio (2003). They analyzed employee attitude data from 35 companies over eight years at the organizational level of analysis relative to financial (return on assets) and market performance (earnings per share) using a variety of lagged analyses. They found consistent and significant positive relationships over various time lags between


77

employee attitudes (Satisfaction with Security, Satisfaction with Pay, and Overall Job Satisfaction, OJS) aggregated at the organizational level, and financial and market performance. Surprisingly, however, OJS and Satisfaction with Security seemed to be more strongly caused by market and financial performance than the reverse. Findings for the relationship between Satisfaction with Pay and the two performance indicators were more reciprocal. Although there is an implicit belief that employee satisfaction causes organizational performance (e.g., Denison, 1990), Schneider et al.’s (2003) data revealed some support for reciprocal relationships (for Satisfaction with Pay) and good support for the causal priority of organizational financial and market performance appearing to cause employee attitudes (OJS and Satisfaction with Security). In short, “the relationship between employee attitudes and organizational performance is complex, and it is too simplistic to assume that satisfaction attitudes lead to organizational financial and market performance–some do and some do not, and some employee attitudes apparently are the result of market performance” (Schneider et al., 2003, p. 849). Some suggestions for future research in this area Very little is known about “appropriate” time lags, and this is an area in need of much research. At the very least researchers should recognize clearly the level of analysis of their research, beware of mixing levels, and they should stay away from simplistic research designs that ignore the issue of causality between HRM practices and organizational outcomes. As we have seen, the possibility of reverse causality (financial and market outcomes, especially among resourcerich organizations) causing improved attitudes is entirely possible. In addition, researchers should draw explicit distinctions among the presence of an HRM practice, its coverage, and its intensity, recognizing that presence does not equal effectiveness. Indeed, it is likely that implementation of the same HRM practice (e.g., behaviorally based interviews) across organizations may differ in coverage (that is, it is applied to staffing some, but not all, jobs), and also in terms of effectiveness (criterion-related validity). Under these circumstances, any overall conclusions about HRM practices (such as behaviorally based interviews) are likely to be fraught with error. There is a great need to understand which variables, or sets of variables, mediate the relationship between HRM practices and financial, organizational, and behavioral outcomes. We need theoretical models that explicate these relationships, and we need empirical tests of the theoretical models. Potential payoffs are significant from enlightened understanding of these relationships, and many potential constituencies stand to benefit. As just one example, consider SYSCO Corporation, the largest food marketer and distributor in North America, which comprises roughly 150 autonomous operating

78 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 companies. Across all operating companies, SYSCO found a significant relationship (R2 = .46) among work-climate scores, employee productivity (measured as the number of employees per 100,000 cases), retention, and operating pretax earnings. The relationship is lagged about six months, such that employee satisfaction drives customer satisfaction, which drives long-term profitability and growth. The human capital metrics serve as a leading indicator to help guide management decisions (Cascio, 2005). Absenteeism, Presenteeism, and Employee Turnover From a business standpoint, absenteeism is any failure of an employee to report for or to remain at work as scheduled, regardless of reason (Cascio, 2000). The term “as scheduled” is very significant, for it automatically excludes vacations, holidays, jury duty, and the like. It also eliminates the problem of determining whether an absence is “excusable” or not. Medically verified illness is a good example. From a business perspective, the employee is absent and is simply not available to perform his or her job; that absence will cost money. How much money? In 2005 the cost of unscheduled absences in U.S. workplaces was about $660 per employee per year (Armour, 2005). For every 100 employees, that’s $66,000, and it may cost some large employers more than $1 million per year. In the United Kingdom, absences are also costly, as the following figures demonstrate (“Mind your business,” 2004; Smale, 2004).

r Across all companies, £ 11.6 billion ($20.18 billion U.S.) was paid out to staff who were absent and to other employees to cover for absent staff.

r Average cost of sickness was £ 476 per employee ($828 U.S.). r Average of 7.1 days taken in sickness per worker each year. r Figures for average days off are higher in the public sector (10.1) than the private sector (6.7).

r The total days lost due to absenteeism each year in the U.K. are 40 million. Studies have found that the average employee in the U.S. has about seven unscheduled absences per year, while the average British employee has about eight per year (“Cost of absence,” 1995; “Workplace epidemic,” 1996). Despite its cost, consider that Norwegian workers are absent, on average, almost three months of the year, compared to 4.2 weeks, on average, for Swedish workers, 1.8 weeks for Italian workers, and 1.5 weeks for Portuguese workers (Alvarez, 2004). In the U.K., the reasons given for absence are widespread, but generally fall into one of five categories (Smale, 2004). By far the most popular (cited by 93% of employees) is a cold or flu. A cold is different from the flu–the latter being more serious–but the symptoms are similar. Flu generally incapacitates the patient for three to four days; a cold is irritating but rarely incapacitates. One-day flu episodes (contracted on a Monday or a Friday) are therefore likely to be interpreted by employers rather suspiciously!


79

The other popular reasons are stomach upset and food poisoning, headaches and migraines, back problems and stress. In reality, according to U.K. healthcare consultants IHC, at least half of all workplace absence has absolutely nothing to do with health. Instead, people decide to stay away from work for a variety of personal or domestic reasons, such as responsibility for child or elder care, de-motivating jobs, low pay, bullying in the workplace, or excessive drinking the night before (Smale, 2004). In the U.S. the leading causes of absenteeism are family-related issues. Personal illness, the reason one might expect to be the main justification for calling in sick, is actually true only in about one in five cases. Other causes are personal needs (about one in five cases), stress (about one in six cases), and entitlement mentality (about one in six cases) (VanDerWall, 1998). Conceptually, there is another important issue to address, namely, that for some organizations, or business units, absenteeism may be a non-issue. Specifically, if employees can vary their work time to fit their personal schedules, if they need not “report” to a central location, and if they are accountable only in terms of results, then the concept of “absenteeism” may not have meaning. Many teleworkers fit this category. Before attempting to assess the costs of employee absenteeism, therefore, it is important to identify where, within the organization, absenteeism is a relevant concept. In general, there are three categories of absenteeism costs (Cascio, 2000). These include the costs associated with absentees themselves (e.g., lost wages and benefits, or benefits only, depending on company policy); costs associated with managing absentees (e.g., for supervisors who must deal with absenteeism, their wages and benefits for the time per day, on average, that they spend managing these problems); and all other costs incidental to absenteeism (e.g., machine downtime, overtime or costs of hiring temporary employees, reduced productivity of replacements). A tally of the costs associated with absentees themselves and of all other costs incidental to absenteeism may appear straightforward, but the third category, costs associated with managing absentees, is anything but straightforward. At a minimum, the time per day, on average, that supervisors spend managing absenteeism problems is likely to vary considerably across departments or business units, as well as times of the year. For many years, surveys by the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) in the United States have shown that employee absenteeism is generally higher in the winter months than it is in the summer months (BNA, 2005). Costs of absenteeism are therefore likely to covary with seasonal trends, yet such costs are typically reported only as averages. Methodologically it is not so simple to estimate the average amount of time per day that supervisors spend, on average, dealing with problems of absenteeism. That time is most likely not constant from day to day or from one month to the next (as noted earlier). Structured interviews with a large number of supervisors who deal regularly with managing problems of absenteeism is one approach, but diary-keeping may actually be more effective. Time sampling

80 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 for diary-keeping purposes is particularly important, as absenteeism may vary across shifts of workers (time of day) as well as by day of the week (absenteeism is typically higher on Mondays and Fridays). These are by no means the only methods available, and others might also prove useful. Careful consideration of these issues when costing employee absenteeism will yield measurably more accurate results. A related issue concerns the meaning or interpretation of absenteeism costs. Thus costs associated with absentees themselves and costs incidental to absenteeism are actually incurred. Costs associated with managing problems of absenteeism are opportunity costs. One might argue that because supervisors are drawing their salaries anyway, what difference does it make if they have to manage absenteeism problems? Why consider their salaries in the overall tally of absenteeism costs? The question may be valid, but what is the best possible return to the organization for that pay? To answer that, we need to consider the concept of an opportunity cost. To do so, I will use an example presented in Cascio (2000). Let us compare Firms A and B, identical in regard to all resources and costs–all supervisors earn the same salary, work the same hours, manage the same-size staff, and produce the same kind of product. But absenteeism in Firm A is very low, and in Firm B it is very high. Payroll records show the same pay to supervisors, but the accountants show higher profits in Firm A than in Firm B. Why? Because the supervisors in Firm A spend less time managing absenteeism problems. They are more productive because they devote their energies to planning, scheduling, and troubleshooting. Instead of working a 10-to-12-hour day (which the supervisors in Firm B consider “normal”), they finish their work after only eight hours. In short, reducing the hours that supervisors must spend managing absenteeism problems has two advantages: (1) it allows supervisors to maximize their productivity, and (2) it reduces the stress associated with repeated ten- to twelve-hour days, which, in turn, enhances the quality of the supervisors’ work lives. This example describes the idea of opportunity costs–the difference between the maximum return that could be earned (Firm A) and that which actually was earned (Firm B). Supervisors in Firm B did put in their time to earn their pay, but those in Firm A made better use of their time while on the job. Counting the wages and benefits of supervisors while they are managing problems of absenteeism is legitimate, but in all probability those costs are underestimates, because they reflect only the payroll costs of supervisors’ time, and not the productive dollar value of that time. In practice, employee absenteeism costs will vary depending on the type of firm, the industry, and the level of employee that is absent (unskilled versus skilled or professional workers). It is also important to remember that the overall cost figure for employee absenteeism (I will call it the “Time 1” figure) becomes meaningful as a baseline from which to measure the financial gains realized as a result of a strategy to reduce absenteeism. In and of themselves,


81

the “costing” algorithms are little more than academic exercises unless they lead to some attempt to control or reduce the costs associated with lost time. At some later time (I will call this “Time 2”), the total cost of absenteeism should be measured again. The difference between the Time 2 figure and the Time 1 figure, minus the cost of implementing a strategy or intervention to reduce absenteeism, represents net gain. Presenteeism Workers who come to work sick when they should stay home instead, cost their employers an average of $255 per year in reduced productivity due to “presenteeism.” Presenteeism refers to slack productivity from ailing workers (Goetzel et al., 2004). It often results from employees showing up but working at sub-par levels due to chronic ailments (Rubinstein, 2005). For example, the estimated productivity loss associated with depression is 6.4%. It is 4.9% for arthritis, and 3.2% for obesity. In the aggregate, economists estimate that presenteeism costs U.S. businesses $180 billion annually, and it may actually be a much costlier problem than its productivity-reducing counterpart, absenteeism. Unlike absenteeism, though, presenteeism isn’t always apparent. It is obvious when someone does not show up for work, but it is far less obvious when illness or a medical condition is hindering someone’s work. Researchers are just beginning to address this issue and to estimate its economic effects. Research on presenteeism focuses on such chronic or episodic ailments as seasonal allergies, asthma, migraines, back pain, arthritis, gastrointestinal disorders, and depression (Hemp, 2004). Progressive diseases, like heart disease and cancer, tend to occur later and life and tend to generate the majority of direct health-related costs for companies. In contrast, the illnesses people take with them to work account for far lower direct costs, but they imply a greater loss in productivity because they are so prevalent, so often go untreated, and typically occur during peak working years. Those indirect costs have largely been invisible to employers (Hemp, 2004). To be sure, methodological problems plague current research in this area. For example, how does one quantify the productivity loss associated with chronic ailments? Some researchers have used detailed questionnaires that include self reports of perceived productivity loss. Others ask respondents how much productive work time they think they have lost because of various medical problems. Different research methods have yielded quite different estimates of the on-the-job productivity loss–from less than 20% of a company’s total healthrelated costs to more than 60% (Goetzel et al., 2004). Without a standard tool or research method, construct-oriented evidence of validity of the dependent variable (“productivity loss”) is lacking. There is a need for focused research on this problem. Beyond that, how does one quantify the relative effects of individual ailments on productivity for workers who suffer from more than one problem?

82 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 The effects of such interactions have not been addressed. Nor has the effect on team performance been studied in cases when one member has a chronic health condition that precludes him or her from contributing fully to the team’s task. A key question from a research-methods perspective is the link between self-reported presenteeism and actual productivity loss. If that link cannot be established, then it will be virtually impossible to convince skeptics that the phenomenon is real and that it deserves management’s attention. Some of the strongest evidence of such a link, according to Hemp (2004), comes from several studies involving credit card call-center employees at Bank One (now part of JP Morgan Chase). There are a number of objective measures of a service representative’s productivity, including the amount of time spent on each call, the amount of time between calls (when the employee is doing paperwork), and the amount of time the person is logged off the system. One such study focused on employees with known illnesses (identified from earlier disability claims) and lower productivity scores. It involved 630 service representatives at a Bank One call center in Illinois. Allergy-related presenteeism was measured with such objective data as the amount of time workers spent on each call. During the peak ragweed pollen season, the allergy sufferers’ productivity fell 7% below that of co-workers without allergies. Outside of allergy season, the productivity of the two groups was approximately equal. The implications of research findings on the costs and benefits of treating presenteeism are potentially far reaching. Researchers see the potential to improve productivity by educating workers about appropriate medications and getting them to take the drugs that their doctors prescribe or recommend. The Bank One study found that nearly one quarter of allergy sufferers did not take any kind of allergy medication. It also concluded that covering the cost of non-sedating antihistamines for allergy sufferers (roughly $18 a week for prescription medications, less for generics) was more than offset by the resulting gains in productivity (roughly $36 a week, based on call-center employees’ wages and benefits, which averaged $520 a week) (Hemp, 2004). These results raise a tantalizing question, namely, might a company’s pharmacy costs actually be an investment in workforce productivity? Certainly companies should monitor and control corporate health-care expenditures. It is possible, however, that by increasing company payments for medications to treat chronic diseases, that the companies might actually realize a net gain in workforce productivity and eliminate the opportunity costs of failing to address the presenteeism issue directly. One obvious example of this is the flu shot. Numerous studies have shown that the cost of offering free shots is far outweighed by the savings realized through reductions in both absenteeism and presenteeism (Hemp, 2004). On the other hand, the incidence of presenteeism is not all that surprising, at least in the U.S., since about half the American workforce gets no paid sick days whatsoever (Armour, 2005).


83

Employee turnover Consider that from January, 2004 to January, 2005 18% of American workers voluntarily quit their jobs. That figure varies widely by industry, though, with relatively low rates in manufacturing and transportation (roughly 15%), and relatively high rates in leisure and hospitality, retail and construction industries (ranging from about 25–45%) (Dooney & Smith, 2005). To appreciate what that means for an individual firm, consider that at the end of 2005 WalMart employed 1,800,000 people (Fortune 500, 2006). Its annual employee turnover rate is 44%–close to the retail industry average (Frontline, 2005). Each year, therefore, Wal-Mart must recruit, hire, and train more than 790,000 new employees just to replace those who left. Turnover occurs whenever employees permanently leave an organization. Conceptually annual employee turnover is computed by adding up the monthly turnover for a 12-month period. Monthly turnover is calculated as the number of employee separations during the month divided by the average number of active employees during the same month. More generally, the rate of turnover in percent over any period can be calculated by the following formula: Number of turnover incidents per period × 100% Average work force size In the U.S., for example, monthly turnover rates averaged about 1%, or 12% in 2004 (BNA, 2004). Many analysts and companies refine this overall measure of turnover, by classifying turnover as controllable or voluntary (an employee leaves of his or her own choice) or uncontrollable or involuntary (e.g., retirement, death, dismissal, layoff). Some employers cross-tabulate turnover by length of service, comparing employees who left prior to one year with those whose length of service is greater than one year. Higher rates for shortterm employees may be diagnostic, suggesting, for example, that recruiters are conveying unrealistic expectations (Hom, Griffith, Palich & Bracker, 1998), or that hiring procedures are not addressing underlying knowledge, skills, abilities, or other characteristics that are necessary for successful job performance. Another way to characterize employee turnover is as functional, where the employee’s departure produces a benefit for the organization, or dysfunctional, where the departing employee is someone the organization would like to retain. High performers who are difficult to replace represent dysfunctional turnovers; low performers who are easy to replace represent functional turnovers. The crucial issue in analyzing turnover, therefore, is not how many employees leave but rather the performance and replaceability of those who leave versus those who stay (Martin & Bartol, 1985). It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of measuring turnover costs is to improve management decision making. Once turnover figures are known, managers have a sound basis for choosing between current turnover costs and instituting some type of turnover-reduction strategy. Particular strategies,

84 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 however, are beyond the scope of this chapter (see Deutsch, 2005; Steel, Griffith & Hom, 2002 or Griffith, Hom & Gaertner, 2000 for more on this). In costing employee turnover, it is important that researchers first determine the total cost of all turnover and then estimate the percentage of that amount that represents controllable, dysfunctional turnover–resignations that represent a net loss to the firm and that the firm could have prevented. Thus, if total turnover costs $1 million and 50% is controllable and dysfunctional, $500,000 is our Time 1 baseline measure. To determine the net financial gain associated with the strategy adopted prior to Time 2, compare the total gain at Time 2, say $700,000, minus the cost of implementing the strategy to reduce turnover, say $50,000, with the cost of turnover at Time 1 ($500,000). In this example, the net gain to the firm is $150,000. In developing the fully loaded cost of employee turnover, there are many tangible costs and some intangible ones (such a low morale among those who stay). It is important to focus on tangible costs to the greatest extent possible, recognizing that the final figures are likely to be conservative. The cost of turnover is generally described in terms of four primary categories: separation costs, replacement costs, training costs, and lost productivity or business costs. Separation costs typically include the time and expense required to exit a person from an organization. These include the costs of exit interviews, separation pay, administrative functions (e.g., removal from payroll, equipment turn-in, possible security debriefing) and unemployment tax related to the departure. (The latter may not be relevant in institutional frameworks outside the U.S.) Replacement costs generally include sourcing, interviewing, testing, relocating, and other hiring expenses associated with finding new employees to replace those who leave. Training costs include orientation and on-boarding costs, instruction in a formal training program, and on-the-job training. Finally, lost business and lost productivity costs comprise the fourth category. In many cases, firms do not include this subset of costs because formal workmeasurement programs are not often found in employment situations. Thus it is not possible to calculate accurately the dollar value of the loss in productivity during the learning period. If such a program does exist, however, then it is certainly appropriate to include this cost. At high levels in organizations, and in other jobs where relationships with customers, leads, and contacts are critically important, the economic cost of business lost, that is, “opportunities foregone,” may be substantial. On top of that, there may also be “ripple effects” associated with an employee’s departure, such that other employees follow him or her out the door. Situations like these are especially prevalent when employee “stars” or “A-level” players depart and convince others to follow them. This phenomenon has been dubbed the “Pied Piper Effect,” and it can be especially costly, not to mention the huge gaps in staffing that it creates. It tends to occur when tightly knit groups or networks of employees (coworkers, former colleagues, classmates, or friends)


85

decide to leave en masse (Wysocki, 2000). This is an area that deserves much more research attention, especially since anecdotal evidence suggests that it is growing in frequency. How much does employee turnover actually cost? Merck & Company, the pharmaceutical giant, found that, depending on the job, turnover costs were 1.5 to 2.5 times the annual salary paid (Solomon, 1988). Deloitte & Touche reported that it costs double an auditor’s annual salary to replace him or her (Byrnes, 2005). SYSCO, the North American food marketing and distribution company, reported that it costs $50,000 to replace a marketing associate who leaves (Cascio, 2005). Since SYSCO employs 10,000 marketing associates, the potential cost savings from reduced turnover are obvious. Of course it is incumbent upon researchers not to accept such figures or “rules of thumb” at face value. It is important to look behind the numbers to understand exactly which cost elements were included or omitted in the calculation. Costs and Benefits of Worksite Wellness Programs Almost two decades ago, a four-year study of 15,000 Ceridian Corporation employees showed dramatic relationships between employees’ health habits and insurance-claim costs. For example, people whose weekly exercise was equivalent to climbing fewer than five flights of stairs or walking less than half a mile spent 114% more on health claims than those who climbed at least 15 flights of stairs or walked 1.5 miles weekly. Health-care costs for obese people were 11% higher than those for thin ones. And workers who routinely failed to use seat belts spent 54% more days in the hospital than those who usually buckled up. Finally, people who smoked an average of one or more packs of cigarettes a day had 118% higher medical expenses than nonsmokers (Jose, Anderson & Haight, 1987). Although these facts have been well known, organizations in the U.S. did not begin to address the issue of health-care cost containment seriously until a substantial increase in health care costs forced them to look for savings. How large a run-up? From 2000 through 2005, U.S. employers hiked workers’ annual contributions for family health coverage by 68%, from an average of $1,600 to $2,700 (“Health Hazards,” 2005). At the end of 2004, the total health care cost per employee, including premium and expected out-of-pocket costs, averaged almost $8,500, of which employers paid an average of 71% (“Study Shows,” 2004). Keep in mind, however, that rising medical costs translate into lower wages. Either employers make their employees pay a larger share of higher health-care costs, lowering take-home pay, or they offset the increased costs by holding down wages. At the level of the individual firm, health care in 2004 for General Motors’ 1.1 million employees, retirees, and their dependents added $1,525 to the cost of every car and truck GM produced in North America. GM now buys more

86 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 from its largest health care insurer, Michigan Blue Cross, than it does from any steel or rubber producer. Health care cost GM $5.6 billion in 2005, but profits from its North American operations were just $500 million. Of those 1.1 million beneficiaries, GM found that 26% were obese under federal guidelines (a body weight that exceeds standard height and weight by 20% or more). “Morbid” obesity refers to a body weight more than 100% above the norm or more than 100 pounds over the optimal weight (Janus, 2002). GM reports that obese employees cost the company between $1,000 and $3,000 more in health services, on average, than beneficiaries who are not obese. That suggests that obesity is costing GM at least $286 million per year (Hawkins, 2005). At the level of the individual employee, a longitudinal study of the impact of obesity on worker health and productivity found that obesity was equivalent to adding 20 years of age. Workers in their mid-20s and 30s had work limitations and cardiovascular-risk factors similar to those of normal-weight workers in their 40s and 50s (Hertz, Unger, McDonald, Lustik & Biddulph-Krentar, 2004). In response, GM is requiring employees and retirees to pay more for their own healthcare (Colvin, 2005), but it is also trying to improve employees’ health, such as by installing gymnasiums at manufacturing plants. This is a positive step, as the World Health Organization (2003) reported that workplace physical activity programs in the U.S. can reduce the use of short-term sick leave by 6 to 32%, reduce health care costs by 20–55%, and increase productivity by 2 to 52%. On the other hand, many GM plants still allow workers to smoke on the assembly line, and many plants have cigarette machines on the premises (Hawkins, 2005). In response to the strong business case posed by skyrocketing health-care costs, employers have been using a variety of strategies to reduce those costs. A brief sample of such strategies follows:

r Imposing surcharges on working spouses who can receive comparable health care coverage through their own employers.

r Refusing to cover working spouses who can receive comparable health care coverage through their own employers.

r Charging more to cover large families than small ones (Fuhrmans, 2003). r Using disease managers who check in regularly by phone with patients who have chronic conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and heart disease (Ruffenach, 2004; Styres, 2004). r Discouraging unhealthy people from applying for jobs that have physical abilities requirements (Zimmerman, Matthews & Hudson, 2005). r Not hiring smokers in the 20 states of the U.S. where it is legal to do so. r Charging smokers $20 to $50 more a month for health-care coverage (a policy implemented by Gannett, PepsiCo, Northwest Airlines, General Mills and American Financial Group) (Cornwell, 2006; Terlep, 2005).


87

r Offering bonuses for not smoking, offering free smoking-cessation products, and firing smokers who refuse to quit in the 20 states of the U.S. where it is legal to adopt such policies (as, for example, at Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. and Weyco, Inc.) (Brat, 2005). r Offering financial rewards for exercising, dieting, or submitting to health-risk assessments (Williams, 2005). According to the American Legacy Foundation (www.americanlegacy.org), if all U.S. workplaces were tobacco-free, within one year there would be an estimated 1.3 million ex-smokers, 1,500 fewer heart attacks, 350 fewer strokes, and 600 fewer deaths from heart attacks and strokes each year. It also would reduce medical costs by $60 million. In an effort to reduce health care expenditures, many companies have instituted worksite wellness programs for their employees. Such programs typically include at least two elements (Epstein, 1989; Terborg, 1998): 1. Periodic or continual delivery of educational or behavior-change materials and activities that are designed to maintain/improve employee fitness, health, and well-being; and 2. Changes in organizational practices and policies that are conducive to health promotion. Most such interventions focus on educational and skill-building materials and activities. Fewer target organizational practices and policies. Still fewer emphasize both educational/skill-building activities and organizational policies. On top of that, worksite wellness programs vary along a number of dimensions, including facilities, budget, eligibility, scope, employee involvement, and target outcomes (Terborg, 1998). Methodological issues in evaluating worksite-wellness programs Companies that market their worksite-wellness programs provide statistics to support their claims of savings in health-care costs, but calculating how much any given employer can expect to save is difficult because program sponsors use different methods to measure and report cost-benefit data. When a program’s effects are measured, and for how long they are measured are crucial considerations (Cascio, 2000). For example, DuPont found that the greatest drop in absenteeism due to illness occurred in the first two or three years; then it leveled off. Other effects, which might not appear for three years or longer, are so-called lagged effects. The greatest savings should accrue over time because of the chronic nature of many illnesses that wellness programs seek to prevent. However, employers should actually expect to see an increase in health-care claims after initial health assessments are done, as employees remedy newly identified problems (Fletcher, 1987).

88 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 A major problem is that many companies use no control groups when evaluating their programs. Without a control group of nonparticipating employees, there is no way to tell how much of the improved health is due to the wellness program and how much is due to popular trends (e.g., the general fitness craze), changes in state or local health policies and regulations, and changes in medical insurance (Aberth, 1986; Terborg, 1998). Other potential methodological problems include biases due to self-selection and exclusion from evaluation of employees who drop out of a program. The resulting evaluations have little internal or external validity because they report results only for employees who voluntarily participate in and complete the program (Fielding, 1996). Unit-of-analysis problems can make matters even worse. Thus if data are evaluated across worksites at the level of the individual employee, the effect of a worksite-wellness program tends to be overstated because the design ignores within-worksite variation. In practice, substantial differences have been found across different worksites receiving the same intervention (Glasgow et al., 1995; Jeffery et al., 1993). Conversely, if the unit of analysis is the plant or worksite, then a very large number of sites per intervention will be necessary to achieve adequate statistical power to detect effects, if they exist. Most of the studies reviewed below have overcome these methodological difficulties. As a result, their results are more interpretable. Return on investment (ROI) analyses of worksite-wellness programs The ROI for such programs has been reported anywhere from $1.81 (Unum Life) to $6.15 (Coors). Peer-reviewed evaluations and meta-analyses show that ROI is achieved through improved worker health, reduced benefit expense, and enhanced productivity (Zank & Friedsam, 2005). Aldana (2001) reviewed 72 articles and concluded that health-promotion programs achieve an average ROI of $3.48 when considering health care costs alone, $5.82 per $1 when considering absenteeism, and $4.30 when both ROI and absenteeism are considered. In a separate study, Ozminkowski et al. (1999) conducted a 38-month case study of 23,000 participants in Citibank N. A.’s health-management program. They reported that within a two-year period Citibank enjoyed an ROI of between $4.56 and $4.73. A follow-up study (Ozminkowski et al., 2000) found improvements in the risk profiles of participants, with the high-risk group improving more than the “usual-care” group as a result of more intensive programs. Worksite health-promotion programs attempt to reduce the health risks of employees at high risk, while maintaining the health status of those at low risk. Using an 18-year data set comprised of 2 million current and former employees, University of Michigan researchers found stable trends in health care costs (Edington, 2001). That is, the mean cost increase per risk factor added ($350) was found to be more than double the mean cost decrease per risk factor eliminated ($150). In other words, increases in costs when groups


89

of employees moved from low-risk to high-risk were much greater than the decreases in cost when groups moved from high-risk to low-risk. Conclusion: programs designed to keep healthy people healthy will likely provide the greatest return on investment. On the other hand, a meta-analysis by Pelletier (2001) suggested that individualized risk reduction for high-risk employees within the context of a comprehensive health-promotion program is the critical element in achieving positive cost outcomes in worksite interventions. This takes time, and studies show that a positive impact on medical costs generally requires 3–5 years of program participation (Edington, Karjalainen, Hirschland & Edington, 2002; Pelletier, 2001). Future studies will need to address the best ways to combine comprehensive and focused interventions, the intensity of elements, and how to calibrate the dose-response model to achieve a target ROI (Zank & Friedsam, 2005). Costing Employee Attitudes Management is interested in employees’ attitudes, such as job satisfaction and commitment, principally because of the relationship between attitudes and behavior. Other things being equal, it is reasonable to assume that employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs and who are not committed strongly to their employers will tend to be absent or late for work, to quit more often, and to place less emphasis on customer satisfaction than those whose attitudes are positive. Poor job attitudes therefore lead to lowered productivity and organizational performance. Evidence indicates that this is, in fact, the case, and that management’s concern is well placed (Cohen, 1993; Ostroff, 1992; Ryan, Schmit & Johnson, 1996). Ever since the late 1950s, scholars such as Argyris (1957), Likert (1961), and McGregor (1960) hypothesized that the ways that employees experience their work worlds would be reflected in organizational effectiveness. Schneider et al. (2003) lamented that these hypotheses were typically studied by researchers who took an explicitly micro-orientation. Thus they translated these hypotheses into studies of individual attitudes and individual performance without exploring the organizational consequences of those individual attitudes. A key issue in any attempt to relate employee attitudes to organizational or financial outcomes, therefore, is the level of analysis in question. Studies that have examined the relationship between employee attitudes and customer satisfaction, or employee attitudes and turnover, using cross-lagged correlational analyses have tended to be inconclusive regarding the direction of causality (Ryan et al., 1996; Schneider, White & Paul, 1998). Nevertheless, they provide tantalizing evidence that aggregated employee attitudes may well be related to performance at the organizational or business-unit level, despite the fact that they are, at best, only weakly correlated to performance at the

90 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 individual-level of analysis. For more on levels of analysis, and the use of aggregated individual-level data in particular, see the excellent volume by Klein and Kozlowski (2000). From a costing perspective, the important questions are: what is the financial impact of the behavioral outcomes associated with job attitudes, and can we measure the costs associated with different levels of those attitudes? For example, an in-depth study by The Gallup Organization identified 12 worker beliefs (measures of employee satisfaction-engagement) that play the biggest role in triggering a profitable, productive workplace (Micco, 1998). This multiyear study was based on an analysis of data from more than 100,000 employees in 12 industries. A subsequent meta-analysis by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) included data from almost 8,000 business units in 36 companies. The results showed a consistent, reliable relationship between the 12 beliefs and outcomes such as profits, productivity, employee retention, and customer loyalty. For example, work groups that demonstrated these positive attitudes were 50% more likely to achieve customer loyalty and 44% more likely to produce above-average profitability. At the level of the business unit, those in the top quartile on employee engagement had, on average, from $80,000 to $120,000 (U.S.) higher monthly revenues or sales than those in the bottom quartile. Even an $80,000 difference per month per business unit translates into $960,000 per year per business unit. Harter et al. (2002) concluded that the causal order runs from employee attitudes to organizational performance, although they recognized that reciprocal relationships might also be expected. In a later study, Schneider et al. (2003) were able to explore questions involving causal ordering and time lags on the basis of their analysis of employee attitude data from 35 companies over an eight-year period, aggregated at the organizational-level of analysis. Because the researchers had longitudinal data on employee attitudes as well as longitudinal data on organizational financial and market performance, they could develop and examine relationships among both of these sets of variables. Their analyses revealed statistically significant and stable relationships across various time lags for three of seven attitude scales. Overall Job Satisfaction and Satisfaction With Security were predicted by Return on Assets (ROA) and Earnings per Share (EPS) more strongly than the reverse, although some of the reverse relationships were also significant. Satisfaction With Pay exhibited a more reciprocal relationship with ROA and EPS. Based on these results, it is clear that relationships among employee attitudinal variables and organizational performance are complex, and they may be multi-directional or reciprocal in nature. Researchers can, therefore, be misled if they simply assume, on the basis of cross-sectional data, that employee attitudes predict organizational financial or market performance, but not vice versa, and if they do not allow for the possibility of reciprocal relationships. To avoid this trap, researchers must collect employee attitude data as well as


91

organizational performance data longitudinally, at multiple points in time. Doing so allows researchers to test forward as well as backward lags, and to draw meaningful inferences about causal priorities. Assuming that such predictive relationships are identified, the next step will be to test long-linked, mediated models that might explain the observed relationships. For example, Schneider et al. (2003) proposed that financially and market-successful organizations (a) provide superior benefits to employees, yielding improved levels of Satisfaction with Security; (b) become more attractive organizations to work for, yielding improved levels of Overall Job Satisfaction (along with increased relative numbers of applicants and decreased relative numbers of attritions); and (c) pay their employees more, yielding increased levels of Satisfaction With Pay. Since the relationship of Satisfaction With Pay to ROA and EPS is reciprocal in nature, Schneider et al. (2003) proposed that such a linkage is likely mediated by (a) the Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) stimulated by Satisfaction With Pay, and (b) the production efficiencies those OCBs engender. Empirical research is needed to test such long-linked, mediated models. As Wall and Wood (2005) have noted, this is “big science” that requires large-scale, long-term research at a level of magnitude that may well require partnerships or consortia among research, practitioner, and government communities. On the other hand, progress so far justifies such investment. A related issue is that of time lags. There is no consensus in the literature about what the most appropriate time lag might be for collecting relevant information either on the same variable (test-retest reliability) or when attempting to assess the relationship between relevant variables (e.g., aggregated employee attitudes and organizational performance). At the very least, such relationships must be relatively stable. As Schneider et al. (2003) noted, stability is important because if a variable is not stable over time, it cannot be predicted reliably by another variable. Hence, if lagged analyses are the major focus of interest, the stability of those lags is important. In their search for stable relationships, investigators have used a variety of time lags. Thus in studying the performance of individual salespeople in a retail store, Meyer and Raich (1983) found considerable variation in the monthto-month sales performance of each individual, but sales performance over 6-month periods was more stable. In fact, the average correlation between consecutive sales periods of 6 months each was about .80. In another study, Mirvis and Lawler (1977) examined the stability of outcome measures in a bank, specifically, employee absenteeism and tellerbalancing shortages over a three-month period. The absenteeism measure reflected some stability across months 1, 2, and 3 (r 12 = 0.61, r 23 = 0.71, r 13 = 0.52). However, no one who was absent the first month was absent the next two months. In contrast, the number of teller-balancing shortages was more stable (r 12 = 0.82, r 23 = 0.71, r 13 = 0.59). Both Meyer and Raich (1983) and Mirvis and Lawler (1977) focused on the individual level of analysis.

92 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 In contrast, Schneider et al. (2003) examined one year, two-year, three-year, and four-year lags in their study of aggregated employee attitudes and organizational outcomes. They found remarkable stability in employee attitudinal data at the organizational level of analysis. The one-year lags ranged from a low of .66 (Satisfaction With Work Group) to a high of .89 (Satisfaction With Security). Even the four-year lags revealed substantial stability, ranging from a low of .40 (Satisfaction With Work Facilitation), to a high of .78 (Satisfaction With Empowerment). With respect to financial indicators, return on investment (ROI), return on equity (ROE), return on assets (ROA), and earnings per share (EPS) were significantly correlated across time. Median correlations were .57 (ROI-ROE), .73 (ROE-ROA), .94 (ROI-ROA), .38 (ROI-EPS), .48 (ROE-EPS), and .33 (ROA-EPS). However, they were differentially stable over time, with ROI being the least stable (median one-year lag r = .47) and ROA being the most stable (median one-year lag r = .74). Based on these results, Schneider et al. (2003) used ROA as the best indicator of organizational financial performance. They also used EPS as an indicator of market performance, although it was not as stable as ROA (median one-year lag r = .49). Based on the results of these studies, the safest course of action is probably to collect time-series data on attitudes and organizational outcomes (behavioral or financial) at multiple time periods, and then to choose the interval that yields the most stable and representative relationships. One final issue deserves clarification, namely, the apparent inconsistency of research findings on high-performance work practices and organizational performance, and of research findings on employee attitudes and organizational performance. The former set of findings presumes that high-performance work practices have a direct effect on employee attitudes, that, in turn, yields improved individual and organizational performance (Wright & Gardner, 2003). The latter set of findings suggests a direct relationship between organizational performance and employee attitudes (Schneider et al., 2003). The different sets of findings and conclusions can be reconciled if we consider the mode of data collection and the response set of respondents in the different studies (Schneider et al., 2003). Information about high-performance work practices usually comes from a single, high-level informant (e.g., Huselid, 1995; Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1998), usually a human resource manager, who is asked to describe the human resource practices in his or her organization. In contrast, information on employee attitudes generally is collected by means of a survey of a sample (or the entire population) of employees, who are asked to evaluate their experiences in dealing with the organization and its human resource practices, typically by means of a Likert-type response scale that ranges from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Both the mode of data collection (single- versus multiple respondents, yes-no format versus Likert-type format) and the response set of the respondents (descriptive versus evaluative) differ in the two types of studies, and it is likely that they relate to organizational


93

performance in different ways. There is almost no empirical evidence in the literature on the convergence or divergence of results obtained in these very different ways, but such evidence is sorely needed. It is a fruitful area for future research.

Costs and Benefits of Employee Training Programs Cascio and Aguinis (2005) provided a thorough review of evaluation issues in training and development. For purposes of the present paper, I consider only evaluation of training and development in financial terms, although it is important to recognize that both qualitative and quantitative criteria are important for a thorough understanding of training effects. In fact, Goldstein (1978), Goldstein and Ford (2002), and Jick (1979) described studies where data would have been misinterpreted if the researchers had been unaware of the events that took place during training. One might reasonably ask, why not hold all training programs accountable strictly in economic terms? In practice, this is a rather narrow view of the problem, for economic indexes derived from the performance of operating units often are subject to bias (e.g., turnover, market fluctuations). Measures such as unit costs are not always under the exclusive control of the manager, and the biasing influences that are present are not always obvious enough to be compensated for. This is not to imply that measures of results or financial impact should not be used to demonstrate a training program’s worth; on the contrary, every effort should be made to do so. However, those responsible for assessing training outcomes should be well aware of the difficulties and limitations of measures of results or financial impact. They also must consider the utility of informationgathering efforts (i.e., if the costs of trying to decide whether the program was beneficial outweigh any possible benefits, then why make the effort?). On the other hand, given the high payoff of effective management performance, the likelihood of such an occurrence is rather small. Thorough evaluation efforts consider measures of training content and design, measures of changes in learners, and organizational payoffs. Why? Because together they address each of the purposes of evaluation: to provide feedback to trainers and learners, to provide data on which to base decisions about programs, and to provide data to market them (Kraiger, 2003). To place in perspective the evaluation of training outcomes in financial terms, it is helpful to consider the taxonomy of levels of rigor of training evaluation proposed by Kirkpatrick (1994 and earlier). The four levels are: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. However, it is important to note that these levels provide only a vocabulary and a rough taxonomy for criteria. Higher levels do not necessarily provide more information than lower levels do, and the levels need not be causally linked or positively intercorrelated (Alliger & Janak, 1989). These

94 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 are not the only concerns with this framework (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver & Shortland, 1997; Holton, 1996; Kraiger, 2002). To overcome these deficiencies, Kraiger (2002) proposed an alternative measurement model. It distinguishes clearly evaluation targets (training content and design, changes in learners, and organizational payoffs) from datacollection methods (e.g., with respect to organizational payoffs, cost-benefit analyses, ratings, and surveys). Targets and methods are linked through the options available for measurement, that is, its focus (e.g., with respect to changes in learners, the focus might be cognitive, affective, or behavioral changes). Finally, targets, focus, and methods are linked to evaluation purpose–feedback (to trainers or learners), decision making, and marketing. Kraiger (2002) also provided sample indicators for each of the three targets in the model. For example, with respect to organizational payoffs, the focus might be on transfer of training (e.g., transfer climate, opportunity to perform, on-the-job behavior change), on results (performance effectiveness or tangible outcomes to a work-group or organization), or on the financial impact of the training (e.g., through measures of return-on-investment or utility analysis). This model, or at least various facets of it, merits much more empirical attention from researchers than it has received to date. Return on investment (ROI) analysis Phillips and Phillips (2005) proposed a fifth level of Kirkpatrick’s (1994) wellknown framework, namely, ROI evaluation. ROI compares the net monetary benefits of a program (that is, program benefits minus program costs) to its costs. To express the return as a percentage, this ratio is multiplied by 100. Thus suppose that a program designed to reduce employee absenteeism produced benefits of $581,000 at a cost of $229,000. The net benefits are $352,000. Net benefits divided by program costs ($229,000) times 100 = 154%. For every $1 invested in training, therefore, the organization received $1.54 in benefits after accounting for costs. While the costs of a training program are readily computed, the benefits attributed to the program per se are not, especially when the program is devoted to topics involving supervision, administration, conflict management, or mentoring. The classical approach to isolating the effects of training is to use an experimental or quasi-experimental design (Shadish et al., 2002). Time series and trend analyses may also prove useful. The latter uses a single group of individuals, and requires that criterion data be collected at several points in time, both before and after training. Criterion measures obtained before the introduction of the training experience then are compared to those obtained after training. A curve relating criterion scores to time periods may be plotted, and in order for an effect to be demonstrated, there should be a discontinuity or change in the series of measures, corresponding to the training program, that does not occur at any other point. This discontinuity may represent an


95

abrupt change either in slope or in intercept of the curve. Of course the more observations pre- and post-training, the better, for more observations decrease uncertainty about whether training per se caused the outcome(s) of interest (Shadish et al., 2002). The next step is to convert outcome data to monetary benefits. To do this it is necessary to focus on a unit of improvement (e.g., reduced employee grievances); to determine a value for each unit (that is, the direct cost of one grievance, on average); to calculate the change in performance data (that is, the performance improvement for an individual or team that is directly attributable to the training program); to determine an annual (or other time period) amount for the change; and to calculate the total value of the improvement (by multiplying the annual performance change by the unit value) (Phillips & Phillips, 2005). In practice, a stream of benefits often accrues over multiple time periods. The treatment of ROI by Phillips and Phillips (2005) focuses on single-period estimates of payback, however, and it largely avoids treatment of discounting and net present value, which are necessary to account for the value of benefits received in future time periods (Boudreau, 1983a). Other applications have used ROI to evaluate specific training interventions, like Myers-Briggs Type training (Wagner & Weigand, 2005). Perhaps one reason why investigators do not use discounting and net present value is that they assume that all benefits will accrue over a single time period (e.g., one year), and there is almost no empirical evidence in the behavioral science literature regarding the length of treatment effects for various types of training or the rate of decay of training effects (Cascio, 1989). This is another area that would benefit from systematic research. Finally, much evaluation research that uses ROI considers only a single cohort; but if training is effective, managers want to apply it to multiple cohorts. Payoffs over subsequent time periods also must consider the effects of attrition of trained employees (Boudreau, 1983b). Even after taking all of these considerations into account, the monetary payoff from training and development efforts still may be substantial and well worth demonstrating. Utility analysis of training and development programs Such measurement is not easy, but the technology to do it is available and well developed. In terms of utility analysis, the formula for assessing the outcomes of training in dollar terms (Schmidt, Hunter & Pearlman, 1982) builds directly on the general utility formula for assessing the payoff from selection programs. The only difference is the substitution of dt , the true difference in job performance between the average trained and untrained worker in standard z-score units for the validity coefficient. When several studies are available, or when dt must be estimated for a proposed HRD program, dt is best estimated by the cumulated results of all

96 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 available studies, using the methods of meta-analysis. Such studies are available in the literature (Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003; Burke & Day, 1986; Guzzo, Jette & Katzell, 1985; Morrow, Jarrett & Rupinski, 1997). As they accumulate, managers and researchers will be able to rely on cumulative knowledge of the expected effect sizes associated with proposed training and development programs. Such a “menu” of effect sizes will allow researchers to compute the expected utilities of proposed training programs before the decision is made to allocate resources to them. Using the utility formula described earlier, Morrow et al. (1997) conducted a four-year investigation of the effect and utility of 18 managerial and sales/technical training programs at a large, U.S.-based multinational firm. The study is noteworthy, for it adopted a strategic focus by comparing the payoffs from different types of training in order to assist decision makers in allocating training budgets and specifying the types of employees to be trained. Over all 18 programs, assuming a normal distribution of performance on the job, the average improvement was about 17% (.54 of a standard deviation, or SD). However, for technical/sales training it was higher (.64 SD), and for managerial training it was lower (.31 SD). Thus training in general was effective. The mean return on investment (ROI) was 45% for the managerial training programs, and 418% for the sales/technical training programs. However, one inexpensive time-management program developed in-house had an ROI of nearly 2,000%. When the economic utility of that program was removed, the overall average ROI of the remaining training programs was 84%, and the ROI of sales/technical training was 156%. One final point relevant to utility analysis of training programs bears emphasis. As Morrow et al. (1997) noted, the economic utility of training programs may differ not because of a differential effectiveness of the programs per se, but because the criterion measures may differ in breadth. In other words, the amount of change observed in an employee’s performance after she attends a training program will depend on the percentage of job tasks measured by the evaluation criteria. A measure including only a subset of the tasks learned during training will underestimate the value of the training program. Morrow et al. (1997) demonstrated how to take this factor into account, and future comparative research should incorporate such considerations. Influencing managerial decisions Mattson (2003) investigated experimentally the extent to which 233 middle managers were willing to implement a development program as a function of (1) how evaluation information was presented, and (2) the reported impact of the development program. Results indicated that managers preferred information about the financial results of training and development interventions to anecdotal information, regardless of the reported level of impact of the


97

interventions. Results did not differ as a function of the potential moderating effects of familiarity with accounting, utility analysis, or methods of financial and statistical analysis; gender; perceived ease of use; or whether research participants participated via email or as part of an intact group. Mattson’s (2003) research demonstrates convincingly that training-program evaluations that are expressed in terms of results do influence the decisions of operating managers to modify, eliminate, continue, or expand such programs. He showed that variables such as organizational cultural values, the complexity of the information presented to decision makers, the credibility of that information, and its degree of abstractness/concreteness each affect managers’ perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of the evaluative information. These are important lessons to apply when communicating the results of evaluation research to decision makers. Costs and Benefits of Employee Selection Programs The final section of this chapter is organized around three general themes: (1) recent applications of utility analysis and financial-efficiency indexes in employee selection; (2) the need for a broader conceptualization of utility analysis, linking it to emerging models of strategic HR management; and (3) the critical role of the SDy parameter in this process. I begin with a paradox noted by Boudreau and Ramstad (2003), namely, that leading I/O psychology journals, especially in the U.S., have reduced attention to utility analysis at a time when the quantitative measurement of human capital is receiving unprecedented attention. Yet there is a new, emerging role for utility analysis, based on the premise that the primary cognitive task underlying utility analysis is to link investments in human capital to organizational success. I will return to this theme shortly, but first I address recent applications to employee selection. Recent applications These have continued to focus on mathematical modeling and psychometric measurement of the basic parameters in the utility model: the number selected, validity of the selection procedure, the selection ratio, the standard deviation of job performance in economic terms (SDy ), the tenure of the average selectee, and the cost of the selection procedure. To be sure, there have been refinements of procedures for estimating these parameters (Cabrera & Raju, 2001), and extensions of the basic utility-analysis model to areas such as newemployee probationary periods and the expected benefits of classification decisions (DeCorte, 1994, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2000), performance-based pay (Boudreau, Sturman, Trevor and Gerhart, 1999), and downsizing decisions. Thus Mabon (1996, 1998) showed that the true value of downsizing depends significantly on the correlation between pay, tenure and employee value. For

98 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 example, if highly-paid employees are also the most valuable, layoffs designed to maximize cost reduction with minimum headcount reductions (laying off the highest-paid employees) may have unseen but devastating effects on overall value. In addition to these extensions, various adjustments to utility analysis estimates for economic factors (discounting, variable costs, and taxes) and employee flows have been proposed (Boudreau, 1983a, 1983b). Sturman’s (2000) computer simulation evidence indicated that applying suggested adjustments to the traditional utility model, in combination, can produce substantial reductions (sometime in excess of 90%), relative to unadjusted utility values. He noted the need to consider the situational context when estimating utility, and that if line managers or other constituents are aware of the potential effects of such adjustments, they may be understandably skeptical about unadjusted utility values. Other investigators, as Boudreau and Ramstad (2003) have noted, have sought to identify factors that might alter selection-utility values or explain decision-makers’ reactions to utility analysis (see Boudreau, Sturman & Judge, 1994 for a summary of them). These include: (1) existing predictors that will be retained, when adding new ones (see also Raju & Burke, 1996); (2) temporal changes in validity; (3) multidimensionality in criteria that may make performance ratings used alone less representative of all valued outcomes; (4) employee movement between positions; (5) multi-attribute criterion definitions; and (6) unacknowledged costs, such as increased training, pay, or bureaucracy (see also Jones & Wright, 1992). Beyond these factors, Russell, Colella and Bobko (1993) argued for a strategy-utility link, with examples showing that the timing of utility benefits may significantly affect their value. For example, if a start-up organization must show a profit within a year or go out of business, “projected” utility gains beyond one year have little strategic value. I will expand on this theme shortly. Financial-efficiency measures of human resource activities include various economic or time-based ratios for different HR processes such as staffing, compensation, and labor relations (Fitz-enz, 1995, 1997). They include measures such as the time to fill vacancies, turnover rates, turnover costs, and compensation budgets compared to total expenses. These approaches do focus on economic indicators of HR operations, and compare those standardized indicators across organizations. Their primary focus is on the efficient use of resources. Although these measures have a direct link to accounting outcomes, they fail to reflect that value of employees. Instead, as Boudreau and Ramstad (2003) have noted, they tend to create a focus on cost reduction, perhaps rejecting more expensive alternatives that may have significant payoffs beyond their additional costs. For example, cost-per-hire can be reduced by cutting the number of selection activities, but such reductions may well reduce validity and subsequent workforce quality. In fact, valuable I/O psychology interventions,


99

such as highly valid selection procedures that show high utility, will generally increase the cost per hire and time to fill. Efficiency-based measures, no matter how “financially” compelling, cannot explicitly reflect employee value. Moreover, such indices provide little guidance as to the associations between HR interventions or practices and important organizational outcomes. Need for a broader conceptualization of utility analysis Very little research exists on how utility analysis changes actual decisions, program implementations, or other behaviors. What is needed, as Boudreau and Ramstad (2003, 2005) have noted is a framework for making conceptual connections between talent and organizational success. These connections are the basis for ensuring not only that managers understand the importance of HR work, but also that HR is actually working on things that matter. In short, I/O psychology must take a more “strategic” perspective, looking beyond single HR programs and individual-level outcomes, and encompassing the strategic processes and outcomes of the organization. This suggests a perspective that is more normative than the largely descriptive work that has been done so far. It suggests a need to identify the elements that link human capital decisions (HR investments) to organizational success. One such framework, the strategic human capital bridge, has been developed by Boudreau and Ramstad (2003), who coined the term “talentship” to capture the distinction between the decision science of talent, and the professional practice of human resource management. Talentship is the decision science that improves organizational performance by enhancing decisions that affect or depend on human capital. Their model has three major anchor points (impact, effectiveness, and efficiency) and seven linking elements (sustainable strategic advantage, business processes, talent pools, aligned action, human capacity, HR practices, and investments). The anchor points are tied to the linking elements (e.g., impact is tied to sustainable strategic advantage, business processes, and talent pools). Planning proceeds top-down, while execution proceeds bottom-up. The HC BRidgeTM framework has fundamental implications for utility analysis and selection research. To appreciate how future selection research might change, if based on such a framework, consider an example presented by Boudreau and Ramstad (2003). Researchers would elicit a list of specific talent pools, specific key business processes affected by those talent pools, and specific elements of strategic advantage they might affect. Reactions to utility analysis might be examined based on the logical connections that are omitted and included. High utility values may seem unbelievable until a specific connection between human capacity (e.g., enhanced knowledge) is traced to its effect on aligned actions (e.g., fewer errors), key business processes (e.g., solving customer problems the first time) and competitive advantage (e.g.,

100 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 unique levels of customer satisfaction). Such an analysis would also allow selection researchers to diagnose the nature of constituent reactions more accurately, and to pinpoint where greater measurement or communication efforts are needed. There is one additional implication of the HC BRidgeTM framework for selection utility and other interventions. That is, it may be much more important to identify the most critical talent pools before focusing on the value of particular programs. Traditionally, selection research, as well as other interventions, takes the intervention itself as the point of departure. Thus if an organization is interested in selection research, attention focuses on understanding its effects on employees in a particular job. Yet, as Boudreau and Ramstad (2003) have noted, the definition of SDy in utility analysis reveals that variation in employee value is a key factor in effectiveness, and is independent of the intervention. Thus, it may be more fruitful to assess the economic potential of talent first, and then apply specific interventions where they can have the greatest strategic effect. Even more counter-intuitive is the notion that future research might measure the impact (in the HC BRidgeTM framework) of performance variability across different talent pools, even if such measurements are never used to evaluate an intervention. Research on SDy measurement has continued (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2003; Cabrera & Raju, 2001), but it tends to focus on two areas, accuracy and understanding how more accurate SDy estimates might enhance credibility and influence with decision makers. Research on factors influencing SDy estimates has also produced intriguing results, but the studied factors vary widely, ranging from salary and performance, to supervising subordinates and community relations, to demographic characteristics (Roth, Pritchard, Stout & Brown, 1994). Arvey and Murphy (1998) urged utility researchers instead to “focus on understanding exactly what Y [the criterion] represents” (p. 162). Doing so would enhance our ability to articulate the links between human capital and organizational performance. For more than 40 years, researchers have described SD y as the “Achilles’ heel” of utility analysis (Cronbach & Gleser, 1965). Today we recognize that SD y represents a core concept in identifying which talent is strategically “key.” Linking elements, whether represented by the HC BRidgeTM framework, or by some other framework, have important implications for selection utility analysis, and for relating selection research to organizational outcomes. The challenge for selection researchers will be to adopt a broader, more strategic, framework.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I began this chapter by examining research that links HRM and performance. I noted that there is, as yet, no generally accepted taxonomy of high-performance


101

work practices, and that this area is plagued by some serious methodological and measurement issues, including appropriate time lags, and an inability to point the causal arrow unambiguously from HR practices to organizational financial and market outcomes, but that these problems can be overcome. Perhaps most importantly, researchers should draw explicit distinctions among the presence of an HRM practice, its coverage, and its intensity, recognizing that presence does not equal effectiveness. The chapter then examined the costs and benefits of seven HR activities and interventions: absenteeism, presenteeism, turnover, worksite wellness programs, employee attitudes, training, and selection. In terms of absenteeism, the concept itself might not be relevant if employees can vary their work time to fit their personal schedules, if they need not “report” to a central location, and if they are accountable only in terms of results. Many teleworkers fit this category. If absenteeism is relevant, however, it is important to measure its effects at multiple times, with Time 1 serving as a baseline from which to assess cost savings at a later time. With respect to presenteeism, serious methodological problems plague that area as well. These include quantification of the productivity loss associated with chronic ailments, and quantification of the relative effects of individual ailments on productivity for workers who suffer from more than one problem. On the basis of preliminary evidence, however, it appears that by increasing payments for medications to treat chronic diseases, companies might actually realize a net gain in workforce productivity and eliminate the opportunity costs of failing to address the presenteeism issue directly. Next I considered the issue of employee turnover. Many estimates of the cost of turnover are available, but it is critically important for researchers to understand exactly which cost elements were considered. Fully loaded costs include those associated with separation, replacement, training, and lost productivity (including lost sales and lost customer contacts) when an employee or manager departs. An accurate tally would also include the impact on a team and its productivity when a team member or leader leaves. For employees who choose to stay, a popular intervention on the part of employers trying to hold down health-care costs is a worksite-wellness program. While statistics from providers may suggest impressive gains, it is difficult to calculate how much any given employer can expect to save because program sponsors use different methods to measure and report cost-benefit data. When a program’s effects are measured, and for how long they are measured are crucial considerations. The fact that many companies use no control groups when evaluating their programs makes interpretation of research findings even more problematic. The next topic I examined was the financial effects of employee attitudes. Any effort to relate employee attitudes to behavioral or organizational outcomes must consider the level of analysis of the research (individual, team, or organization-wide). In order to draw conclusions about causal priorities or

102 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 reciprocal relationships, however, researchers must collect longitudinal data on both sets of variables, attitudes and organizational outcomes, at multiple points in time. They should also collect data on multiple time lags, choosing the ones that are most stable. Finally, it is important to recognize that there is no necessary agreement between research findings on high-performance work practices and organizational performance and between research findings on employee attitudes and organizational performance. Different modes of data collection (self-reports by single informants versus attitude surveys of large numbers of employees) and different response sets (descriptive versus evaluative) may well explain discrepant results. Another common intervention is employee training. Enormous sums of money are spent in the public and private sectors each year on employee training, but in terms of the evaluation of employee training programs in financial terms, two different types of research approaches have commonly been used: ROI and utility analysis. The former, at least as practiced, does not consider the duration of program effects beyond one year, nor does it incorporate discounting to obtain the net present value of a stream of financial benefits over time. These limitations are inherent in the ROI model. With respect to the use of utility analysis, a menu of expected effect sizes (and confidence intervals around each one) is now available, but it is important to remember that the actual amount of change observed in an employee’s performance after he or she attends a training program will depend on the percentage of job tasks measured by the evaluation criteria. A measure including only a subset of the tasks learned during training will underestimate the value of the training program. Finally, empirical evidence now suggests that training-program evaluations that are expressed in terms of results do influence the decisions of operating managers to modify, eliminate, continue, or expand such programs. Research is needed, however, to pinpoint those aspects of communication of results that managers find most meaningful. The final section of the chapter addressed the costs and benefits of employee selection. I reviewed recent applications of utility-analysis and financialefficiency indexes, emphasizing that the latter cannot reflect the value of employees. I also emphasized the need for a broader conceptualization of utility analysis, linking it to emerging models of strategic HR management, and described the critical role of the SD y parameter in this process. I began this review by taking a macro view of the relationship between HR programs and organizational performance, and then examined the costs and benefits of specific activities and interventions–absenteeism, presenteeism, turnover, worksite wellness, employee attitudes, and training. I finished by examining the costs and benefits of employee selection, concluding with a call for a change in orientation from micro to more macro research that links utility analysis to strategic management. The need for cost-benefit analysis will not go away. The key is to frame it in ways that connect to the important decisions that managers make every day about their most critical asset – talent.


103

REFERENCES Aberth, J. (1986, October). Worksite WHP programs: An evaluation. Management Review, pp. 51–53. Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. New York: Guilford. Alliger, G. M. & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training criteria: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42, 331–342. Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W. Jr., Traver, H. & Shortland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 341–358. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: HarperCollins. Aldana, S. G. (2001). Financial impact of health promotion programs: A comprehensive review of the literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, 15(5), 296–320. Alvarez, L. (2004, July 25). Oil riches spoil Norwegians’ work ethic. The Denver Post, p. 24A. Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Armour, S. (1999, April 30). Family-friendly work policies get cold shoulder. USA Today, p. B1. Armour, S. (2005, Oct. 21). Companies tell sick workers to go home, take flu germs with them. USA Today, p. B3. Arthur, W. Jr., Bennett, W. Jr., Edens, P. S. & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234–245. Bailey, T., Berg, P. & Sandy, C. (2001). The effect of high-performance work practices on employee earnings in the steel, apparel, and medical electronics and imaging industries. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(2), 525–543. Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3), 587–597. Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A. & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Bliese, P. D. (2002). Multilevel random coefficient modeling in organizational research: Examples using SAS and S-PLUS. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (eds), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 401–445). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. BNA, Inc. (2005). Bulletin to management. Available at http://www.shrm.org/bna/. Bossidy, L., Charan, R. & Burck, C. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done. New York: Crown Business. Boudreau, J. W. (1983a). Economic considerations in estimating the utility of human resource productivity improvement programs. Personnel Psychology, 36, 551–576. Boudreau, J. W. (1983b). Effects of employee flows on utility analysis of human resource productivity improvement programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 396–406. Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. (2003). Strategic industrial and organizational psychology and the role of utility analysis models. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Volume eds), Handbook of Psychology, Volume 12, Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 193–221). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. (2005, April). Where’s your pivotal talent? Harvard Business Review, p. 1. Boudreau, J. W., Sturman, M. C. & Judge, T. A. (1994). Utility analysis: What are the black boxes and do they affect decisions? In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (eds), Assessment and selection in organizations: Methods and practice for recruitment and appraisal (pp. 77–96). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

104 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Boudreau, J. W., Sturman, M. C., Trevor, C. O. & Gerhart, B. A. (1999). The value of performance-based pay in the war for talent. CAHRS working paper #99-06, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Boxall, P. & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and human resource management. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Brat, I. (2005, Dec. 20). A company’s threat: Quit smoking or leave. The Wall Street Journal, pp. D1; D6. BNA, Inc. (2004, 3rd Quarter). Bulletin to management. Washington, D.C.: Author. Burke, M. J. & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 232–246. Byrnes, N. (2005, Jan. 10). Green eyeshades never looked so sexy. Business Week, p. 44. Cabrera, E. F. & Raju, N. S. (2001). Utility analysis: Current trends and future directions International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1), 1–11. Cappelli, P. & Neumark, D. (2001). Do “high-performance” work practices improve establishment-level outcomes? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(4), 737–775. Cascio, W. F. (1989). Using utility analysis to assess training outcomes. In I. L. Goldstein (ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 63–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing. Cascio, W. F. (2002). Responsible restructuring: Creative and profitable alternatives to layoffs. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler. Cascio, W. F. (2005). From business partner to driving business success: The next step in the evolution of HR management. In D. Ulrich, M. Losey & S. Meisinger (eds), The Future of Human Resource Management, pp. 103–109. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Cascio, W. F. & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cohen, A. (1993). Organizational commitment and turnover: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1140–1157. Collison, J. (2005, June). 2005 future of the U.S. labor pool: Survey report. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Colvin, G. (2005, Nov. 14). The doctor is out. Fortune, p. 75. Cornwell, L. (2006, Feb. 17). More employers making smokers pay. The Denver Post, p. 9A. Cost of absenteeism for British employers (1995, Dec.). Manpower Argus, no. 327, p. 6. Cronbach, L. J. & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. DeCorte, W. (1994). Utility analysis for the one-cohort selection-retention decision with a probationary period. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 402–411. DeCorte, W. (1997). Utility analysis for the probationary selection decision to obtain a fixed quota of successful selectees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 67–82. DeCorte, W. (1998a). An analytic procedure to estimate the benefits of a particular type of personnel classification decision. Education and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 929–943. DeCorte, W. (1998b). Estimating and maximizing the utility of sequential selection decisions with a probationary period. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 51, 101–121. DeCorte, W. (2000). Estimating the classification efficiency of a test battery. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(1), 73–85.


105

Delery, J. (1998). Issues of fit in strategic human resource management: Implications for research. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 289–310. Delery, J. & Doty, H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802–835. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Deutsch, C. (2005, May 1). Behind the exodus of executive women: Boredom. The New York Times. Retrieved from the World Wide Web at www.nytimes.com/ 2005/05/01/business. Dooney, J. & Smith, N. (2005). SHRM human capital benchmarking study: 2005 executive summary. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Edington, D. W. (2001). Emerging research: A view from one research center. American Journal of Health Promotion, 15(5), 341–349. Edington, M. D., Karjalainen, T., Hirschland, D. & Edington, D. W. (2002). The UAW/GM health-promotion program: Successful outcomes. AAOHN Journal, 50(1), 26–31. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126. Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 35, 790–806. Epstein, S. S. (1989). A note on health promotion in the workplace. Boston: Harvard Business School. Fielding, J. E. (1996). Getting smarter and maybe wiser. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11, 109–111. Fitz-enz, J. (1995). How to measure human resources management. NY: McGraw Hill. Fitz-enz, J. (1997). The eight practices of exceptional companies: How great organizations make the most of their human assets. NY: Amacom. Fletcher, M. (1987, February 16). WHP plan savings are difficult to measure. Business Insurance, pp. 26, 28. Fortune 500.(2006, April 17). The Fortune 1,000 ranked within industries. Fortune, p. F-52. Frontline. (2005). Is Wal-Mart good for America? Retrieved from www.pbs. org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/transform/protest.html on October 19, 2005. Fuhrmans, V. (2003, Sept. 9). Company health plans try to drop spouses. The Wall Street Journal, pp. D1; D2. Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M. & McMahan, G. (2000). Measurement error in research on the human resource and firm performance relationship: Further evidence and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 855–872. Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. & Snell, S. (2000). Measurement error in human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates? Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 803–834. Glasgow, R. E., Terborg, J. R., Hollis, J. F., Severson, H. H. & Boles, S. M. (1995). Take heart: Results from the initial phase of a worksite wellness program. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 209–216. Goetzel, R. Z., Long, S. R., Ozminkowski, R. J., Hawkins, K., Wang, S. & Lynch, W. (2004). Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(4), 398–412. Goldstein, I. L. (1978). The pursuit of validity in the evaluation of training programs. Human Factors, 20, 131–144.

106 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Goldstein, I. L. & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W. & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488. Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263– 276. Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D. & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically-based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275–291. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L. & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. Hawkins, L., Jr. (2005, April 7). As GM battles surging costs, workers’ health becomes an issue. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1; A11. Health hazards. (2005, Sept. 26). Business Week, p. 13. Hemp, P. (2004, Oct.). Presenteeism: At work–but out of it. Harvard Business Review, pp. 1–9. Hertz, R. P., Unger, A. N., McDonald, M., Lustik, M. B. & Biddulph-Krentar, J. (2004). The impact of obesity on work limitations and cardiovascular risk factors in the U.S. workforce. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(12), 1196–1203. Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744. Holton, E. F. III. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5–21. Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E. & Bracker, J. S. (1998). An exploratory investigation into theoretical mechanisms underlying realistic job previews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 421–451. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672. Huselid, M. A. & Becker, B. E. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human resource-firm performance link. Industrial Relations, 35(3), 400–422. Huselid, M. A., Becker, B. E. & Beatty, R. W. (2005). The Workforce Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ichniowski, C. & Shaw, K. (1999). The effects of human resource management systems on economic performance: An international comparison of U.S. and Japanese plants. Management Science, 45(5), 704–721. Janus, P. A. (2002). Weight discrimination and the law. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on August 31, 2005 at www.Lexis-Nexis.com. Jeffery, R. W., Forster, S. A., French, S. H., Kelder, H. A., Lando, H. A., McGovern, D. R., Jacobs, D. R. & Baxter, J. E. (1993). The healthy worker project: A worksite intervention for weight control and smoking cessation. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 395–501. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611. Johnson, A. A. (1995, August). The business case for work-family programs. Journal of Accountancy, 53–57.


107

Jones, G. R. & Wright, P. M. (1992). An economic approach to conceptualizing the utility of human resource management practices. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 271–299. Jose, W. S., Anderson, D. R. & Haight, S. A. (1987). The StayWell strategy for health care cost containment. In J. P. Opatz (ed.), Health promotion evaluation: Measuring the organizational impact (pp. 15–34). Stevens Point, WI: National Wellness Institute. Kalleberg, A. L. & Moody, J. W. (1994). Human resource management and organizational performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(7), 948–962. Kato, T. & Morishima, M. (2002). The productivity effects of participatory employment practices: Evidence from new Japanese panel data. Industrial Relations, 41(4), 487– 520. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler. Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Kraiger, K. (2002). Decision-based evaluation. In K. Kraiger (ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development (pp. 331–375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kraiger, K. (2003). Perspectives on training and development. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (eds), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12, Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 171–192). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lawler, E. E., III., Mohrman, S. A. & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1998). Strategies for highperformance organizations: Employee involvement, TQM, and reengineering programs in Fortune 500 corporations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mabon, H. (1996, Spring). The cost of downsizing in an enterprise with job security. Journal of Human Resource Costing and Accounting, 1, 35–62. Mabon, H. (1998). Utility aspects of personality and performance. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 289–304. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(2), 197–221. Martin, D. C. & Bartol, K. M. (1985). Managing turnover strategically. Personnel Administrator, 30(11), 63–73. Mattson, B. W. (2003). The effects of alternative reports of human resource development results on managerial support. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 127–151. McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mehring, J. (2004, May 24). What’s lifting productivity. Business Week, p. 32. Meyer, H. H. & Raich, J. S. (1983). An objective evaluation of a behavior modeling training program. Personnel Psychology, 36, 755–761. Micco, L. (1998, Sept.). Gallup study links worker beliefs, increased productivity. HR News, p. 16. Mind your business. (2004, April 19). Absenteeism, lost output and bullying in the workplace. Can it be managed? Retrieved from the World Wide Web at http://www.bized.ac.uk/current/mind/2003 4/190404.htm. Morrow, C. C., Jarrett, M. Q. & Rupinski, M. T. (1997). An investigation of the effect and economic utility of corporate-wide training. Personnel Psychology, 50, 91–119. Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974.

108 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Ozminkowski, R. J., Dunn, R. L., Goetzel, R. Z., Cantor, R. I., Murnane, J. & Harrison, M. (1999). A return-on-investment evaluation of the Citibank, N. A. health management program. American Journal of Health Promotion, 14(1), 31–43. Ozminkowski, R. J., Goetzel, R. Z., Smith, M. W., Cantor, R. I., Shaughnessy, A. & Harrison, M. (2000). The impact of the Citibank N. A. health management program on changes in employee health risks over time. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 42(5), 502–511. Paul, A. K. & Anantharaman, R. N. (2003). Impact of people-management practices on organizational performance: Analysis of a causal model. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1246–1266. Pelletier, K. R. (2001). A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite: 1998–2000 update. American Journal of Health Promotion, 16(2), 107– 116. Phillips, J. J. & Phillips, P. P. (2005). Proving the value of HR: How and why to measure ROI. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Pil, F. K. & MacDuffie, J. P. (1996). The adoption of high-improvement work practices. Industrial Relations, 35(3), 423–455. Raju, N. S. & Burke, M. J. (1996). Utility analysis. In R. A. Burke (ed.) Performance assessment: Methods and applications (pp. 186–202). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins. Roth, P. L., Pritchard, R.D., Stout, J. D. & Brown, S. H. (1994). Estimating the impact of variable costs on SDy in complex situations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8(4), 437–454. Rubinstein, S. (2005, Jan. 18). Nursing employees back to health. The Wall Street Journal, p. D5. Rucci, A. J., Kirn, S. P. & Quinn, R. T. (1998, Jan.–Feb.). The employee-customerprofit chain at Sears. Harvard Business Review, pp. 82–97. Ruffenach, G. (2004, Aug. 9). Miracle cure? The Wall Street Journal, pp. R5; R6. Russell, C., Colella, A. and Bobko, P. (1993). Expanding the context of utility: The strategic impact of personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 46, 781–801. Ryan, A. M., Schmit, M. J. & Johnson, R. (1996). Attitudes and effectiveness: Examining relations at an organizational level. Personnel Psychology, 49, 853–883. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E. & Pearlman, K. (1982). Assessing the economic impact of personnel programs on productivity. Personnel Psychology, 35, 333–347. Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B. & Salvaggio, A. N. (2003). Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 836–851. Schneider, B., White, S. S. & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Solomon, J. (1988, Dec. 29). Companies try measuring cost savings from new types of corporate benefits. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Smale, W. (2004, March 24). The continuing cost of absenteeism. BBC News online, retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3563609.stm. Steel, R. P., Griffeth, R. W. & Hom, P. W. (2002). Practical retention policy for the practical manager. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 149–159. Study shows employer actions fostered employee consumerism, mitigating 2004 health plan cost increase. (2004, March 17). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on April 28, 2005 at www.fidelity.com/workplace/Public Sites/Main Wrapper/0.


109

Sturman, M. C. (2000). Implications of utility analysis adjustments for estimates of human resource intervention value. Journal of Management, 26(2), 281–299. Styres, D. (2004). Cost controllers. Fortune, pp. 166–168. Terborg, J. (1998). Health psychology in the United States: A critique and selected review. Applied Psychology: an International Review, 47(2), 199–217. Terlep, S. (2005, Dec. 5). Smokers pay price on job to light up. The Denver Post, pp. 1E; 6E. VanDerWall, S. (1998, Nov.). Survey finds unscheduled absenteeism hitting 7-year high. HR News, p. 14. Wagner, R. J. & Weigand, R. J. (2005). Measuring results of MBTI Type training: ROI in action. Mountain View, CA: CPP. Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan, M., Clegg, C. W. & West, M. (2004). On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 95–118. Wall, T. D. & Wood, S. J. (2005). The romance of human resource management and business performance, and the case for big science. Human Relations, 58, 429–462. Weiss, D. S. & Finn, R. (2005). HR metrics that count: Aligning human capital management to business results. Human Resource Planning, 28(1), 33–37. Williams, M. (2005, Sept. 19). Slimmer workers can mean fatter pay. The Denver Post, p. 8A. World Health Organization. (2003). Economic benefits of physical activity. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on January 10, 2006 from www.who.int/hpr/physactiv/ economic.benefits.shtml. Workplace epidemic: Absenteeism rises for third year in a row (1996, Feb. 27). The Wall Street Journal, p. A1. Wright, P. M. & Gardner, T. M. (2003). The human resource-firm performance relationship: Methodological and theoretical challenges. In D. Holman, T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow & A. Howard (eds), The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices (eds). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wright, P. M. & Sherman, S. (1999). Failing to find fit in strategic human resource management: Theoretical and empirical problems. In P. M. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau & G. Milkovich (eds), Research in personnel and human resource management (Supplement 4, pp. 53–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wysocki, B., Jr. (2000, March 30). Yet another hazard of the new economy: The Pied Piper effect. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1; A16. Zank, D. & Friedsam, D. (2005, Sept.). Employee health promotion programs: What is the return on investment? Wisconsin Public Health and Health Policy Institute, 6(5), retrieved from the World Wide Web at www.pophealth.wisc.edu/uwphi. Zimmerman, A., Matthews, R. G. & Hudson, K. (2005, Oct. 27). Can employers alter hiring policies to cut health costs? The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1; B4.

Chapter 3 STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT: APPLYING RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES FROM INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Debra A. Major Old Dominion University, USA

and Jeanette N. Cleveland The Pennsylvania State University, USA The multidisciplinary literature on the interface of work and family life demonstrates unequivocally that work-family conflict is widespread and has negative effects on employers, employees, and families (Bianchi, Casper & King, 2005). A great deal of research has been devoted to understanding both the antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict (i.e., the interference of one life domain with the other), yet research findings offer little in the way of solutions. In general, existing strategies for alleviating work-family conflict suffer from several shortcomings: (a) employer-sponsored programs are likely to be targeted toward family interference with work, despite the greater prevalence of work interference with family; (b) work-life programs and benefits offered by organizations are underutilized, and (c) the responsibility for negotiating work arrangements that accommodate nonwork life remains largely an individual responsibility. Following a discussion of each of these issues, we identify how Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychology can contribute to understanding and addressing work and family conflict both theoretically and practically. Specifically, we discuss how processes associated with preemployment, organizational entry, and the work-life cycle as studied in I/O psychology link with work-life application.



LIMITATIONS IN CURRENT APPROACHES TO REDUCING WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT Focus on family interference with work Employees indicate that family is more important to them than work (Lewis & Cooper, 1999). Further, employees report that work interferes with family more than family interferes with work (Eagle, Miles & Icenogle, 1997; Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992). Yet, frequently organizations implement work life programs with the goal of reducing family intrusions into work (cf. Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). To the extent that “family-friendly” programs are focused on business needs, they may not help employees find work-life balance but instead ensure that employees are able to adjust their family lives in order to meet work demands and to be available to work longer hours (Grosswald, Ragland & Fisher, 2001). Ultimately, both organizations and employees benefit if family-friendly programs address the problems that are most salient to employees (i.e., adjusting work to better fit families). We advocate the use of I/O tools to address work-family conflict for the benefit of organizations, employees, and families.

Underutilization of work-life programs and benefits When workplace programs, policies, and benefits designed to address workfamily conflict are offered, they are often underutilized. One reason is that employees are unaware of the benefits and programs available to them (e.g., Still & Strang, 2003). Another reason is that employees fear negative job or career repercussions for taking advantage of family friendly benefits to which they are entitled. “In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, immediate supervisors often communicate the ‘real’ outcomes of taking part in work life balance (WLB) programs, particularly when participation is inconsistent with deeply held cultural beliefs of the organization” (Nord, Fox, Phoenix & Viano, 2002, p. 229). Finally, lack of clear policies and procedures for implementing programs and providing family accommodations means that programs may not be used by those who need them the most and that benefits may not be distributed fairly (e.g., Kurland & Bailey, 1999). We recommend that nonwork and family considerations become a more integral part of organization and job design, and suggest that criteria for accessing family-friendly programs be more transparent and equitably applied.

Individual responsibility Much has been written about the changing nature of work (e.g., Dunford, 1999; Mir, Mir & Mosca, 2002) and the new psychological contract (e.g., Rousseau & Schalk, 2000; Schalk & Rousseau, 2001) both of which emphasize

S TRATEGIES FOR R EDUCING W ORK-F AMILY C ONFLICT

113

employee responsibility for career and work-life issues. This emphasis on individual responsibility is also apparent in approaches to managing work-family conflict, especially in the U.S. (Major & Germano, 2006). Although it is arguably the employer’s obligation to provide resources that ameliorate workfamily conflict (Roman & Blum, 2001), it is the employee who must be proactive in identifying, negotiating, or creating accommodations for family. Many have maintained that, especially in the U.S., large scale governmental intervention is needed to protect families in the face of increasing work demands and work hours (e.g., de Graaf, 2003; Heymann, 2002; Moen, 2003). At present, however, that responsibility largely falls to the employee, and we argue that employers should share more of the load and that they ultimately benefit from taking a more proactive role.

OVERVIEW: APPLYING I/O PSYCHOLOGY TO ADDRESS WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT I/O psychology can contribute to the understanding and reduction of work and family conflict. These contributions rest upon two assumptions that reflect the foundation of I/O psychology. First, people differ. For example, while most employees indicate they place greater importance on their families, other individuals indicate that their work and careers take priority. Second, situations vary and can be changed or modified to fit the needs or requirements of individuals. Historically, both private and military organizations have emphasized the individual differences approach and hired I/O psychologists to develop and implement assessment and selection methods/techniques to identify applicants who possess the greatest knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform maximally in specific occupations. The assumption of individual differences underlies such I/O content areas as selection and placement, leadership and supervision, performance evaluation, and training. Similarly, situations vary along a number of characteristics (e.g., job, supervisory style, organizational climate, hours of work, and so forth), and this second assumption permeates job analysis and job design, organizational climate, the physical work environment, and person-machine-technology interfaces. Rather than change or match a person to a given situation, I/O psychologists provide theories that underlie tools to modify a given context, for example, to redesign a job to meet the capabilities of the workforce. These two assumptions provide the foundation for change in the workplace and at home. Using the individual differences approach, we can apply I/O psychology by identifying the characteristics of individuals, selecting and placing them in specific context where they can excel. On the other hand, the second approach asserts that we can modify the context (i.e., job, task, organization) to enhance or insure the success of employees with certain characteristics or needs. Therefore, for any given organizational problem, at least two sets of

114 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 solutions are possible: one targeting the employee or person and the other targeting the context. It is likely that few organizational problems can be effectively addressed by focusing on one to the exclusion of the other. For instance, research shows that there is little success among psychological interventions that solely focus upon individuals. Diet interventions, exercise or fitness programs and even rater error training have notoriously short effectiveness life-spans (Landy & Conte, 2004). Therefore, we advocate what we believe is a more productive, cost effective, and scientifically sound approach to creating change to address work-family conflict. We recommend using the individual differences approach to identify person characteristics that can be used as a basis for change or restructuring the work situation in order to maximize the fit between work and nonwork. There are numerous practical reasons for targeting change of the work context rather than toward changing the individual when addressing work and family issues. First, research demonstrates that the quality of work experiences exerts the greatest influence on individual well-being and a positive indirect effect on family functioning (Barling, 1994). There is a growing recognition that the domains of work and nonwork are overlapping and both domains have permeable boundaries. Thus, while it is important for work to be structured in a way that permits families to have more time together (Major & Germano, 2006; Moen, 2003), that time is unlikely to be enriching if experiences at work are aversive and negatively impact employee well-being. Second, with increasing proportions of dual earner families, single parent families and an aging society generally, fewer households will have a fulltime adult person who is responsible solely for the caretaking of children and/or elderly parents. In the remainder of this chapter, we consider the processes associated with three major stages of employment: preemployment, organizational entry, and the on-going work-life cycle. Within each stage, the most relevant processes for addressing work-family conflict are discussed with emphasis on how I/O psychology research and practice can be better directed to help alleviate workfamily conflict.

PREEMPLOYMENT STAGE In the preemployment stage, I/O psychologists set the foundation for organizational change both in terms of collecting and disseminating information about the characteristics of jobs and identifying the worker characteristics necessary to successfully perform the work within those jobs. In addition, the preemployment stage focuses on strategies for attracting qualified applicants to the organization. Thus, job analysis and recruitment are the core processes I/O psychology addresses at the preemployment stage. Below, each of these processes is discussed in terms of its relevance to work-family conflict.


115

Job Analysis Traditional job analysis methods reflect two perspectives: task or work focused and person or worker focused. Work-oriented techniques focus on describing the tasks that are performed on the job and therefore tend to yield more specific job information. Worker-oriented job analyses tend to examine broader human behaviors involved in the job including the physical, interpersonal, and mental factors that are necessary to perform the job. Further, there are some hybrid methods that attempt to gather both information about the tasks or work itself and the worker (Brannick & Levine, 2002). For a task analysis, generally subject matter experts generate a list of statements describing tasks they perform on the job. Often incumbents are asked how frequently they perform a task, how important it is to the job and the relative time spent on the job doing each task. Implications for research and practice This technique can be applied to determine whether specific tasks or how they are performed by workers are stressful to employees. In addition, some tasks may be linked more strongly to potential conflicts between work and nonwork. Both job incumbents and employee family members (including spouse and possibly school age children) could provide ratings of conflict and stress associated with work-related tasks (e.g., tasks that involve deadlines or travel might be linked to work-family conflict). These tasks could then be grouped into larger work dimensions as is often done in job-oriented analyses. The more general (yet fewer in number) dimensions can then be reviewed for the number of tasks that are rated as high in potential for conflict and/or stress. Worker-oriented job analyses focus less on specific tasks performed on the job and more on the human characteristics such as knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics that contribute to successful job performance. This general approach can be applied to identifying not only what knowledges, skills, and abilities (KSAOs) are needed to successfully perform a set of tasks but also the degree to which the task taps maximal or typical work behaviors or leads to rapid stress on the individual engaging in the tasks. A worker-oriented approach could be applied to determine whether or not specific KSAOs (e.g., attention to detail) are more likely to be associated with work and family conflict or stress and whether the absence of certain KSAOs (e.g., ability to determine priorities and implement them) is associated with greater levels of stress or conflict (Rau, 2004). We do not advocate selection based on worker KSAOs; rather we believe that obtaining information about the limits of employee capabilities or optimal use of skills, for example, provides input for the basis for job redesign and technological interventions to reduce employee strain. The worker approach to job analysis is also suited for comparisons across jobs in terms of talents and abilities. Therefore, one’s nonpaid work at home can be analyzed to determine which KSAOs facilitate or inhibit

116 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 the transfer of performance from home to work (and vice versa). Job analysis is the foundation for both the person-oriented and the context-oriented approaches to change within organizations. Recruitment In championing the job enrichment perspective, I/O psychologists have highlighted the attractiveness of meaningful work. From a work-family perspective, the offer of a quality work experience should form the foundation of recruitment strategy. Without a high quality work experience, other efforts to promote work-family balance and reduce conflict are likely to be ineffective. Barling (1994) argues that poor work experiences have a negative direct effect on individual well-being and a negative indirect effect on family functioning. He further suggests that without the foundation of a quality work experience, other family-friendly programs and benefits to reduce work-family conflict are likely to be ineffectual. At the same time, there is increasing recognition that “interesting and challenging work is simply not the end-all and be-all” on the path to self-fulfillment (Mirvis & Hall, 1996, p. 93). Instead, employees aspire to have more time with family and greater opportunity for leisure, and they expect their employers to respect and facilitate these goals (Major, 2000). Although many organizations offer family-friendly benefits as a means of attracting qualified applicants, there is little research on the impact that such practices actually have on recruiting and retention rates (Thompson, Beauvais & Allen, 2006). The notion of “family-friendly backlash” has been raised as a potential barrier to the effectiveness of family-friendly benefits, yet there is little research evidence to support its existence (Parker & Allen, 2001). Instead, research suggests that, regardless of family structure, employees appreciate flexible career paths, flexible work arrangements, and work-life programs (Altman & Post, 1996; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Honeycutt & Rosen, 1997). Implications for research and practice From a research and practice perspective, it is important to recognize that the quality of work experience is likely to be a limiting factor on work-life programs’ effectiveness in reducing work-family conflict, and on the ability of such programs to demonstrate an effect on recruitment and retention. This also highlights the interrelationships between recruitment strategy and both organizational and job design in that the quality of work experiences needs to be institutionalized at the organizational and job levels before it can play a role in effective recruitment. Greater integration among all the components of the human resource management system is essential. Integration is essential not just within each stage of employment (i.e., preemployment, entry, and worklife cycle), but also across each stage because the practices and functions have implications for each other.


117

Research on recruitment and retention outcomes is sorely needed. As in many areas of work-family practice, organizations lack guidance on which programs to invest in and how to best offer them for recruiting purposes because there is so little evaluation of current practices (Major, Cardenas & Allard, 2004). Nonetheless, I/O tools can offer organizations a starting point for developing recruiting practices sensitive to work-life concerns. For instance, needs assessment aimed at the individual, job, and organizational level can be an effective means for determining the current and future needs of existing employees as well as desired future hires. Home and family needs evolve over the career lifecycle, and programs and benefits must be flexible and comprehensive enough to serve these evolving needs. Individuals also need a high degree of control over choices (Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2006). Fairness can be maintained not by offering all employees exactly the same set of benefits, but by offering individuals the same opportunity to select their preferred programs and benefits from among an array that includes something for everyone at every career and life stage (e.g., childcare, eldercare; Glass & Finley, 2002; Major et al., 2004).

ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY The organizational entry stage concerns those processes associated with bringing new employees into the organization, namely selection and socialization. The central processes of organizational entry set the tone for individuals’ experiences throughout the work-life cycle, and they also provide opportunities for shaping and changing the organization. Selection and socialization afford the chance to consider the work-family conflict ramifications while determining who becomes an organizational member and what his or her initial experiences are within the organization. Selection I/O psychologists have focused extensive attention and resources on theory and the development of predictors or selection tests (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler & Sager, 1993; Levy, 2006). Cognitive ability tests as a category of standardized tests have most consistently predicted task-related performance across employees and many occupations (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Personality tests, specifically conscientiousness, contribute to the prediction of contextual performance or organizational citizenship behaviors (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Although there is research on the variables thought to predict work and family conflict, most studies have included a small number of predictor variables in a piecemeal fashion (Bruck & Allen, 2003). Researchers have focused on demographics (e.g., gender, family status) and, to a much lesser extent, on personality factors including negative affectivity, neuroticism, extraversion,

118 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 conscientiousness, and agreeableness (e.g., Bruck & Allen, 2003; Carlson, 1999; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Kinnunen, Vermulst, Gerris & Mäkikangas, 2003; Wayne, Musisca & Fleeson, 2004). For example, the number of children living at home is one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of work-family conflict (Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 1999; Bruck & Allen, 2003; Carlson, 1999; Hammer, Allen & Grigsby, 1997; Kinnunen & Mauno, 1998). In addition, the marital structure also impacts conflict as dual earner couple members are more likely to experience greater work-family conflict than single earner couple members (e.g., Higgins & Duxbury, 1992). Implications for research and practice In general, the predictors of work and family conflict have focused largely on demographic variables including gender, family structure, and number/age of dependents. We believe that using demographic information to identify which employees are at risk for work-family conflict has little payoff for organizations. That is, the focus on person-based selection or individual differences in work-family conflict is increasingly impractical for two reasons. First, nearly all employees experience work and nonwork conflict or stress at some point in their lives. Second, person-focused interventions often imply that the responsibility for change rests with the individual or the family rather than within the organization. We believe there should be a moratorium on identifying solely person-oriented solutions to work-family conflict. It is unacceptable (and often illegal) to identify demographic risk factors for work-family conflict (e.g., women with young children) and use this information to limit the occupational and career options/opportunities for individuals with these demographic characteristics. Rather, such personal information can be collected as part of a needs analysis in order to redesign work so that the skills and talents of employees are most effectively utilized and the structure of work minimally interferes with nonwork. Socialization Organizational socialization is typically defined as a learning activity, focusing on what and how newcomers learn as they make the transition from organizational outsider to insider (Bauer, Morrison & Callister, 1998). Socialization can occur both formally via planned and structured experiences (e.g., training programs) and informally through interactions with and observation of supervisors and coworkers. Whether formal or informal, organizational socialization processes most typically reinforce the organizational status quo. Newcomers are trained to do things as they are currently done in the organization. Through interactions with organizational insiders, newcomers learn “how we do things around here” and what is expected (Reichers, 1987). However, organizational socialization can also be used as a mechanism for bringing about organizational


119

change. Newcomers not already steeped in current organizational practices and norms can be taught a new way, and then may serve as a catalyst for organizational transformation (Major, 2000). Though various researchers have labeled the content of learning during socialization somewhat differently, there is general agreement regarding the relative importance of different types of information to newcomers. Research shows that learning related to job task mastery is a top priority (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein & Gardner, 1994; Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Learning related to the newcomer’s role and “fit” with others in the work environment appears to be the second most important area of concentration (Chao et al., 1994; Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). More remote topics that have less bearing on the newcomer’s immediate adjustment (e.g., organizational goals and values, company history) tend to be less of a priority (Chao et al., 1994). Although the socialization of organizational newcomers has received the most research attention, theorists contend that the need for socialization arises any time an organizational boundary is crossed (Schein, 1980). Thus, individuals receiving promotions or accepting departmental transfers also experience socialization. Supervisors and coworkers are the primary agents of socialization. Newcomers acknowledge the importance of organizational insiders to their own adjustment processes (Gundry & Rousseau, 1994; Louis, Posner & Powell, 1983). Not only do organizational insiders share information with newcomers (Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), they also provide social support (e.g., Feldman & Brett, 1983; Fisher, 1985; Major, 2000; Nelson & Quick, 1991) and serve as role models (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993). Newcomers with stronger systems of support report fewer adverse psychological outcomes related to job performance than those with less support (Ruben, 1986). Research also shows that quality relationships with organizational insiders help ameliorate the negative effects of newcomers’ unmet expectations (Major, Kozlowski, Chao & Gardner, 1995). Implications for research and practice We know of no research linking socialization and work-family conflict, although there appears to be a great deal of research and practice applicability. For example, research shows that work-life programs are frequently underutilized because employees are not aware of their existence (Still & Strang, 2003). Since organizational insiders are such a critical source of information during organizational entry, arming supervisors and coworkers with pertinent information regarding work policies and practices could be an important step in preventing work-family conflict. However, information alone is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure newcomers’ adoption of effective work-life strategies. The support and approval of supervisors and coworkers is a major determinant of family-friendly program use (Allen, 2001; Thompson, Beauvais & Lyness,

120 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 1999). In their capacity as role models, it may be incumbent on supervisors and coworkers to model behaviors that demonstrate a commitment to work-family balance. There need to be clear linkages between recruiting and socialization practices. To the extent that the organization’s work-life philosophy and work-family programs are introduced and used as inducements to attract new employees, the socialization process must follow through and meet those expectations created during recruitment. We know that met expectations are important to adjustment and that relationships with insiders can help overcome the negative effects of unmet expectations (Major et al., 1995). Thus, supervisors and coworkers are in a good position to help ensure that work-life promises made during recruitment are realized upon entry. Finally, organizational socialization can be a mechanism for creating change necessary to build a family-friendly work environment. Newcomers unfamiliar with an organization’s norms and expectations can be catalysts for change, especially when their entry is accompanied by work-life policies, practices, and benefits. As the newcomers are socialized with an organization’s family-friendly focus, they serve as role models signaling change to the organization’s existing employees.

WORK-LIFE CYCLE Compared to preemployment and organizational entry, the work-life cycle is much less of a temporally identifiable stage. Instead, the work-life cycle concerns all of those ongoing processes that affect individuals and organizations throughout the entirety of the employment relationship and beyond. The worklife cycle encompasses interactions with one’s supervisor or leader, training and career opportunities, organizational climate as well as how the organization and individual define and evaluate effective performance and success. Importantly, job design and redesign as well as the role that technology has within the work and nonwork lives of employees are presented as both challenges and productive opportunities for organizations to harness and manage work-life issues. Leadership and Supervisor Support Research consistently shows that supervisor support is linked to reduced workfamily conflict (O’Driscoll et al., 2003; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2006). For both men and women, supervisors who are understanding and supportive are associated with higher scores on positive quality of life indicators (e.g., coping/mastery) and lower scores on negative quality of life indicators (e.g., work/life conflict, overload, and stress; Moen & Yu, 2000). Supervisor support was linked to reduced work-family conflict and greater family and job satisfaction for married and single mothers (McManus, Korabik, Rosin &


121

Kelloway, 2002). There is also some evidence that supervisor support for workfamily is positively related to retention (see Murphy & Zagorski, 2005). Research also shows that supervisor support is among the best predictors of work-family program and benefit use (Blair-Loy & Wharton, 2002). Employees are more likely to participate in WLB programs when supervisors support program and benefit use (Allen, 2001; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Thompson, Beauvais & Lyness, 1999). Murphy and Zagorski (2005) describe a nationwide study by Canada’s Department of Labor, which found that 70% of employees surveyed attributed problems in their respective companies’ WLB programs to treatment by their immediate supervisors. Supervisor support for work-family balance may offer a sense of control over limited resources, heightens perceived social support, and may serve as a buffer for negative career consequences resulting from work-family program and benefit use. In addition, managerial use of work-life programs and benefits serves as an important role modeling function for employees (Kossek, Barber & Winters, 1999). When supervisors take advantage of work-life programs, employees observe that using them is acceptable. Implications for research and practice Given the importance of supervisory support to alleviating work-family conflict, it is surprising that the leadership literature has not exerted a greater influence on work-family research and practice. Theorists have suggested that leader-member exchange (LMX) theory may be a particularly relevant point of integration between leadership and work-family research (Bernas & Major, 2000; Murphy & Zagorski, 2005). LMX has been widely used to characterize the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships (see Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 for a review). High LMX relationships between supervisors and subordinates are characterized by reciprocal influence, mutual trust, loyalty, respect, and positive affect (Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993). Subordinates in low LMX relationships are more closely supervised, have little negotiating latitude, and have more narrowly defined role relationships (Duchon, Green & Taber, 1986). Research demonstrates that LMX is positively related to several desirable outcomes, including subordinate job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance (e.g., Major, Kozlowski, Chao & Gardner, 1995; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994; Seers & Graen, 1984; Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996). LMX is negatively linked to subordinate stress, turnover intentions, and turnover (Bernas & Major, 2000; Graen, Liden & Hoel, 1982; Major et al., 1995). Although originally proposed as a descriptive theory to characterize the differential relationships that leaders form with individual subordinates, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) more recently suggested that supervisors should aspire to have high LMX relationships with all employees. Murphy and Zagorski (2005)

122 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 point out that high LMX relationships require a wealth of relational skills that are not only essential in managing people day to day but are also important in managing the intersection of work and family. Preliminary research on LMX and work-family conflict has yielded inconsistent findings. Contrary to their prediction, Bernas and Major (2000) found a positive link between LMX and work interference with family in a sample of women municipal workers. Meert and Major (2006), however, found the expected negative relationship between LMX and work interference with family in a sample of information technology employees. From a theoretical perspective it seems appropriate that subordinates in high LMX relationships who enjoy greater, trust, respect, and liking from supervisors will have greater opportunity to prevent and to alleviate workfamily conflict. Research is needed to identify the work and family contextual factors that may moderate the nature of the relationship between LMX and work-family conflict. From a practical perspective, supervisors should work to support employees in their efforts to balance work and family through high LMX relationships. Effective leaders recognize that employee productivity can be enhanced when people have the latitude to address what matters most to them, not just at work but also in their nonwork lives. In high performance organizations, leaders take a greater role in facilitating employees’ opportunities for attending to family, home, and other priorities (e.g., community participation) as well as work demands (Major, 2000). Training and Career Development A recent review indicates that there has been little research examining the direct effects of training on work-family conflict (Thompson, Beauvais & Allen, 2006). As Hill and Stephens (2005) point out, “The formal and informal processes that dominate job training focus almost entirely on the professional roles played by employees, with little attention given to their interactions across each other, much less their personal counterparts,” (p. 135). Employer-sponsored training programs tend to emphasize work tasks and roles more than nonwork roles and the interface between life domains. Nonetheless, there is some assertion in the work-family literature that certain types of coping-oriented training programs may be beneficial to individuals dealing with the effects of workfamily conflict and attempting to balance work and family. Time management, stress reduction, interpersonal relations, and role negotiation training are all examples of training that may help individuals cope with work-family conflict (Maddi, Kahn & Maddi, 1998; Major, 2003). Although we recognize that these training programs may be beneficial in helping individuals cope with work-family conflict, we do not advocate them as the best or sole use of training resources. The major shortcoming of the coping approach is that it places the responsibility for managing the work-family interface on the individual


123

employee, while doing little to manage and change the contextual factors that create conflict between work and family domains. Implications for research and practice In addition to training that improves the coping skills of individual employees, supervisors must also be trained to assist individuals in their efforts to manage work and family issues. Research shows that supervisors’ referrals to worklife programs are largely determined by their awareness of such programs and that their level of awareness is low (Casper, Fox, Sitzmann & Landy, 2004). Thus, supervisors need training to understand which organizational policies, programs, and benefits may be available to help their employees balance work and family. Given how instrumental supervisor support is to alleviating workfamily conflict, supervisors need training in how to be supportive across a variety of work and family contexts. We contend that supervisors need career development experiences that enable them to manage and motivate employees in a variety of work-life circumstances. This may mean managing nontraditional work arrangements (e.g., flextime, telework) and learning to accommodate a variety of family and life situations. Supervisors also have to be sensitive to equity and fairness concerns, recognizing that employees have a variety of nonwork priorities, which include but are not limited to caring for children. Research suggests that some organizations have already moved in this direction. Results of the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce show that 55% of participants report that their work organizations encourage supervisors to support employees with family problems, 43% of employees indicated that their employers train supervisors to provide support, and 56% said that how well supervisors help employees manage work and family is a criterion for performance appraisal (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky & Prottas, 2002). Additional research is needed to assess organizational practices for encouraging supervisor support, to evaluate supervisory training to identify best practices, and to evaluate the effectiveness of using performance appraisal as a mechanism for motivating supervisors to attend to employees’ work-life needs. Organizational Culture and Climate Organizational culture and climate are common constructs for representing the organizational context. Organizational culture consists of the basic assumptions and beliefs shared by organizational members; it is reflected in values, beliefs, customs and rituals (Schein, 1985). Organizational culture integrates members and drives norms for how they relate to one another. Culture shapes working relationships, often through the development and implementation of

124 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 organizational policies, practices, and procedures (Daft, 2004). Organizational climate is defined as the shared perceptions of the work environment, including perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and procedures (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). The links between culture and climate have been discussed extensively. Denison (1996) observes that organizational culture and climate share definitions of organizational phenomena, key theoretical issues, and comparable research content. Organizational policies, practices, and procedures link together organizational culture and organizational climate and create alignment between them (Ostroff, Kinicki & Tamkins, 2003). Organizational climate can be viewed as the shared perceptions of various aspects of an organization’s culture. Within organizations, molar climates exist and have significant consequences for organizational members (Carr, Schmidt, Ford & DeShon, 2003). However, organizational climate also has specific referents, and several climates may exist within the same organization, for instance climate for opportunity (Hayes, Bartle & Major, 2002), climate for safety (Zohar, 1980), service climate (Schneider, 1990), and work-family climate. Research suggests that organizational context factors are linked to workfamily outcomes. Work organizations can support positive work-family outcomes through policies, practices, and procedures, for example, use of flexible scheduling, provision of childcare support, and use of telework (Zedeck & Mosier, 1990). However, family-friendly policies and practices are not sufficient to create a family-friendly work environment (Thompson, Andreassi & Prottas, 2005). Research shows that employees are more likely to use familyfriendly benefits intended to alleviate work-family conflict when they perceive the organization as family-supportive (Allen, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999). When employees perceive the work organization as supporting family, workfamily conflict is diminished (Allen, 2001; Anderson et al., 2002; O’Driscoll et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2004). Compared to more global perceptions of organizational context (e.g., perceived organizational support, fair treatment, trust in management), employee’s perceptions of the organization’s workfamily supportiveness are stronger predictors of work-family conflict (Behson, 2002). Assessed from the perspective of individual employees, work climates that support family care and sharing of family concerns with coworkers were shown to reduce work-family conflict and enhance work performance (Kossek, Colquitt & Noe, 2001). Implications for research and practice The extant research demonstrates that organizational context is an important factor in reducing work-family conflict. However, the work-family literature could benefit from better links to organizational culture and climate theory and greater conceptual clarity. For example, Thompson and colleagues developed


125

a measure labeled work-family culture and have used that measure to examine the relationship between employees’ perceptions of the work environment and work-family outcomes (Thompson et al., 1999). Given the measure’s focus on employees’ perceptions of organizational policies, procedures, and practices, we contend that it is more consistent with conceptualizations of work-family climate. It is likewise important to consider how other measures of organizational perceptions in the work-family literature (e.g., Allen’s 2001 measure of family supportive organizational perceptions) fit into the nomonolgical network of culture and climate constructs. Assessing organizational context from multiple levels and perspectives is an important avenue for future research. Culture and climate both deal with shared perceptions, yet most work-family research examines only individual perceptions. For instance, several studies have shown that employees’ perceptions of an organization’s family supportiveness are negatively related to work-family conflict (e.g., Allen, 2001; Anderson, Coffey & Byerly, 2002; O’Driscoll et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2004). However, there are fewer studies examining the influence of shared perceptions of the work environment and work-family outcomes (see Major, Fletcher, Davis & Germano, 2005; Thompson et al., 2004). Research on the organizational context has also concentrated on the perspectives of organizational insiders, primarily employees. Given the importance of leadership and supervisory supportiveness in alleviating work-family conflict, it would be meaningful to consider the organizational context from the perspectives of organizational managers and supervisors. Leadership is linked to organizational culture and climate (Schein, 1985, 1990). Family members’ perspectives (e.g., spouses and children) on the organizational context may also be an important factor in the influence of the work environment on nonwork life. Research and practice must also be mindful of the linkages between organizational culture and climate as well as how socialization, training, and leadership are related reciprocally to organizational culture and climate. The organizational context as represented by culture and climate sets the stage for organizational socialization and training and provides the context in which leadership is enacted. Leadership also exerts tremendous influence over organizational culture and climate, and training and socialization practices likewise can shape the organizational environment. These interrelationships are important because they provide avenues for creating systemic change that can be directed toward reducing work-family conflict. The interrelationships also are relevant in planning and assessing organizational interventions aimed at reducing work-family conflict. To the extent that attention to the work-life interface is consistent across organizational culture, climate, socialization, training, and leadership, work-family conflict is most likely to be ameliorated. However, when one or more of these functions is not aligned, efforts to diminish conflict are handicapped.

126 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Performance and Success Work psychologists have had a long standing interest in the criterion problem and how to measure job performance and success at work. The definition and measures of success at work and the design of work continue to assume that employees have an adult fulltime at home (Smolensky & Gootman, 2003). Several researchers have asserted that job performance involves more than task performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell et al., 1993; Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983) and includes contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behaviors. Task performance consists of required behaviors for a given job that either directly produces goods and services or maintains the technical core, while contextual performance consists of behaviors that support the broader environment in which the required tasks are performed (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). These behaviors include demonstrating effort, helping and cooperating with others, following organizational rules, and supporting organizational objectives (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Adaptive performance includes dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations and may be distinct from task and citizenship performance (Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Johnson, 2003). Finally, organizationally deviant behaviors have negative value for organizational effectiveness, violate organizational norms, and also threaten the viability and well-being of the organization and/or its members (e.g., property damage, substance abuse, violence on the job, and withdrawal behaviors such as tardiness, absenteeism, and turnover or even social loafing or withholding effort; Kidwell & Bennett, 1993; Sackett & Wanek, 1996). Why should we examine how success is measured in organizations? First, although the domain of performance in research studies has expanded from task performance to include citizenship behaviors/contextual performance, adaptive and counterproductive behaviors, the construct of performance in organizations continues to be narrowly defined (usually by a subset of stakeholders). The current domain ignores the performance constraints and facilitators found within the larger context in which work is performed. Further, this narrow definition may give substantial advantages to employees with specific family or marital role structures and disadvantage alternative and increasingly diverse family structures. For example, if career promotions are dependent on being available to work nontraditional hours, this can advantage workers in a traditional marital relationship and disadvantage single parents or women in dual earner families. Second, the sources of criterion information are limited often to one source, supervisory ratings of employee performance at work, and often restricted to only immediate workplace sources of information. The restricted means of assessing work measures of success implicitly assumes that the only legitimate stakeholders or constituents of employee performance include the organization


127

and the employee. However, other constituents include the employee’s spouse, family, and society at large. In addition to multiple sources of performance information, there are multiple levels of measuring success or performance including the individual employee, the family (including spouse and children), the organization (productivity), and society (educated and healthy pipeline of employees). Theoretical implications The way that organizations currently define and measure success may have short term gains at the expense of long term goals. For example an employee may be more favorably evaluated for increased quarterly sales profits rather than for developing and nurturing long term customer relationships. Current criterion measures of success in organizations are often short term in focus. With the changing demographic composition of the workforce and the changing demands and technology within organizations, the way success is defined and measured needs to undergo domain transformation and expansion. First, the domain of success should encompass more varied content including individual employee well-being, martial and family well-being as well as traditional indicators of task performance and citizenship behaviors. Occupational health psychology has been instrumental in encouraging the expansion of the criterion domain to include stress and illness as well as health and wellbeing as facets of both individual and organizational success (Quick & Tetrick, 2003). For example, work-family conflict is related to stress and health. Stress includes a negative emotional experience that is accompanied by physiological, biochemical and behavioral changes. Individuals can reduce or avoid the stressor by either adapting or accommodating to it or by manipulating the situation to alter or eliminate it (Baum, 1990; Frone, 2000). Research in occupational health psychology has provided classifications of stressors that can cause illness, including major life events, daily hassles, and chronic stressors (Taylor, 1999). Work and family interactions provide multiple sources of potential stressors that influence outcomes such as depression, anxiety, burnout, and role overload. Further, the ‘long arm’ of workplace stress reaches well beyond affecting the individual employee; spousal relations and nonwork context are also affected. Second, the multiple stakeholders of work are not ones found only at work (e.g., employees, coworkers, customers); our definition of stakeholders must include non-working and working spouses/partners and children. Our nonwork lives should not be viewed as contaminants of job performance or success but rather as part of the ultimate criterion of success, and therefore very relevant and appropriate to assess (Cleveland, 2005). Government agencies such as Occupational Safety and Health currently monitor safety violations, accident rates, and safety best practices at the organizational and industry levels. Similar

128 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 organization and industry level data can be collected and tracked on the health and well-being of working parents and families. Finally, the domain of success reflects multiple levels of analyses and measurement. For example, if task and contextual performance data are collected only from individual employees, and not from team coworkers, then important feedback on citizenship behaviors would be ignored. Important spouse or family input on how certain employee work behaviors may have benefits at work but adversely affect family interactions would be ignored also. Therefore, both team level and family level data should be collected as well. Further, the multiple levels of analyses may include varying units of time–short term including up to 1 year, to longer term including decades of time; for example, the time that a child often leaves home is 18 years and at this time, an employee may be either at the height of career performance or reentering a career. Practical implications To insure privacy for employees, information on nonwork issues can be collected at group or organization levels of analysis including healthcare costs within organizational units, divorce rates, heart disease, or other stress-related illnesses. Further, work performance on tasks, citizenship behaviors, adaptive behaviors, and deviant work behaviors can be collected at individual and aggregate levels. Direct assessments of both supervisor and coworker support can be evaluated via annual or 6 month performance reviews. It is important that organizations tap not only perceptions of individual employees, coworkers, supervisors, and so forth but also the perceptions of one’s partner/spouse and children. These include, for example, spousal ratings and children’s reactions to the effects of parental work on family interactions. In addition to expanding the source of criterion information, these sources expand the content of success to include marital health and functioning, individual and family stress, children’s physical health, educational development, and mental and social wellbeing. Just as 360 degree performance feedback programs have gained some popularity in management circles (Bracken, Timmreck & Church, 2001), individuals can also benefit from receiving work-related feedback from nonwork sources. Finally, although some research has shown that the demands of multiple roles heighten stress and undermine well-being (e.g., O’Neil & Greenberger, 1994), most research demonstrates that multiple role occupancy per se is not detrimental. Further, even where there are some negative effects from multiple roles, there also tend to be numerous benefits (Burden, 1986). Current trends in psychology emphasize the expansionist theory of multiple roles (Barnett & Hyde, 2001). This theory contends that multiple roles are generally beneficial for both women and men and that a number of processes and contextual


129

parameters contribute to these beneficial effects. Essentially, rewards associated with a combination of high quality roles have positive implications for psychological well-being. On the other hand, multiple burdensome roles may have detrimental effects on well-being. In sum, organizations currently appear to implement inaccurate, outdated, and stereotypical views of work and nonwork interfaces, and specifically, how home life affects work. In order to fully understand, predict, and address the criterion problem within organizations, it is necessary to appreciate the reciprocal relationships between work and nonwork, and to recognize the larger developmental and cultural context in which work behaviors unfold (Cleveland, 2005). Job Design and Physical Work Environment Understanding how the work environment, specifically one’s job, affects psychological well-being and performance has been a major concern for I/O psychology for a long time (Morrison, Payne & Wall, 2003). Research has shown that a number of workplace characteristics contribute to varying levels of important work outcomes including work attitudes and performance. Not surprisingly research has found that work characteristics also are linked with perceptions of conflict between work and family domains. Job stressors that affect work and family may be categorized into two groups: structural or objective and psychosocial or subjective stressors (Barling, 1990). Historically the work and family literature has focused on structural job stressors which are primarily associated with time-related issues including the number of hours worked per week, the amount and frequency of overtime required, an inflexible work schedule, as well as job related mobility such as commuting. Psychosocial job stressors refer to the content of work and to subjectively experienced processes associated with human relations at work and to psychological work characteristics, for example job autonomy, job insecurity, or time demands (Caplan, 1985). Job or work design is concerned with the content and organization of employees’ mental, interpersonal, and physical tasks and with how these characteristics affect employees (including their motivation, cognitions, well-being, and performance) and organizations (e.g., productivity). There are several approaches to work design. One significant work design theory that has been used in research on work and family conflict (examining both healthy and stressful work) is the demand-control model of strain (Karasek, 1979). Much research on job design and stress is reflected in the job demands and decision making latitude model (Karasek, 1979). Healthy (or stressful) work is thought to be a product of job demands (e.g., workload) and decision making latitude (e.g., job autonomy and skill discretion). When high job demands are accompanied by low decision input or control, strain will occur and lead to long term stress related illnesses.

130 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 There is a large amount of research on the demand-control model (Van Der Doef & Maes, 1999). There are also some cautions raised about the way in which the two factors should be combined (e.g., interaction or additive). There is evidence that the demand-control interaction predicts health outcomes including sick leave, absenteeism, and systolic blood pressure (Dwyer & Ganster, 1991). Van Veldhoven, Taris, de Jonge and Broersen (2005) compared several models and found that the Karasek and Theorell (1990) Demand-ControlSupport (DCS) model continues to be a reasonable starting point for examining these relationships although the model could be improved. Specifically, the concept of ‘skill utilization’ could be substituted for the ‘decision latitude’ or ‘control’ concept. Therefore the resulting work characteristics model could be called the demand-skill-support model (Van Veldhoven et al., 2005). Job characteristics such as autonomy and skill use promote job satisfaction, which is one of the most commonly used measures of well-being in work design research (Parker, Turner & Griffin, 2003). Using cross-sectional data from the 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce, Grzywacz and Bass (2003) found that jobs enriched with both structural (i.e., provided at least four of five attributes including health insurance, retirement program, adequate personal earning, paid time off, or secure employment) and psychological attributes (i.e., three out of four attributes including job autonomy, job pressure, learning opportunities, coworker relations, or quality supervision) contributed to better workfamily fit by reducing work-to-family conflict and promoting work-to-family facilitation. Research and practice implications Both the quantitative and qualitative demands of work are associated with health related outcomes and strain while skill utilization and support are associated with attitudinal outcomes and well-being. Peeters, Montgomery, Bakker and Schaufeli (2005) found that both job demands (quantitative, emotional, and mental) and home demands (quantitative, emotional, and mental) have direct and indirect effects (through work-home interference and home-work interference) on burnout (Strazdins, D’Souza, Lim, Broom & Rodgers, 2004). Therefore, we believe there will be the greatest employee and organization payoff by applying job redesign approaches to address work and family conflict issues and to enhance work and family facilitation. Further, context-based work redesign theories can be enhanced by integrating more person-based views of work performance. For example, job redesign can be accomplished using maximal performance or typical performance as the criterion. Organizations often use employee skills and abilities to predict how well they can perform maximally under ideal job conditions. Yet this may be short term and short sighted. Employees are selected to achieve maximal performance although it is unclear how long the employee can sustain maximal performance without showing signs of stress and burnout. The standard for redesigning and restructuring


131

work may need to reflect typical performance; that is performance that can be maintained for long periods of time without undue stress and while facilitating healthy behaviors. Person-Technology Interfaces Computer technology is pervasive at work and at home. According to the Current Population Survey in the U.S., 72.3 million people (53.5% of total employed population) use a computer at work (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). Of the professionals taking part in The Cornell Couples and Career Study, 36.7% of women and 47.8% of men reported sending email from work to family at home (Chesley, Moen & Shore, 2003). In their review of the impact of computers and the Internet on the family, Hughes and Hans (2001) reported that 51% of all U.S. households had a computer and 42% had Internet access. According to the 2000 U.S. Department of Commerce statistics reported by Hughes and Hans (2001), among those who have a computer in the home, 96.6% of women and 93.6% of men employ it to communicate with friends and family. Results of the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) also show substantial use of computers at home for work-related purposes (Bond et al., 2002). Of managers and professionals in the sample, 62% used a computer at home for job-related work and 39% used a computer at home for reading and sending work-related email outside of regular work hours. The use of other communication technologies, such as cellular phones and pagers, has also become common at home and at work. The NSCW data show that 70% of all employees sometimes use a cellular phone or pager to keep in touch with friends and family, and 43% do so on a daily basis (Bond et al., 2002). Yet, these technologies also appear to increase employers’ access to their employees outside of the workplace. In NSCW interviews, 32% of employees indicated that they are regularly contacted outside of work hours about work matters. Computers, cellular phones, pagers, videoconferencing, and other advances in information technology have contributed to the capacity for some work to be performed 24/7 from virtually anywhere (Kalleberg & Epstein, 2001). Having the means to work 24/7 can be accompanied by pressure to do so. Advancements in information technology create tensions between greater flexibility and continuous accessibility (Major & Germano, 2006). These technologies increase the permeability of work and home boundaries. Implications for research and practice Does technology alleviate or exacerbate work-family conflict? The answer seems to be “it depends,” but the contingencies are not clear. For instance, 55% of the NSCW sample indicated that technology helps them manage their

132 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 work, personal and family lives “a lot better” and 27% said technology “helped some,” yielding a total of 82% of respondents indicating that technology reduces work-family conflict (Bond et al., 2002). In a survey of 9,000 employees from a large multinational corporation, 80% of teleworkers (i.e., those who use technology to work at home or away from an organizational work site) agreed that the practice improved their work-life balance (Sparrow, 2000). Yet, only 33% felt involved in their children’s educations, 40% reported difficulty managing work-life, and 50% felt drained at the end of the day. Research is needed to better understand the factors that limit technology’s positive influence on work-family balance and those that maximize it. Traditional performance criteria emphasize face time and indeed many worklife programs are intended to increase the amount of time an employee is present at work (Major et al., 2004). Management’s objections to using technology to facilitate work at home arrangements are often based on lack of trust and lack of control (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Yet, for both employers and employees, there are many potential advantages to telework. For the employer, potential advantages include increased productivity, increased human resources, decreased absenteeism and tardiness, savings in direct expenses, increased motivation and satisfaction, and creation of a positive organizational image (Harpaz, 2002; Sparrow, 2000). Employees may gain flexibility, autonomy and independence, control over time, savings in travel time and commuting expenses, opportunity to work with fewer distractions, and greater availability to family (Harpaz, 2002; Kurland & Bailey, 1999). In Sparrow’s (2000) survey of teleworkers, 75% reported a positive impact on their productivity, 60% noted improved ability to concentrate, 66% reported positive effects on morale, and 48% indicated greater organizational commitment. Thus, while the use of technology for telework decreases face time, it can be tapped to enhance productive time. Cyberloafing or cyberslacking refers to employees’ use of their employers’ Internet access and email during work hours for nonwork related purposes (Lim, 2002). The growing body of research on cyberloafing, and indeed even the term itself, portrays the phenomenon negatively as a form of abuse, deviance or stealing that creates a critical drain on productivity (e.g., Griffiths, 2003; Mirchandani & Motwani, 2003; Sharma & Gupta, 2003/2004). Yet, from a work-family perspective, personal use of an employer’s Internet resources and email may constitute a useful method for alleviating work-family conflict. If increasingly long work hours make it difficult for employees to spend time with family and complete errands, is it really wrong for employees to do some online shopping? Likewise, provided an employee who is increasingly asked to do more with less meets goals and deadlines, is it really a problem for that person to use the Internet to plan a much needed family vacation? Research suggests that many employees view such behavior as acceptable, even if organizational policies prohibit it (Lim, 2002; Lim, Teo & Loo, 2002). Research and


133

organizational practice need to attend to the potentially positive work-family implications of “cyberloafing.”

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I/O psychology research and tools can be better applied to address the issue of work-family conflict. In this chapter, we considered relevant processes at three stages in the employment relationship: job analysis and recruitment in the preemployment phase; selection and socialization during organizational entry; and several processes during the work-life cycle, including leadership and supervisory support, training and career development, organizational climate and culture, performance and success, job design and physical work environment, and the person-technology interface. We acknowledge that the stages described have fuzzy boundaries and that many of the processes discussed are relevant to more than one stage. However, using a stage framework to organize our review and recommendations helps illustrate our contention that the organization’s attention to work-family conflict is important throughout all the phases of the employment relationship. From a research perspective, further understanding of how to manage workfamily conflict may be garnered through better integration between workfamily research and other research domains of I/O psychology (e.g., leadership, performance assessment). We also identified areas requiring greater conceptual clarity and more consistent construct definitions (e.g., work-family culture and climate) as well as areas in need of broadened conceptual and operational definitions (e.g., performance and success). From an applied perspective, we contend that effective solutions for addressing work-family conflict rely on shaping the work situation to accommodate the individual. Individual differences are important but more so for how they inform organizational and job design, instead of as points of intervention in and of themselves. Within each employment phase, the need for alignment among processes is highlighted. For example, within the work-life cycle, training and career development can contribute to leadership and supervisory support practices aimed at reducing work-family conflict, while organizational culture and climate are reciprocally related to leadership processes. Processes between phases likewise need to be aligned. For instance, there are strategic linkages between recruitment, socialization, and job design. Work-family considerations highlighted to attract employees to the organization must be reinforced during socialization, and work-family issues must be revisited through job design to maintain a work-family focus. Job redesign, enrichment, and the person-technology interface are content areas that we believe to be the most productive avenues for interventions and organizationally sponsored changes in the work environment to address work-life issues. Further, organizational

134 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 socialization, leadership, and organizational climate and culture are processes that must be aligned to reinforce work-family supports in the physical work environment. Modifications made through work redesign may be better implemented, maintained, monitored, improved upon, and sustained over time when supported by such social processes.

REFERENCES Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435. Altman, B. W. & Post, J. E. (1996). Beyond the “social contract:” An analysis of the executive view at twenty-five large companies. In D. T. Hall (ed.), The career is dead– long live the career: A relational approach to careers (pp. 46–71). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S. & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787–810. Bailey, D. E. & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383–400. Barling, J. (1990). Employment, stress and family functioning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Barling, J. (1994). Work and family: In search of more effective workplace interventions. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (eds), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 63–73). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Barnett, R. C. & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W. & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Baum, A. (1990). Stress, intrusive imagery, and chronic distress. Health Psychology, 9, 655–675. Behson, S. J. (2002). Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational support and general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 53–72. Bernas, K. H. & Major, D. A. (2000). Contributors to stress resistance: Testing a model of women’s work-family conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 170–178. Beutell, N. J. & Wittig-Berman, U. (1999). Predictors of work-family conflict and satisfaction with family, job, career, and life. Psychological Reports, 85, 893–903. Bianchi, S. M., Casper, L. M. & King, R. B. (2005). Work, family, health, and well-being. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Blair-Loy, M. & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employees’ use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80, 813–845. Bond, J. T., Thompson, C., Galinsky, E. & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute. Borman, W. & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (eds), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W. & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback. San Fransciso: Jossey Bass.


135

Brannick, M. T. & Levine, L. (2002). Job analysis: Methods, research, and applications for human resource management in the new millennium. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bruck, C. S. & Allen, T. D. (2003). The relationship between big five personality traits, negative affectivity, type A behavior, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 457–472. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H. & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman Associates (eds), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Caplan, R. D. (1985). Psychosocial stress in work. Management and Labour Studies, 10, 63–76. Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 236–253. Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K. & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605–619. Casper, W. J., Fox, K. E., Sitzmann, T. M. & Landy, A. L. (2004). Supervisor referrals to work-family programs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 136–151. Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J. & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743. Chesley, N., Moen, P. & Shore, R. P. (2003). The new technology climate. In P. Moen (ed.), It’s about time: Couples and careers (pp. 220–241). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Cleveland, J. N. (2005). What is success? Who defines it? Perspectives on the criterion problem as it relates to work and family. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (eds), Work and life integration: Organizational cultural and individual perspectives (pp. 319–345). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization theory and design (8th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western. de Graaf, J. (ed.). (2003). Take back your time: Fighting overwork and time poverty in America. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on the decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21, 619–654. Duchon, D., Green, S. G. & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56–60. Dunford, R. (1999). ‘If you want loyalty get a dog!’: Loyalty, trust and the new employment contract. In S. R. Clegg, E. Ibarra-Colado & L. Bueno-Rodriquez (eds), Global management: Universal theories and local realities (pp. 68–82). London: Sage. Dwyer, D. J. & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 595– 608. Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W. & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 168–184. Feldman, D. C. & Brett, J. N. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 258–272. Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11, 39–53. Frone, M. R. (2000). Work-family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 888–895.

136 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Frone, M. R., Russell, M. & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 723–729. Glass, J. L. & Finley, A. (2002). Coverage and effectiveness of family-responsive workplace policies. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 313–337. Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C. & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 868–872. Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. Greenhaus, J. & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391–412). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Griffiths, M. (2003). Internet abuse in the workplace: Issues and concerns for employers and employment counselors. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40, 87–96. Grosswald, B., Ragland, D. & Fisher, J. M. (2001). Critique of U.S. work/family programs and policies. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 12, 53–81. Grover, S. L. & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288. Grzywacz, J. G. & Bass, B. L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing different models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 248–262. Grzywacz, J. G. & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. Gundry, L. K. & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Critical incidents in communicating culture to newcomers: The meaning is the message. Human Relations, 47, 1063–1088. Hammer, L. B., Allen, E. & Grigsby, T. D. (1997). Work-family conflict in dual-earner couples: Within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 185–203. Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, organization and society. Work Study, 51, 74–80. Hayes, B. C., Bartle, S. A. & Major, D. A. (2002). Climate for opportunity: A conceptual model. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 445–468. Hesketh, B. & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (eds), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Heymann, J. (2002). Can working families ever win? Boston: Beacon Press. Higgins, C. A. & Duxbury, L. E. (1992). Work-family conflict: A comparison of dualcareer and traditional-career men. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 389–411. Hill, R. P. & Stephens, D. L. (2005). The multiplicity of selves and selves management: A leadership challenge for the 21st century. Leadership, 1, 127–140. Honeycutt, T. L. & Rosen, B. (1997). Family friendly human resource policies, salary levels, and salient identity as predictors of organizational attraction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 271–290. Hughes, R., Jr. & Hans, J. D. (2001). Computers, the Internet, and families: A review of the role new technology plays in family life. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 776–790. Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879. Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and individual job performance. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (eds), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 83–120). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


137

Kalleberg, A. L. & Epstein, C. F. (2001). Temporal dimensions of employment relations. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1064–1075. Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–306. Karasek, R. & Theorell, T. G. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of work life. New York: Basic Books. Kidwell, R. E. & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18, 429–456. Kinnunen, U. & Mauno, S. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51, 157–177. Kinnunen, U., Vermulst, A., Gerris, J. & Mäkikangas, A. (2003). Work-family conflict and its relations to well-being: The role of personality as a moderating factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1669–1683. Kossek, E. E., Barber, A. E. & Winters, D. (1999). Using flexible schedules in the managerial world: The power of peers. Human Resource Management, 38, 33–46. Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A. & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climate. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 29–44. Kurland, N. B. & Bailey, D. E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 53–68. Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Levy, P. E. (2006). Industrial/Organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Lewis, S. & Cooper, C. L. (1999). The work-family research agenda in changing contexts. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 382–393. Liden, R. C. & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662– 674. Lim, V. K. G. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 675–694. Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T. S. H. & Loo, G. L. (2002). How do I loaf here? Let me count the ways. Communications of the ACM, 45, 66–70. Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z. & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866. Maddi, S. R., Kahn, S. & Maddi, K. L. (1998). The effectiveness of hardiness training. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50, 78–86. Major, D. A. (2000). Effective newcomer socialization into high performance organizational cultures. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom & M. F. Peterson (eds), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 355–368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Major, D. A. (2003). Utilizing role theory to help employed parents cope with children’s chronic illness. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 18, 45–57. Major, D. A., Cardenas, R. A. & Allard, C. B. (2004). Child health: A legitimate business concern. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 306–321. Major, D. A., Fletcher, T. D., Davis, D. D. & Germano, L. M. (2005, April). The influence of climate and workplace relationships on work-family conflict: A multilevel model of mediated effects. In D. A. Major & L. M. Germano (Chairs), Understanding Organizational Support and Its Influence on Work-Family Outcomes. Symposium presented

138 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA. Major, D. A. & Germano, L. M. (2006). The changing nature of work and its impact on the work-home interface (pp. 13–38). In F. Jones, R. Burke & M. Westman (eds), Work-life balance: A psychological perspective. London: Psychology Press. Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T. & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418–431. McManus, K., Korabik, K., Rosin, H. M. & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Employed mothers and the work-family interface: Does family structure matter? Human Relations, 55, 1295–1324. Meert, S. K. & Major, D. A. (2006, May). Effects of gender match on leader-member exchange and work-family conflict. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. Mir, A., Mir, R. & Mosca, J. B. (2002). The new age employee: An exploration of changing employee-organization relations. Public Personnel Management, 31, 187– 200. Mirchandani, D. & Motwani, J. (2003). Reducing Internet abuse in the workplace. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 68, 22–55. Mirvis, P. H. & Hall, D. T. (1996). New organizational forms and the new career. In D. T. Hall (ed.), The career is dead–long live the career: A relational approach to careers (pp. 72–101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moen, P. (2003). Epilogue: Toward a policy agenda. In P. Moen (ed.), It’s about time: Couples and careers (pp. 333–337). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Moen, P. & Yu, Y. (2000). Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work conditions, gender, and life quality. Social Problems, 47, 291–326. Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173–183. Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589. Morrison, D., Payne, R. L. & Wall, T. D. (2003). Is job a viable unit of analysis? A multilevel analysis of demand-control support models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 209–219. Murphy, S. E. & Zagorski, D. A. (2005). Enhancing work-family and work-life interaction: The role of management. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (eds), From workfamily balance to work-family interaction: Changing the metaphor (pp. 27–47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nord, W. R., Fox, S., Phoenix, A. & Viano, K. (2002). Real-world reactions to work-life balance programs: Lessons for effective implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 223–238. O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L. & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work-family conflict, and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 326–344. O’Neil, R. & Greenberger, E. (1994). Patterns of commitment to work and parenting: Implications for role strain. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 101–118. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health. Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J. & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 565–593). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


139

Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874. Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering process of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170–183. Parker, L. & Allen, T. D. (2001). Work/family benefits: Variables related to employees’ fairness perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 453–468. Quick, J. C. & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Handbook of occupational health psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rau, R. (2004). Job strain or healthy work: A question of task design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 322–338. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287. Reichers, A. E. & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Roman, P. M. & Blum, T. C. (2001). Work-family role conflict and employer responsibility: An organizational analysis of workplace responses to a social problem. In R. T. Golembiewski (ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 415– 444). New York: Marcel Dekker. Rousseau, D. M. & Schalk, R. (eds). (2000). Psychological contracts in employment: Crossnational perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ruben, D. H. (1986). The management of role ambiguity in organizations. Journal of Employment Counseling, 23, 120–130. Sackett, P. R. & Wanek, J. E, (1996). New development in the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787–830. Schalk, R. & Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Psychological contracts in employment. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (eds), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 133–142). London: Sage. Scandura, T. A. & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588–1602. Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109– 119. Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 383–412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Seers, A. & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 283–306. Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N. & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219–227. Sharma, S. K. & Gupta, J. N. D. (2003/2004). Improving workers’ productivity and reducing Internet abuse. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44, 74–78.

140 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 655–663. Smolensky, E. & Gootman, J. A. (2003). Working families and growing kids: Caring for children and adolescents. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Sparrow, P. R. (2000). New employee behaviours, work designs and forms of work organization: What is in store for the future of work? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 202–218. Still, M. C. & Strang, D. (2003). Institutionalizing family-friendly policies. In P. Moen (ed.), It’s about time: Couples and careers (pp. 288–309). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Strazdins, L., D’Souza, R. M., Lim, L. L. Y., Broom, D. H. & Rodgers, B. (2004). Job strain, job insecurity and health: Rethinking the relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 296–305. Taylor, S. E. (1999). Health psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Thomas, L. T. & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15. Thompson, C. A., Andreassi, J. K. & Prottas, D. J. (2005). Work-family culture: Key to reducing workforce-workplace mismatch? In S. M. Bianchi, L. M. Casper & R. B. King (eds), Work, family, health, and well-being (pp. 117–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L. & Allen, T. D. (2006). Work and family form an industrial/organizational psychology perspective. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek & S. Sweet (eds), The work and family handbook (pp. 283–307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L. & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415. Thompson, C. A., Jahn, E. W., Kopelman, R. E. & Prottas, D. J. (2004). Perceived organizational family support: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 545–565. Thompson, C. A. & Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 100–118. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Computer and internet use at work in 2001. Retrieved January 19, 2004, from http://www.bls.gov/ news.release/ciuaw.nr0.htm. Van Der Doef, M. & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control-support model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 53, 191–200. Van Veldhoven, M. Taris, T. W., de Jonge, J. & Broersen, S. (2005). The relationship between work characteristics and employee health and well-being: How much complexity do we really need? International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 3–28. Wayne, J. H., Musisca, N. & Fleeson, W. (2004). Considering the role of personality in the work-family experience: Relationships of the big five to work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 108–130. Zedeck, S. & Mosier, K. L. (1990). Work in the family and employing organization. American Psychologist, 45, 240–251. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96–102.

Chapter 4 COPING RESEARCH AND MEASUREMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF WORK RELATED STRESS Philip Dewe Department of Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK

and Cary L. Cooper Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, UK The growth over the last 25 years of research into work stress and coping reflects the importance researchers give to coping as an explanatory variable. What is less clear, despite the level of attention given to the role of coping in work stress, is how much progress has actually been made. The optimism and belief in the 1980s that work stress researchers were on the verge of important breakthroughs in our understanding of work stress and coping needs now, on reflection, to be replaced by a more tempered view of the state of our knowledge (Burke, 2002). Reviewers, it seems, agree that work stress and coping research is diverse (Dewe, 2000; Endler & Parker, 1990), continues to generate considerable interest (Sulsky & Smith, 2005), spans a rapidly growing field (Kinicki & Latack, 1990) that covers a myriad of issues and a plethora of publications (Ashkanasy, Ashton-James & Jordan, 2004), and seems to maintain its considerable momentum (Edwards & Baglioni, 1993), to the extent that it is now, probably the most extensively explored subject in contemporary psychology (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). Despite all this, there is among reviewers a sense that little progress has really been made (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996). This stems partly from reviewers continuing to question just how much we have advanced our understanding of the role of coping in the stress process (Dewe, 2001), and partly because our findings are expressed so generally it is particularly difficult, at times, to determine their clinical relevance or practical applicability (Coyne & Racioppo, 2000). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2007, Volume 22. C 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Edited by G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford. Copyright

142 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Reviewers, as has already been noted, are also acutely aware of why we may have ‘fallen short’ (Burke, 2002). The reasons should come as no surprise with reviewers citing the limitations of questionnaires in capturing the complexity of the coping process (Burke, 2002), the failure to recognise the potential of qualitative methods (Dewe, 2001), and the emphasis on analysis at the expense of synthesis (Lazarus, 1999). The overview of work stress and coping research that follows is not designed simply to give a sense of those areas that have captured the attention of researchers. It is concerned with understanding why many researchers have resisted the opportunity to change, preferring instead to continue to use methods and designs that have long been the subject of critical scrutiny. The message is clear that unless change occurs and becomes an accepted part of the research process then work stress and coping research will lack that creative tension necessary for new knowledge and understanding to emerge. Rather than providing the fertile ground for imaginative and innovative approaches work stress and coping research will simply continue to maintain a status quo that should have long since been banished to the sideline. It is not uncommon at this point in a review, to refer once again to the sheer volume of work that has been done. When key words like job, work, or occupational stress and coping are entered into different search engines, the number of entries is in the thousands. For this reason we have adopted the approach outline above. From the hundreds of studies on different aspects of work stress and coping that have been done, we have had to impose boundaries. As a result, our review reflects the belief that research has focused more on exploring personal and situational correlates of coping and less on the coping process and how it operates. Our review begins with a brief historical overview of coping and how coping has been defined. It then moves to exploring coping within a work context looking first at how work stress researchers have dealt with classifying coping strategies, then moves to exploring the relationship between coping and different personal and situational variables and then at coping effectiveness. It then moves to the more general issues surrounding the measurement of coping and the debate surrounding the role of coping checklists and the search for more person-centered measures that capture the richness of the coping process. The review ends by presenting a number of challenges for the future.

A BRUSH WITH HISTORY Although “the term coping was not much used before the 1970s, the basic idea is certainly not new” (Lazarus, 1999, p. 102). Historically, coping has been studied from three perspectives. The early approaches took a ‘psychodynamic perspective,’ emphasizing the concept of ‘defence’ as a means of dealing with threats. This idea was later developed to suggest that “individuals have preferred ways or styles of managing stress and that certain defensive styles

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 143 are linked to certain kinds of psychopathology” (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000, p. 620). It was not long before researchers began to focus on the traitlike properties or ‘styles of coping,’ with the result that coping was next considered in terms of personality traits. In this approach, the emphasis was on exploring those personality dispositions or traits that might influence coping behaviors. If personality dispositions can be shown to consistently ‘shape coping thoughts and actions,’ then these can be referred to as ‘coping styles’ that essentially reflect a stable patterns of behaviors that operate across encounters (Lazarus, 1999, p. 104). The conceptual overlap between personality and coping continues to be debated with ‘strong evidence’ being provided that broad dimensions of personality are associated with more favored ways of coping (Suls & David, 1996, p. 994). More recently the debate around personality has been extended to cover so called ‘personal coping resources’ (Schaufeli, 2002) for example, ‘hardiness’ where such a resource can be drawn on at times of stress to promote successful coping. Coping, as a distinct field of psychological enquiry, began in earnest in the 1970s (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). It was at this time that fundamental developments in ‘coping theory’ led to a shift in emphasis from coping as a ‘style or trait’ towards coping as a ‘process.’ From this perspective coping changes over time and in relation to the encounter in which it occurs (Lazarus, 1993). This approach conceptualized coping in transactional terms. ‘Transaction’ implies process, because of the continual interchange between the individual and the environment (Lazarus, 1990). Clearly associated with the work of Lazarus (1966) and his colleagues (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), this transactional emphasis set a whole new course for understanding coping. As Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) make clear “Lazarus’s formulation expanded the boundaries of coping beyond defence [trait or style] to include a wider range of cognitive and behavioural responses that ordinary people use to manage distress and address the problems of daily life” (p. 746). The power of the ‘transactional approach’ to coping lies in the fact that it makes it necessary to focus on those cognitive processes that link the individual to the environment. Central to Lazarus’s theory is the role of cognitive appraisal. Inspired by the ‘cognitive revolution,’ his theory views coping “as a process that unfolds in the context of a situation or condition that is appraised as personally significant and taxing or exceeding the individual’s resources for coping” (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004, p. 747). Lazarus identifies two types of appraisal. The first he describes as ‘primary appraisal.’ This is where the individual gives meaning to events, and appraises the importance of the encounter in terms of harm, threat, or challenge. It is the recognition that something of significance to wellbeing is at stake. The process of appraisal and its application to a work setting while always being of importance is ‘arguably more important now’ because to ignore such a process will, as Daniels, Harris and Briner (2004) conclude, significantly limit our understanding of affect and ‘ultimately compromise our ability to inform interventions’ (p. 358).

144 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 However, primary appraisal is not, by itself, enough to decide the significance of an event. ‘Secondary appraisal’ further refines the significance of what is happening and addresses the question of ‘what can be done.’ This process identifies and evaluates the role and availability of different coping options and underpins coping actions. In short, it involves those efforts to shape, manage, or resolve the event. As the two appraisals never operate independently of one another the term secondary is not meant to describe a process of any less importance. Distinguishing between the two appraisal processes is, as Lazarus (1999) suggests, one of content rather than timing. Each is part of a complex process and there is, in effect, a dynamic interchange between the two. Lazarus’s ‘cognitively oriented’ theory of coping set the benchmark for those wishing to undertake coping research and it is the context within which this review takes place.

THE CONCEPT OF COPING Coping is a fundamental part of the transactional process and, therefore, it is important to consider what we mean when the term coping is used. The need to understand the concept of coping has, over the years, acquired a level of importance quite distinct from its role in the stress process (Dewe, 2001), not only because it has an ‘immediate personal relevance’ and is of ‘intrinsic interest’ (Aldwin, 2000) but also because “coping is more than simple adjustment; it is the pursuit of human growth” (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996, p. 506). Coping occupies, as Snyder points out, a significant “place within the psyche of cultures more generally, and with people specifically” (1999, p. 333). The more it is studied, the more it has become, as Snyder (2000) suggests, an ‘increasingly complex construct’ to the extent that rather than a standardized construct coping represents ‘a diffuse umbrella term’ (Schaufeli, 2002). Nevertheless practically all commentators acknowledge that the most widely used, but not necessarily accepted definition of coping, defines coping as “the cognitive and behavioural effort a person makes to manage demands that tax or exceed personal resources” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 5). Simply put, coping is the effort required to manage stress (Lazarus, 2001). To describe something as coping requires an acceptance that the term is heavily value laden (Beehr & McGrath, 1996). This issue extends beyond the more traditional, but still relevant, argument that the use of the word ‘cope’ implies to “deal successfully with; manage” (Collins Dictionary, 1992, p. 216). Now the value laden feature of coping is more likely to be viewed as coming from the interpretations of coping responses by the researcher that may not be apparent from the nature of the coping response itself (Beehr & McGrath, 1996). To label something as coping assumes some knowledge about what a person is thinking or doing. In a similar vein, Snyder (1999) distinguishes between the ‘insider approach,’ which focuses on the perception of the person

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 145 doing the coping and produces a different understanding about coping than the ‘outsider approach,’ where the focus is on viewing or judging the coping. Embedded in these arguments are issues of research design and measurement, “but it is essential that coping researchers recognize explicitly that key ‘empirical’ observations rest on interpretations and assumptions, not just direct ‘objective’ observations” (Beehr & McGrath, 1996, p. 67). The definition of coping proposed by Lazarus (1991, see above) has been described as ‘unduly constraining’ (Snyder, 2001, p. 4) and ‘overly restrictive’ (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 962), because it limits coping actions to those that involve effort. The problem with this qualifier lies partly in the vagueness that surrounds the term ‘effort’ (Snyder, 2001), and partly from the difficulty in then distinguishing coping from adaptation. In respect of effort, Snyder raises the question of when does any ‘behaviour reach the threshold of being effortful’ (p. 4), and goes on to illustrate this argument by pointing to the ‘minimalist perspective,’ where doing very little may at times be all that is required. Most commentators would agree that when it comes to distinguishing between coping and adaptation, the boundary between them is somewhat blurred. Although adaptation is described as a broader concept involving routine ways of getting along (Costa, Somerfield & McCrae, 1996), management skills (Aldwin, 2000), and habitual or automatic behaviors (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996), there is still the question of how you make the distinction between the two when “coping fades imperceptibly into ordinary adaptation” (Costa et al., 1996, p. 47). Aldwin (2000, p. 81), for example, suggests that while certain actions may have developed from coping with an event “once routine, are no longer considered coping strategies, although they may be coping resources or general resistance resources.” Yet others (Coyne & Gottlieb) still regard as a ‘serious omission’ the exclusion of habitual or automated behaviors from the domain of coping, and query whether “once a set of dependable, routine stress management behaviors have been developed are they no longer to be considered coping?” (1996, p. 963). Habitual and automated behaviors undoubtedly contribute to stressful events, however to regard then as styles of coping fails, argue Suls and David (1996, p. 998), to acknowledge “the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts made initially by Lazarus and Folkman (1984).” In these terms habitual and automated behaviors would not sit comfortably with the idea that coping actions are those beyond the ‘normal’ range of functioning. The debate continues. Then there is the issue of what to do about ‘anticipatory coping,’ where coping efforts occur before the start of a stressful event. Aldwin (2000) asserts that strategies such as anticipatory coping: “straddle the boundary between management skills and coping” (p. 81). To the extent that the action becomes routine, it is a management skill, however, when used in relation to a novel problem or one where the outcome is uncertain then, Aldwin (2000) argues, it becomes more of a coping strategy. Nevertheless, to exclude anticipatory

146 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 coping argue Coyne and Gottlieb (1996, p. 962) “we produce a distorted picture of stress and coping processes and are likely to make erroneous inferences about the efficacy of coping as it is conventionally defined and assessed.” Embedded in these arguments is the issue of whether coping is always a conscious process. Researchers (Snyder, 2001) acknowledge that the term consciousness is ‘plagued with ambiguity’ raising the question of “consciousness as judged by whom and what is it?” (p. 5). However, the issues appears to lie less in the nature of the term and more in the difficulties imposed by the seemingly ‘all or nothing’ (Snyder, 2000) arguments when consciousness is applied to coping. What seems to emerge from the debate is that some coping activities operate at a ‘level of experience’ (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 963) that requires little deliberate reasoning, but that “in most instances coping responses are within our awareness” (Snyder, 1999, p. 6). Developed from the work of Lazarus (1991) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984), coping is generally defined in terms of actions that are purposeful, requiring effort, and consciously set within the context of a significant event. This definition reflects a process focused approach to coping. Yet as Hobfoll, Schwarzer and Chon (1998) make clear, just because coping has been widely defined in this way it does not necessarily follow that this has lead to a consistency in the way, it has been researched. Because of the debates surrounding ‘coping qualifiers’ like effort and consciousness, pressure has grown to adopt a broader view of coping. Snyder (2001, p. 5) for example, suggests that coping definitions should accentuate “a natural, everyday process that is at the heart of our lives–from development through all our adult lives” (2001, p. 5). Similarly Coyne and Gottlieb (1996, pp. 963–964) argue that to adequately reflect the nature of coping definitions should go beyond “deliberate strategies constructed in the midst of a stressful episode.” This theme that our understanding of coping has been hampered because it is assumed to be “a special process” governed by its own rules has also led Costa et al., to conclude that coping should be seen “as an intrinsic part of the fabric of action and experience” (1996, p. 44). For every researcher arguing for a broader definition of coping, there are others emphasizing “that the hallmark of coping strategies is that they require effort whether conscious or unconscious” (Aldwin, 2000, p. 82) or that “habits and automatic behavior are more appropriately conceived as separate contributors to adaptation” (Suls & David, 1996, p. 998). Yet, in the midst of this debate there is, for all concerned, a more telling message. That is the need to accept “there are many unanswered questions about how to conceptualize and measure coping (Aldwin, 2000, pp. 82–83). We may now need to admit that the expectation that the measurement of coping could be solved quickly has been unrealistic (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). More importantly, researchers need now to recognize that understanding coping has some methodological challenges (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996), that include asking ‘where are current methodologies taking us’ and ‘what can alternative methodologies provide?’

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 147 These challenges require, what Coyne (1997) describes as ‘a fresh start,’ where researchers are urged to forego the convenience of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data using established conventions and practices, and consider the use of more ‘ecological sensitive’ person-centered methods that are sensitive to, and capture, the complexities of coping. Defining coping is as much about methodology as it is about establishing what qualifies as coping. If coping is all about purpose, effort and conscious choice, then at the very least these qualifiers provide a useful starting point for further investigation. In this way, research may become more responsive to the issues that need exploring and more importantly the methods needed to explore them. Classifying coping strategies A number of researchers have specifically considered the measurement of coping, and the application of those measures to a work setting. This work needs to be considered against a background of debate and discussion that was taking place in other areas of applied psychology as to whether terms like approachavoidance (Roth & Cohen, 1986) or problem-focused/emotion-focused (Folkman & Lazarus, 1984), are best used as descriptors to group and classify different coping strategies. Early work by Burke (1971) and Burke and Belcourt (1974) used an open-ended approach to collecting data on those ways individuals found useful in handling the tensions and pressures of their jobs. Responses were grouped into 19 categories. The majority of responses were grouped into five categories including talking to others, working harder and longer changing to an engrossing non-work or play activity, analyzing the situation, and changing the strategy of attack and withdrawing physically from the situation. Burke and Belcourt (1976) went on to discuss the different coping categories in terms of whether they could be further classified into active and corrective or passive and preventative behaviors. This work in many ways heralded the beginning of the search for ways to measure coping in work settings. A search that continues to arouse intense debate; one not simply confined to those interested in work related stress. Continuing the need for coping measures that specifically address work related situations Latack (1986) devised a questionnaire designed to capture the richness and complexity of coping behaviors in specific job related encounters. From her analysis Latack (1986) distinguished between three types of coping activity which she labelled as control (proactive strategies), escape (avoidance strategies) and symptom management (efforts to manage the tension). Refinements and adaptations by Kinicki and Latack (1990) continued to support a control-escape distinction via the presence in the data of two coping categories one reflecting a proactive, ‘take control’ coping mode, and the other an ‘escape-avoidance’ coping mode. Havlovic and Keenan (1991) went on to suggest that the control-escape categories could well, following their refinements to the scale, reflect the idea of adaptive-maladaptive coping. Latack, Kinicki and

148 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Prussia (1995) were later to explain that the reason the control-escape classification was maintained and not, for example a problem-emotion focused one, was simply because in their view problem and emotion-focused coping could each be achieved through either control or escape activities. Bearing in mind that the Latack (1986) instrument was specifically looking at job loss, this may help account for the fact that symptom management strategies, because they were used so closely to support control or escape coping, simply became part of those strategies rather than continuing to operate as an independent category. Latack and Havlovic (1992) went on to suggest that any schema for classifying coping must account for not only the focus (problem-emotion) of the coping but also its form (cognitive-behavioral). Researchers were urged by Kinicki and Latack (1990) to build on these findings, in their search for the strategies individuals use to cope with work stress. The personal resources questionnaire developed by Osipow and Spokane (1984) for use in a work setting, and used by Osipow and Davis (1988), described four coping strategies involving recreation, self-care, social supports, and rational-cognitive activities. No attempt was made by these authors to further categorize these strategies. While the measurement and classification of coping strategies may not have been the primary objective for other researchers (e.g. Newton & Keenan, 1985; Stroman & Seltzer, 1991) these investigators did, however, use open-ended questions to generate a range of coping categories. They also, when discussing their results, appeared to infer that their categories could, perhaps, be further classified into action-v-non action (Newton & Keenan, 1985) or simply problem-v-emotion focused (Stroman & Seltzer, 1991) coping. The coping checklist developed by Dewe and Guest (1990) for use in work settings was designed to provide a robust means of describing how people actually cope with work stress. Their strategy was first to generate through open-ended questions a range of coping behaviors. Then, following further analysis, these data were developed into a 63-item checklist designed for use across different work situations. Their research indicated that five coping categories seemed to generalize across a range of different occupations. These categories were described as: rational task oriented behavior, emotional relief, distraction, social support, and passive rationalization. These researchers raised the issue of further classifying their five categories and, whilst suggesting, that a direction action-palliative classification seemed more appropriate, they did acknowledge that this dichotomy provided only a surface distinction, particularly in respect of the underlying complexity and variety relating to palliative or emotion focused coping. Classifying coping strategies has not just been left to those specifically concerned with scale development. Work stress researchers have also made use of a wide array of coping checklists selecting and adapting them in ways that best suit their research goals (Cooper et al., 2001; Dewe, 2000). So, all work stress researchers have been confronted when coping is being measured with

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 149 how to classify this data. It is also clear that researchers have used a variety of terms to describe their results including problem-focused, direction-action, instrumental, active and preventative coping and emotion-focused, palliative, passive, and existential coping. Most, if not all, of these alternative terms have a problem-focused, emotion-focused quality. It is this classification that has been used extensively by work stress researchers and provides, as Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) suggests, a broad brush but useful way of thinking about coping. Two other coping measures are worth mentioning. The first is the Occupational Stress Indicator (Cooper, Sloan & Williams, 1988), an instrument designed to set coping within a diagnostic framework offering organizations the means to be proactive in developing stress interventions. The second the Stress and Coping Inventory (Rahe & Tolles, 2002) is also designed as an intervention tool assessing coping in a way that provides participants with valuable instructive feedback. The most recent and widely used is ASSET (an organizational stress screening tool) which is used as a diagnostic tool (Faragher, Cooper & Cartwright, 2004). Nevertheless, despite or because of the number of studies on work stress and coping no consensus has yet been reached as to how best to classify coping strategies and no universally accepted typology has been agreed (Cooper et al., 2001). Burke (2002) in his review, for example, suggests four coping modes (information seeking, direct action, inhibition of action and intrapsychic) falling under the headings of instrumental and palliative regulation of emotions. Dewe (2000) points to the growing support for a three-dimensional solution (e.g., Moos and Billings, 1982) consisting of active cognitive, active behavioral and avoidance categories. However, as Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) point out, the first two are forms of problem-focused coping and the latter a form of emotion-focused coping. Following on from their examination of coping scales, Ferguson and Cox (1997) suggest that in addition to problem and emotionfocused categories coping involves two other categories which they describe as reappraisal and avoidance. The issue of whether such categories are distinct functions or fall within the problem-focused, emotion-focused domain will continue to be debated. As we shall see later in this review, researchers are now thinking in terms of categories that embrace meaning-focused coping (Park & Folkman, 1997) and proactive coping (Greenglass, 2002). Classifying coping strategies is fundamental to our understanding of the coping process. Arriving at a better understanding of the function of different coping behaviors may only come when researchers specifically address the question of ‘how are different coping strategies used,’ and consider whether current methods actually provide the techniques for answering that question. Although it may be possible to classify coping strategies by simple inspection when considered within the stress context, this task of determining their function is less straight forward (Dewe, 2003). Perhaps researchers have been too quick in wanting to explore different coping relationships, when they may have been better advised to first consider how best coping should be measured,

150 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 and the insights that provides in understanding the functions different coping strategies perform. Personal and situational variables and coping One question that has generated considerable interest in the work stress literature is ‘what influences the choice(s) of particular coping strategies?’ This question has its roots in the proposition that situational and individual difference characteristics are coping resources a person can draw on in coping with stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). When reviewing this literature a number of issues immediately become apparent. The first is that the term ‘personal variables,’ frequently used interchangeably with the term ‘individual difference variables,’ is used to cover an array of variables that include personality traits, personal resources, and individual options (Burke, 2002). It is also not clear at times as to whether the term personal resources is used more in a generic sense to cover a range of variables, or is being used to refer to a particular kind of individual difference, or is simply being used as another term for coping. The second issue is that these personal-individual difference-resource variables, irrespective of how they are defined, are researched either as a moderator or mediator, where they are presumed to determine coping, as a dependent variable and predictor of coping, or interactively, where they are presumed to interact with other variables to influence coping. The third issue reflects the belief that the role of personal-individual differences may depend in part on the context within which coping takes place (O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996), in the sense that the way the personal difference is expressed may be quite different depending on the nature of the encounter. Our aim here is to present an overview of the range and scope of the work that has been done. Nevertheless until more care is given to how ‘personal variables’ are defined, and more importantly operationalized, confusion as to what is being measured will remain, with researchers being left drawing general conclusions from data that may well have multiple interpretations. Personality Turning first to personality, Suls and David (1996) suggest that coping is distinguished from personality in the sense that the former refers to behaviors aimed intentionally at managing a stressful encounter, while personality refers to characteristic behaviors across time and situations. Considered in these terms, Suls and David (1996) argue that a complete overlap between the two is unlikely, because personality traits as in characteristic behaviors do not exist simply to manage stressful encounters, so the two–coping and personality–are hardly synonymous. A wide range of personality traits has been reviewed by work stress researchers including, for example, hardiness, a sense of coherence, locus of control, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and perfectionism (Burke, 2002; Hewitt &

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 151 Flett, 1996; Jones & Bright, 2001; Kinicki, McKee & Wade, 1996; O’Driscoll & Dewe, 2001; Parkes, 1994). Three that stand out as having received particular attention are Type A behavior (TAPB), and neuroticism and extraversion from the ‘Big-Five.’ When considering these three, it is worth noting a number of points. At times it appears that researchers have been much more interested in exploring the moderating relationship between these constructs and stress generally, than their more specific relationship to coping. TAPB, for example, is often discussed in terms as if it is in itself a coping style, and that a considerable level of conceptual overlap exists between various constructs like, for example negative affectivity, neuroticism, locus of control and hardiness (Jones & Bright, 2001). The relationship between TABP and coping has been described as inconsistent (Hewitt & Flett, 1996). While relationships have been reported between TAPB and both adaptive and maladaptive coping (Endler & Parker, 1990; Greenglass, 1988; Havlovic & Keenan, 1991), at other times researchers have reported no association between TAPB and coping (Burke, 1992). Interpretation of these results is made more difficult, because TAPB has also been described as a coping strategy itself reflecting a particular style of interacting with the environment. Research on TAPB has been plagued by controversy (Cooper et al., 2001). In trying to account for these inconsistent findings, Hewitt and Flett (1996) suggest more focused measurement, where there is less emphasis on TAPB as a constellation of behaviors and more on TAPB in terms of specific behaviors like, for example, hostility. Similarly they point to the idea of subtypes of TAPB, and the possibility that these subtypes may be differentiated one from the other on the basis of their coping behaviors. Finally, Hewitt and Flett (1996) suggest more longitudinal analysis, as TAPB coping patterns may change over the course of an encounter, helping to explain what appears to be the use of seemingly opposite coping behaviors. Their overall assessment is that there are few conclusions that can be drawn in relation to TAPB and coping. Negative affectivity is another personality construct where there is considerable debate and discussion as to its role in work stress (Cooper et al., 2001; Jones & Bright, 2001). In relation to coping, negative affectivity is often coupled with and discussed in conjunction with neuroticism. A tendency towards neuroticism is characterized by negative affect as observed by O’Brien & DeLongis (1996). They go on to summarize that those high on neuroticism appear more likely to make use of emotion-focused strategies involving avoidance and self blame, and less likely to make use of problem-focused coping. In contrast when the focus shifts to extraversion, for example, the evidence, as O’Brien and DeLongis (1996) suggest, is for those who exhibit high levels of extraversion to make greater use of problem-focused and more ‘positive’ forms of emotion-focused coping. While TAPB, negative affect and neuroticism, and extraversion may stand out as having received particular attention, they are not the only ones to attract

152 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 the attention of researchers. The review by Cartwright and Cooper (1996), while concluding that the relationship between personality and coping in the workplace has tended to be inferred rather than empirically measured, did identify empirical work covering TAPB, hardiness, locus of control, self-esteem, and a sense of coherence. To this list can be added self-efficacy and dispositional affectivity (Kinicki, McKee & Wade, 1996). In his review of manager’s well-being and health, Burke (2002) also pointed to a similar group of ‘individual characteristics’ that facilitate coping with work stress. These included hardiness, a sense of coherence, resonance, and optimism. What emerges from Burke’s (2002) review is that there is often a clear association between these characteristics and other similar individual characteristics, for example, locus of control, self-efficacy, and positive effect. It is also possible to draw from his review the sense that a degree of fit may exist between the individual characteristic and the selected coping strategy. As a consequence of this notion of fit, the relationship between individual characteristics and coping may be much more complex and more likely to be reciprocal in nature, where the selected coping strategy reinforces the individual characteristic which leads to the further use of that strategy. There is no doubt that personality is an important influence on coping. In relation to work stress, there is a sense that a greater emphasis may have been given, by researchers, to how personality moderates the stress-strain relationship than to the coping-personality relationship. The interaction between personality and coping is, as Cartwright and Cooper (1996) point out, complex and not clearly understood. In future researchers may wish to consider a number of issues. The first relates to the underlying nature of personality traits. This involves exploring from the range of facets which come together to make up the personality trait, which ones or which group of facets influence the use of different coping strategies. This ‘facet analysis’ could be extended to consider whether different combinations of facets lead to different coping strategies being used across similar situations. This type of research could also be extended to explore the impact on coping, when the personality measure is a generalized scale versus those that are specifically designed for use in a work setting (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996). In relation to the coping process, longitudinal analysis may help to answer a number of issues surrounding the role of personality traits. These have been identified by O’Brien and DeLongis (1996) and include, whether personality influences the sequence with which coping strategies are used, whether it plays a more or less significant role at different phases of a stressful situation, and whether it inhibits or supports the use of different coping strategies. Longitudinal analysis would also provide an opportunity to explore the stability of personality traits over time, and distinguish between those that are stable and those that may be more situationally specific (Cartwright & Cooper, 1996). Finally, there is the personality-situation interaction and the need to explore whether, as O’Brien and DeLongis (1996)

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 153 suggest, the same personality trait may be expressed differently depending on the nature of the situation. Resources and options When it comes to the question of resources and options in relation to coping, it is clear that there is no well defined boundary between personality-individual characteristics and resources and options. Nor does there appear to be much in the way of a boundary between the terms coping and resources, with resources having this somewhat dual quality where on the one hand they act as a resource to support coping and on the other they act as a specific coping strategy. When discussed, resources are frequently described in terms of organizational, social, economic, environmental, and personal resources (Hobfoll, 2001; Ito & Brotheridge, 2003). They are also discussed in terms of those we are born with, and those that are gained by sustained effort (Lazarus, 1999). When defined, definitions of resources continue to reflect this overlap by including phrases like personal characteristics, conditions, or energies (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 339). In this way, resources are defined as ‘social and personal characteristics upon which people may draw when dealing with stress’ (Thoits, 1995, p. 59). When resources are discussed in term of stress and coping theory their role is, however, clear and well established. When it comes to coping theory, resources and options are best viewed as reflecting the process of secondary appraisal (Lazarus, 1999). Essentially, secondary appraisal asks the question ‘what can be done?’ It is the evaluation of available coping resources and options. It is also worth noting that in defining his transactional view of stress, Lazarus (1999) refers to those encounters that tax individual abilities and resources and points to the need to consider the relative balance between the demands of any encounter and the person’s resources for dealing with them. Hobfoll’s (1998) conservation of resources theory (COR) also deals with the issues of coping and resources. This theory is built around the proposition that ‘resource loss’ is more significant than ‘resource gain.’ Therefore, when it comes to coping, the selection of a strategy is likely, according to COR theory, to depend on the relationship between the level of one’s existing resources and what needs to be done to cope with the situation. So, Hobfoll (1998) presents what has been described as a ‘resource-based coping theory’ (Schwarzer, 2001) where coping strategies can be differentiated depending on whether they generally deplete or accumulate resources. While there is debate as to how far COR theory actually extends our understanding of the stress-coping relationship, it does provide an opportunity to review and reflect on the range of resources that may influence coping (Lazarus, 2001). Individuals may employ many types of resources when coping with work stress. Resource categories often describe personal, socio-demographic resources (e.g., skill repertoire, past experience, age, education, social class, and

154 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 gender (Burke, 2002)) and contextual-situational resources (e.g., social support, task characteristics, autonomy, and control (Ito & Brotheridge, 2002)). These resources play multiple and not entirely mutually exclusive roles by influencing how the situation is appraised, helping to assess what can be done, helping to establish coping requirements and being used to support coping or to act as a coping strategy. In respect of socio-demographic resources, researchers have explored, for example age, gender, and race (e.g., Cartwright & Cooper, 1996; Greenglass, 1988; 1993; Greenglass, Burke & Ondrack, 1990; Long, 1993; Schwartz & Stone, 1993; Stroman & Seltzer, 1991; Walsh & Jackson, 1995). Researchers also point to the importance of work-life balance (Lewis & Cooper, 2005), the family as a resource (Leiter, 1990), perceived fitness and coping (Plante, Coscarelli, Caputo & Oppezzo, 2000) and the role of leisure as a resource in coping with work stress (Trenberth, Dewe & Walkey, 1999; Trenberth & Dewe, 2002). Interestingly, Iwasaki and Mansell (2000) have, in relation to leisure, identified both leisure coping beliefs and leisure coping strategies. These authors distinguish between the two, with the former referring to those more general beliefs that leisure helps in coping with stress–a coping resource perhaps–whereas leisure coping strategies on the other hand are specific leisure grounded coping behaviors. Iwasaki (2003) in a later paper established the differing role played by these two types of leisure functions, with leisure coping beliefs providing individuals with an important health-promoting resource, whereas in contrast leisure coping strategies had a direct impact on well-being. From his overview of job stress and coping, Schaufeli (2002) concludes that while consistent patterns have yet to be observed in relation to many of these resources, this lack of consistency may be accounted for by the need to understand more about the complex interactions that exist between these types of resources and the coping process. Not surprisingly work stress researchers have considered a number of contextual resources, for example, social-support from managers, supervisors and co-workers, autonomy, control, participation in decision making, and job complexity (see Ito & Brotheridge, 2002). Many of these contextual resources reflect the levels of control individuals have over work and work processes. The concept of control has been at the heart of work stress research, both in terms of its role in secondary appraisal and its significance to models of work stress (e.g., Karasek, 1979). When considering the nature of control as a resource, in terms of what it is that gives individuals a sense of control, Troup and Dewe (2003) pointed to the multi-dimensional nature of the concept identifying such factors as predictability, task control, self-control, and general control. Work on the measurement of control by Smith, Tisak, Hahn and Schmieder (1997) also identified factors such as decision authority, skill discretion, general control, and predictability. Xie and Schaubroeck (2001) point to control as having a functional effect (e.g., as an enabler to reduce stress) as well as a psychological effect (e.g., in reducing uncertainty and promoting manageable appraisals).

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 155 These authors also point to the different types of control including autonomy, employee participation, job design, comprehensiveness, empowerment, and democracy. Other researchers, building on the work of Latack (1986), step beyond the role of control as a resource and directly explore control as a specific coping strategy, in terms of positive thinking, help-seeking, and direct action (Havlovic & Keenan, 1991; Ito & Brotheridge, 2003). Such analysis draws attention to the fact that control seems to operate at multiple levels as a situational resource, an individual difference variable and as a form of coping (Sulsky & Smith, 2005), illustrating the difficulties of overlap and confounding when exploring this area. The complexity of the possible relationship between control as a resource and coping, is illustrated when Ito and Brotheridge (2003) highlight the mutually reinforcing relationship between the two. In this case, the resource qualities associated with control, like autonomy and participation in decision making may, for example, by promoting a more positive attitude particularly in terms of confidence lead to more active problem-focused coping, which reinforces such attitudes and presumably the continued use of such coping. The general conclusion drawn by Ito and Brotheridge (2003) from their review suggests that understanding more about the relationship between these types of resources and coping is important, as resource levels appear to have a positive association with active coping (positively oriented and problem-focused) and a negative association with passive coping (i.e., avoidance). Social support generally refers to the supportive aspects of relationships (Jones & Bright, 2001), but may also involve support through organizational culture and climate. This support is described by Ito and Brotheridge (2003) as an exchange, in which those involved tap into but also add to the supportive goodwill. Of all the so called resources, social support has probably received the most attention from work stress researchers (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). When it comes to social support, this concept has been discussed in terms of a situational resource, a personality variable (e.g., need for affiliation) and as a form of coping (Cooper et al., 2001). Almost invariably social support is researched in terms of assessing the amount of support available (i.e., from supervisors, colleagues, family, and friends) or the type of support provided (i.e., instrumental-practical support or emotional support) (Cooper et al., 2001). Social support has also been researched in terms of the quality of the supportive relationship, distinguishing between strong individually supportive relationships and the more general support that comes from wider social networks (see Jones & Bright, 2001). Researchers have also explored what it is that individuals do when they provide support, individual needs for support, and what individuals may want in terms of support (Jones & Bright, 2001). For most work stress researchers though, their energy has been directed towards investigating whether social support has a direct (main) or buffering (moderating) effect on the stressstrain relationship. Nevertheless, Ito and Brotheridge (2003) illustrate how the

156 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 relationship between social support and coping may work. They give as an example a scenario where social support encourages cooperative behaviors and active coping. As these types of behaviors meet the expectations of colleagues and supervisors, this enhances their social support base forging feedback linkages that presumably lead to further use of such behaviors and coping (Latack et al., 1995). At the same time, social support has clearly been identified and measured as a distinct coping strategy, where individuals seek out support to help manage a stressful encounter (Dewe & Guest, 1990). This strategy has been discussed in terms of its problem-focused role (e.g., talk things through with my boss) and its emotion focused role (e.g., talk to others just to let off steam). Yet, although social support has been described as a type of coping strategy the more common research approach has been to view it as a coping resource (Thoits, 1995), with researchers exploring the ways in which it may influence or assist coping behaviors. (Pierce, Sarason & Sarason, 1996). It is clear, however, that social support is a complex construct first in relation to its interaction with personality variables and appraisal, influencing who seeks out supportive relationships and how stressful encounters are appraised. Second, social support influences how individuals cope and the coping strategies they use, operating both as a resource to facilitate coping and as a specific coping strategy. Further research is needed to better understand the distinction between social support as a resource and social support as a coping strategy and the nature of the relationship between the two. In summary different personal and situational coping resources seemingly embody what individuals can draw on to develop and enhance their coping repertoire when dealing with stressful encounters (Burke, 2002; Thoits, 1995). While resources have been described as a latent aspect of coping, because they provide a ‘potential for action but not action itself ’ (Gore, 1985, p. 266), this distinction still raises a number of issues. The first is that it is very difficult at times to distinguish a coping resource from a coping strategy, raising the question as to when and under what circumstances does a coping resource shift to become a coping strategy. This conceptual overlap has led to some resources being treated as a personality trait, a resource and a coping strategy (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). It is also not clear at times whether resources also span primary, secondary appraisal, and coping (Park & Folkman, 1997). They have also been treated as having direct, moderating/mediating, and interactional effects (Cooper et al., 2001). There is also the possibility of a more complex reciprocal relationship between resources and coping. More conceptual clarity is needed if we are to better understand the role and effects of personal and situational resources. Another issue stems from Hobfoll’s (2001) conservation of resources theory, and the need to distinguish between resource depletion and resource accumulation, and the different types of coping that these two circumstances produce. Finally, it may be that to begin to answer some of these questions researchers need to ask in what way are elements, characteristics, or

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 157 contexts resources, and whether it is their availability or the way of using them that more clearly distinguishes their role in coping (Freund & Reidiger, 2001). Work stressors and occupational groups Where work stress researchers have been particularly active is in relation to the association between coping and different types of work stressors. This research is frequently carried out in relation to different occupational groups. The number of work situations investigated is wide ranging as are the occupational groups. Ashkanasy et al. (2004) describe this work in terms of ‘a plethora of recent publications,’ and identify a number of different work situations including, for example, job insecurity, downsizing, and organizational change, and a range of professional groups (e.g., nurses, firefighters, police officers, public sector workers). Other reviewers (e.g., Dewe, 2000) point to what they describe as specific work situations, chronic work stressors, task complexity, and work stressors like role conflict and role ambiguity, whilst adding bus drivers and administrators to the list of occupational groups along with lawyers and physicians (see also Sulsky & Smith, 2005). Occupational groupings also include telecommunication workers, air-crew, and public sector employees including police, nurses, and social work employees (Burke, 2002). Then there is the program of work developed around coping with job loss (Batia, Wiesenfeld, Brockner, Petzall, Wolf & Bailey, 2001; Gowan, Riordan & Gatewood, 1999; Kinicki, 1985; Kinicki & Latack, 1990; Latack, Kinicki & Prussia, 1995; Leana & Feldman, 1990; McKee-Ryan & Kinicki, 2002). In his review of work stress and coping in organizations, Burke (2002) also points to the increasingly common experience at work of organizational change, mergers, restructuring, and the controllability of work stressors. Other work situations include for example, time management problems (Puffer & Brakefield, 1989), skill utilization (Leiter, 1991), business trips (Westman, 2004), job insecurity (Mak & Mueller, 2000), and workplace aggression (Winstanley & Whittington, 2002). These different situations reflect the broad stressor categories outlined by Cooper and Marshall (1978), with researchers, over the years, extending their focus beyond work roles to consider factors intrinsic to the job, relationships at work, career issues, and the interface between home and work. Schaufeli (2002) in his review of coping with work stress draws together a number of general findings that stem from this type of research. Early studies, Schaufeli (2002) argues, often found that individuals made more use of emotion-focused strategies when coping with work stress. This was interpreted as indicating that work stressors may, by their very nature, be difficult to change and so, the reasoning went individuals were left with simply dealing with the emotional consequences. More recent studies, Schaufeli (2002) suggests, seem to point to the opposite, where greater use is now made of problem-focused coping with more in-depth investigations illustrating the crucial role played by job control. Schaufeli (2002) goes on to illustrate the importance of job control

158 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 by suggesting that studies investigating stressors like organizational change for example, where individuals have little control over events, then the coping pattern generally reflects a greater use of emotion-focused strategies. As a general rule though Schaufeli (2002) suggests, in contrast to emotion-focused coping, problem-focused coping is associated with greater well-being. It also appears from Schaufeli’s (2002) summary that the more resources available to individuals, the greater the use of active problem-focused coping. Despite the attention given by researchers to the association between coping and work stressors, these investigations are not without issue, particularly when it comes to the contextual characteristics that help to describe and define the nature of work stressors. For example, when measuring work stressors, the generally accepted procedure has long been to get respondents to rate stressor events in terms of whether they agree that the event is present in their work. The presence of an event is then assumed to indicate that the event is stressful. This seems to be a rather circuitous way of measuring work stressors especially when work stressors are defined in terms of the demand they place on individuals. Measuring demand requires more emphasis to be given to capturing the nature of stressors, incorporating into measurement characteristics like, for example, frequency, intensity, and duration (DeFrank, 1988), relevance and significance (Lazarus, 1999), the level of contextual-occupational specificity required (Beehr, 1995; Sulsky & Smith, 2005) and the cumulative relationship within and between stressors (Dewe & Brook, 2000). Measuring these characteristics provides a mechanism for better differentiating between crisis, chronic and acute stressors (Jones & Bright, 2001; Kahn, 2002), and the methodology necessary to distinguish one from the other. While it is important to capture the characteristics and qualities of the events themselves when it comes to understanding coping, the significance of a stressor cannot be understood without also considering the meanings individuals give to such events and how those events are appraised Given, argue Daniels, Harris and Briner (2004), how individuals interpret and ‘consequently enact’ their work environment then developing our understanding of how work events are appraised ‘represents a promising route to clarifying the relationship between work and unpleasant affect’ (p. 343). How individuals appraise work stressors has not been given the attention it deserves from work stress researchers despite the fact that coping is significantly dependent on appraisal (Lazarus, 1999), and that work stress researchers have ‘much to gain by familiarizing themselves’ (Brief & George, 1991, p. 15) with the appraisal process. Nevertheless, there have been few systematic attempts (Dewe & Ng, 1999; Lowe & Bennett, 2003) to explore how work stressors are appraised. This is not because models of work stress have failed to incorporate the notion of stressor appraisal into their investigatory frameworks (Burke, 2002; Cooper et al., 2001; Daniels, Harris & Briner, 2004), but more, perhaps, because appraisal is at the heart of a debate as to whether stressors should be measured objectively or subjectively providing researchers with ‘valid reasons’

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 159 for not making appraisal and this type of research a priority (Schaubroeck, 1999). Two, not mutually exclusive arguments capture the essence of the debate surrounding work stressors and the measurement of appraisal. The first focuses on the intra-individual nature of appraisal, and while accepting that stress essentially occurs at the individual level, the argument is that work stress researchers have a broader remit and a greater responsibility to identify stressors that are likely to affect the majority of employees (Brief & George, 1991; Harris, 1991). By focusing on appraisals rather than the objective nature of work stressors, this limits the generalizability of any findings, the relevance of such findings to management (Schaubroeck, 1999), and what can be done practically (Frese & Zapf, 1999). The second proposition argues that it is the objective measurement of stressors rather than appraisals that hold the greater promise for intervention (Frese & Zapf, 1999; Schaubroeck, 1999), providing answers, procedures, and guidance to the ways work and work cultures can be developed or redesigned to reduce strain. Embedded in all of these arguments is the acknowledgment that work stress research has emphasized situational factors at the expense of individual processes like appraisal (Harris, 1991), that stressor measurement should not be viewed as an ‘either or’ approach (Frese & Zapf, 1999) and that research can be enhanced by reflecting on the role of appraisal (Schaubroeck, 1999). Nevertheless, appraisal and coping are intimately linked (Lazarus, 1999), that it is not ‘simply important’ but ‘essential’ to investigate, in a work setting, appraisals, if we are to better understand the stress process (Perrewe & Zellars, 1999). To fail to do so would be to ignore one of the most power explanatory variables in the coping process (Dewe, 2001). These arguments, as all agree, can only be resolved by empirical investigation. Coping Effectiveness One of the most important questions facing researchers is what is meant by effective coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Lazarus, 2000; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). Work stress researchers have attempted to answer this question using a number of different approaches, but the results are varied and difficult to generalize (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). Most research into work stress and coping seems implicitly to deal, one way or another, with coping effectiveness either in the way coping strategies are described (i.e., adaptive-maladaptive; control-avoidance; action-escape), or by the implication that problem-focused coping is inherently better than emotion-focused coping, or by inference when interpreting correlational or predictive results. Theory in relation to coping effectiveness while described as modest (Lazarus, 2000) is based on two approaches (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). The first and most common approach considers coping effectiveness in terms of outcomes, where favorable outcomes are equated with effective coping. The second approach is more concerned with evaluating effectiveness by exploring the ‘goodness of fit’ between

160 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 situational appraisals and coping. In this case, the better the fit the more effective the coping. Before turning to explore the difficulties associated with these two approaches, examples of the methods employed by work stress researchers to examine coping effectiveness follow. While different researchers have adopted different approaches all seem to be outcome related. The approach adopted by Long (1993) was to get respondents to describe across a number of possibilities (e.g., ‘unresolved and worse,’ ‘not changed’ ‘resolved to your satisfaction’) the encounter outcome. Most of the survey sample (76%) indicated that generally situations had ‘not been resolved satisfactorily’ and were associated with disengagement coping. Koeske, Kirk and Koeske’s (1993) strategy was to measure a range of ‘possible consequences of coping’ (e.g., job satisfaction, physical symptoms, depression, intention to quit). These researchers were able to conclude that high control copers ‘clearly did better’ as the encounters became more stressful. The procedure adopted by Bar-Tal and Spitzer (1994), on the other hand, was to get respondents to rate their coping, first in terms of the extent to which they used different strategies, then in terms of how helpful they were in reducing stress. While they considered their results to be preliminary, developing effectiveness scores, they suggested, may yield better results than coping use scores. Finally, Bhagat, Allie and Ford (1991), more as a means to assess the validity of self-report stress measures, got confidants of respondents to indicate amongst other things the degree to which they thought the respondent was able to cope with the situation. Interestingly, the more effective they believed the respondent to cope, the less stress the respondent reported. All these researchers couch their results conservatively, pointing to the contextual complexities associated with measuring coping effectiveness. The idea that different ways of coping can be more or less effective is important. Nevertheless, trying to answer questions like ‘effectiveness for whom?’ and ‘at what cost?’ (Dewe, 2001) raises a number of conceptual and measurement difficulties that are worth exploring, in the hope that they will prompt the development of criteria against which this critical relationship can be explored. The difficulties when investigating coping effectiveness can be discussed in terms of a number of non-mutually exclusive issues (Dewe, 2001). These include, ‘what do we mean by coping?’, ‘how should effectiveness be defined?’, and ‘what outcomes are we looking for?’, ‘can effectiveness be understood outside of its context?’ and ‘has the emphasis on classifying coping strategies meant that the effectiveness of different coping strategies has in many ways been predetermined?’. When defining coping within the context of effectiveness, Zeidner and Saklofske (1996) argue that coping is something more than just adjustment, must be considered in terms of ‘for whom and under what circumstances?’, and involves a level of adaptiveness that contributes to individual development. Researchers have argued that when it comes to coping effectiveness, coping needs also to be thought of in terms of the ‘qualitative manner’ in which it was used (Aldwin, 2000), the skill with which coping is applied (Zeidner

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 161 & Saklofske, 1996) distinguishing between using a strategy (effort) and using it well (competency) noting however, the operational difficulties when trying to determine coping quality, whilst also adhering to the generally accepted measurement requirement that coping use be measured independently of coping outcomes (Suls & David, 1996). Coping is a process ‘embedded in context’ (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996), and so understanding coping effectiveness requires an understanding of the context in which coping occurs. Contextual issues can be broadly divided into structural (nature of the situation) and characteristics of the person (e.g., personality, goals, motives). Turning first to the nature of the situation and developing as a theme the idea that a more detailed knowledge needs to be built up around the situation itself. O’Brien and DeLongis (1996, p. 780) point to the need, for example, to distinguish between those situations that involves demands for achievement or mastery (agentic), and those involving efforts for affiliation or belongingness (communal). These authors go on to suggest that each situation may elicit quite different types of coping requirements, that the effectiveness of coping types will differ across these situations and that distinguishing between situations in this way is essential if coping effectiveness is to be understood. Suls and David (1996) adopt a similar strategy but conceptualize along a continuum ‘strong’ (e.g., public and clear expectations as to how one should act) from ‘weak’ (e.g., more private with no clear standards of behavior) situations. This distinction provides not just a basis for better understanding what types of coping may be more or less effective, but also an opportunity to differentiate situations in terms of where individual differences might be expected to play a more prominent role from those where more uniform coping would be expected. Just as researchers have pointed to the role of control as influencing the use of problem or emotion-focused coping and by implication their effectiveness, Stanton and Franz (1999) ask the question what are the most productive contexts for emotion-focused coping. To answer this question, these researchers suggest that a distinction needs first to be drawn between coping strategies that are ‘emotional processing in nature,’ and those that ‘express emotions.’ This distinction then allows for a more focused search for those characteristics of the situation that, for example, effectively allow individuals to preserve or release their emotions, create an opportunity for emotions to provide some form of behavior impetus, and allow emotions to be used in a facilitating way. To understand coping effectiveness, the message from these authors is that we need, not only to better distinguish between different types, in this case of emotion-focused coping, but also to build a more detailed analysis of the situation against which their effectiveness can be judged. It is also important not to lose sight of the role of primary appraisal. Drawing the attention of researchers to this concept focuses attention on the meanings individuals give to situations, as distinct from the characteristics of the situation itself, emphasizing the significance and power of these meanings, and the

162 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 explanatory potential that resides in such meanings in terms of understanding coping effectiveness. It is clear in relation to situational characteristics that for as long as stressful situations are described in overly inclusive ways, then understanding why coping strategies may be more or less effective will be made much more difficult simply because any markers on which this type of assessment can be based will be absent. Without information about the context in which stress occurs then, suggest Zeidner and Saklofske (1996), we have ‘only half the story.’ Turning to the characteristics of the person, Coyne and Racioppo (2000) make it clear that coping effectiveness cannot be understood without reference to personal goals and values. Ignoring the influence of goals and values removes what these authors describe as a ‘prerequisite’ to understanding how coping strategies are chosen and by implication a factor in evaluating coping effectiveness. When it comes to personality and coping effectiveness Suls et al. (1996, p. 726) for example, draw attention to how some individuals may be ‘predisposed’ towards using certain types of coping or that some types of strategy are more ‘useful’ for certain kinds of persons. The point these authors go on to make is that personality influence not just the choice of a strategy but also its effectiveness. Again this is just another part of the contextual equation that needs to be explored, if coping effectiveness is to be better understood. Coping effectiveness is, of course, also going to be influenced by the interaction between characteristics of the individual and the environment. Two other issues may add to the difficulties when exploring coping effectiveness. The first relates to the practice of classifying and describing coping strategies independently of the context in which they are used implying at times, in terms of the descriptors used, that problem-focused coping is effective and emotion-focused coping is ineffective. What is clear is that there are ‘no hard or fast rules’ (Snyder, 2001, p. 295) when comes to evaluating coping effectiveness, the issue is still open to debate (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996), and it is time to revise the ‘bad reputation’ levelled at emotion-focused coping (Stanton & Franz, 1999). Because ‘no universal’ effective or ineffective coping strategies exist (Lazarus, 1999), then the questions of ‘effective for whom?’ and ‘at what cost?’ must continue to reflect an issue that can only be resolved through conceptual and empirical endeavors. The other issue making the assessment of coping effectiveness difficult relates to the outcomes being measured and expectations around the type of outcome that can be achieved. The need by researchers to become more selective in relation to the outcomes being measured (Cooper et al., 2001) follows from the somewhat uncritical way in which ‘being under stress’ has been allowed to act as an invitation to measure almost any outcome. If coping effectiveness is to be better understood, then more care should be given to determining, for example, the relationship being explored and what are appropriate outcomes (Aldwin, 2000), recognizing that conflict may exist between individual and organizational outcomes (Burke, 2002), that coping strategies may influence some but

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 163 not other outcomes (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996), that successful outcomes may not necessarily involve mastery or resolution (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), and that coping promotes positive outcomes as well as ameliorating negative ones (Lazarus, 2000).

MEASURING COPING STRATEGIES At no time, Dewe (2001, p.78) argues, is the debate around coping “more intense than when reviewers discuss the way in which coping should be measured.” Aldwin, it seems would agree, and suggests that “the most controversial issue in the field today is how to assess coping” (2000, p. 108). The arguments discussed are not solely confined to coping research and can be aimed at other applied fields. They are discussed here to provide a context for understanding some of the issues facing coping researchers and the challenges that need to be overcome, if work stress and coping research is to mature and develop. The primary mechanism for collecting data on work stress and coping has been the self-report coping questionnaire or checklist. It is not difficult to imagine why checklists became the instrument of choice for coping researchers. Checklists offer a convenient, economical, and versatile way of collecting data on coping, and the analysis which follows is easily defendable in terms of generally accepted psychometric criteria. Checklists have also been described as “helpful in that they allow multidimensional descriptions of situation-specific coping thoughts and behaviors that people can self report” (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004, p. 748). Spurred on by the work of Lazarus and Folkman (1984), and their Ways of Coping Questionnaire, this approach and the measures that have been modeled around it, have now been used in hundreds of studies, adopted as standard practice and accepted as the ‘general duty’ instrument for unravelling the nature of coping. Given this state of affairs it should not come as any surprise to find that it is possible to identify at least five coping checklists (Burke, 1971; Cooper, Sloan & Williams, 1988; Dewe & Guest, 1990; Latack, 1986; Osipow & Spokane, 1983) that have been developed specifically for use in work settings. Work stress researchers have not limited themselves to these measures and at times appear to be more concerned with how ‘coping works’ than ‘how best’ it should be measured. Nevertheless, measurement issues cannot be ignored and the capability of checklists to broaden our understanding of coping, needs to be set against the view that checklists “though widely-used, are limited both in their descriptive and in their explanatory power” (Oakland & Ostell, 1996, p. 151). The measurement debate The ease with which coping checklists can be used to collect data coupled with the belief that such data will contribute to our knowledge about work

164 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 stress and coping, has, according to Coyne and Gottlieb (1996) prevented any ‘critical examination’ of what exactly has been gained from applying this type of methodology. When it comes to critically reviewing coping checklists reviewers seem to fall into three, not always mutually exclusive groups (Dewe, 2001). The first calls for a general moratorium, if not abandonment of the use of coping checklists as the single means of collecting coping data, not just because checklists are used “with little regard for their appropriateness,” but because the problems confronting coping researchers cannot “be solved by developing better checklists, but rather by relying less exclusively on such a limited methodology” (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 961). The reasons Coyne (1997) and his colleagues highlighted the problems of coping checklists included the belief that they have made coping research too ‘method bound,’ are based around a set of assumptions about the nature of coping that have largely escaped critical scrutiny, and have failed to extend our knowledge of coping and as a consequence prevented the field from moving forward. There is some support for Coyne and his colleagues’ point of view, if not the blunt or ‘colorful’ (Somerfield, 1997) way they put it. However, this support is tempered by the view that arguing that there is an over reliance on coping checklists simply overlooks the growing number of researchers that are not depending on the use of such instruments (Lazarus, 2000) and that any methodological shift, if it comes, will be driven less by any paradigm change and more as a result of pressure being thrust on researchers motivated by the need for more meaningful findings (Somerfield, 1997). A second group is best described as being broadly sympathetic towards coping checklists, but views them more in terms of a ‘first generation’ tool (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), and as “an initial rather than a final step toward understanding” (Lazarus, 2000, p. 666) coping. This group acknowledges that the way coping checklists are used generate results that make interpretation difficult (Stone, Greenberg, Kennedy-Moore & Newman, 1991), and accepts that the issues, problems, and questions surrounding the use of checklists need to be resolved (Stone, Helder & Schneider, 1988) if progress is going to be made. Identifying a number of design issues that need confronting these researchers (Aldwin, 2000; Beehr & McGrath, 1996; Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll, 2001; Dewe, 2000, 2001; Lazarus, 1999, 2000; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996; Snyder, 1999; Somerfield, 1997; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000; Stone, Helder & Schneider, 1998; Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992) point to the importance of refining and developing coping checklists simply because such instruments are still likely to play a role in coping research. Whilst considering the extent to which such checklists can capture the complexity and richness of the ‘coping process,’ these researchers also question whether checklists can provide data that bridge the gap between theory, practice and intervention (Costa, Somerfield & McCrae, 1996), and provide a better match between the concept of coping and its measurement (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). It is now generally accepted that the major challenge facing coping researchers is the need to

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 165 develop other measures that complement these self-report checklists (Folkman, 1992). The third group is not so much a group as a movement, reflecting the collective belief that if we are to better understand the coping process, then changes have to be made to conventional methodological practices. Researchers need to acknowledge and accept that in-depth idiographic techniques that attempt “to map the psychological terrain” (Snyder, 1999, p. 327) of coping need now to become a significant part of our research repertoire. The challenge to the research community is not just to recognize that the process of coping is complex, but that a greater appreciation of the complexity of the coping process must inevitably lead to the use of different methodologies that are more suited to the task. To some (Coyne & Racioppo, 2000), this challenge must be meet because conventional methods like checklists only served to “discourage the development of more creative, costly and time-consuming methodologies” and that there is no solution “without radically refashioning coping research” (p. 659). To others (Stone et al., 1988), the questions and issues raised in respect of checklists still need to be resolved simply because their use affects how coping is examined and the way results are explained. Such challenges are being met for as Lazarus (2000) points out, there are already a number of examples of creative approaches to the study of coping that should serve as templates to those wishing to add substantially to our understanding. Alternative measurement strategies For all those calling for change this involves adopting methods that in the main offer opportunities to track coping processes as they unfold. This requires coping researchers to rely less on ‘cross sectional, between–person designs,’ that simply cannot capture the richness and dynamic nature of coping, and give more attention to a ‘within-person, process-oriented’ approach. There has been, as Tennen, Affleck, Armeli and Carney, (2000) suggest, a growing interest by coping researchers in “the use of daily process designs, which include daily diary recording and more sophisticated techniques referred to as ecological momentary assessment” (p. 626). These techniques offer intensive day-to-day monitoring and provide a unique opportunity to capture the coping process as it occurs. While not without their difficulties, methods of this kind have what Spiegel describes as “the ring of clinical reality” to them (1997, p. 171), because they reflect “the assessment and treatment procedures used in clinical practice” (Lazarus, 2000, p. 669), thus helping to close the gap between coping research and viable intervention options. Coyne and Racioppo (2000) also ask the question “how would clinically relevant coping measures look in their application?,” and draw attention to the ‘critical incident technique’ as a systematic approach to identify those coping strategies that are frequently used, relevant and specific to a particular encounter. Similarly, Folkman and Moskowitz (2000) make the point that a

166 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 great deal can be learned about coping by asking people to “provide narratives about stressful events, including what happened, the emotions they experienced, and what they thought and did as the situation unfolded” (p. 652). Lazarus (1999) also presents the case for what he describes as “a viable commonsense alternative;” the use of emotional narratives. Commenting on the fact that there is still much to learn in terms of going about developing a narrative approach (Lazarus, 1999), its structure is best described as a ‘storied approach’ or ‘relational history’ where what is reported is the reconstruction of an emotional event. Within the context of the narrative attention can then be directed to ‘broad theoretical targets’ like for example, appraisal, coping, or any other aspect of the narrative that might be important or of interest (Lazarus, 1999, p. 212). These different ‘ecological appropriate’ approaches are a ‘necessary compliment’ rather than a substitute for traditional measures (Lazarus, 2000, p. 668). The issue is not one of whether one methodology should now be replaced by another. It is more an issue of recognizing the limits, in terms of where conventional-quantitative methods can take us, when trying to unravel the complexity of the coping process, and by accepting the dictum that “detailed description is as important to science as is the search for causal variables” (Lazarus, 2000, p. 668), examining through application what alternativequalitative methods can provide. The utility of qualitative methods to capture the richness of the coping process is now at the heart of most reviews (e.g., Coyne, 1997; Dewe, 2001; Somerfield, 1997; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000; Lazarus, 1990, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, researchers continue to use coping checklists and although the issues surrounding their use have been discussed before, they are sufficiently salient to be rehearsed one more time. The discussion that follows explores the refinements to coping checklists. It then moves to discussing the need to consider how checklists help in explaining the coping process.

REFINEMENTS TO COPING CHECKLISTS When drawing attention to the issues that need confronting if coping checklists are to provide a more coherent approach to how coping is measured, researchers have adopted a number of ‘instructional’ approaches. Some couch their reviews in an instructional-utility sense, making it clear that the usefulness of coping checklists “depends on our willingness and ability to improve the reliability and validity of our measure” (Folkman, 1991, p. 220). In the main, these reviews raise a number of issues “concerning the conceptual underpinnings” of checklist design, and “how these may affect the assessment of coping” (Stone et al., 1988, p. 196), in the hope that researchers will take then to heart and incorporate them in their research design. Others offer their advice in what could be described as an instructional-cautious sense, suggesting

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 167 that refinements to checklists should not lead to a “status quo mentality about our methods” (Snyder, 1999, p. 327), but should be associated with efforts to seek out and explore new methods that reflect the complexity of the coping process. Finally, others (e.g., Coyne, 1996; Coyne & Racioppo, 2000) offer their advice in an instructional-abandonment way, arguing that anytime spent refining checklists is nothing more than discouraging the search for new and more creative measures. Identifying those aspects of checklists that need refining are, to these authors, instructional but simply in the sense that they are reasons for urging researchers to move beyond such measures and begin the process of radically rethinking how coping should be measured. The art, when it comes to measuring coping, lies “in selecting the approach that is most appropriate and useful to the researcher’s question” (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004, p. 751). With this in mind, and as an aid to considering the appropriateness of checklists, researchers should, when it comes to refining such measures, consider the type of instructions given to participants, the way in which coping items are generated, the way they are worded, the response key used, and what exactly is being assessed. The nature of the instructions given When it comes to the type of instructions given to participants as to how a coping checklist should be completed, three, not mutually exclusive issues, need to be given attention, namely the specificity of the instructions, the time period within which participants are asked to report their coping, and the nature of the situation respondents are coping with. In relation to the specificity of instructions, the issue here is, whether by asking respondents to complete the checklist in general terms (‘in general how do you cope with stress’), you are more likely to be measuring ‘coping styles’ as distinct from more specific instructions (‘think of a stressful situation and indicate how you coped with it’) that are perhaps more likely to indicate ‘actual’ coping behaviours. Failure to consider this distinction raises important questions for analysis and interpretation (Dewe, 2001). The way instructions are presented also, suggest Coyne and Gottlieb (1996), convey to respondents “strong expectations as to what constitutes a desirable response” (p. 977). The example these authors give is where respondents may be prompted to provide a more varied number of coping strategies than they may actually use, simply because the instructions indicated “that the checklist contains many different ways of responding to a situation” (p. 977). While Coyne (1997) questions whether tinkering with instructions is helpful, he does appear to agree that coping research may be better off if researchers “stopped to contemplate exactly what they were asking of respondents” (p. 153). The issue of the ‘time period’ within which respondents are asked to report also raises a number of interpretive difficulties. Instructions generally require

168 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 respondents to recall, within a prescribed time period, a ‘stressful event’ to focus on when completing a checklist without normally disclosing that event. A “great deal depends on how they interpret this task” (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 974). Judging the influence on coping strategies reported, even when a particular time period is given in the instructions (i.e., the most stressful encounter of the last month), is difficult because participants can self-select the time within the period given (Stone et al., 1991). This difficulty adds to the problems of retrospective reporting and the accuracy of recall (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Endorsing this issue, Coyne and Gottlieb (1996, p. 975) add that given all the other things going on in respondents, lives, we may be expecting too much of them “to accurately recall specific thoughts and behaviours they employed to cope weeks or months ago.” Stone (1991) and his colleagues, for example, draw attention to how different the coping behaviors may be if the event selected lasted only a few minutes to one spread over days. Another issue is that coping generally passes through different stages and so, in relation to a time period, “coping reports that are based on different stages of the problem may not be directly comparable” (Stone et al., 1991, p. 656). Coping reports may also be influenced by what Stone and Kennedy-Moore (1992) refer to as ‘effort after meaning,’ where in selecting an event within a time period, if that event has already concluded, knowing how that event was resolved would influence the coping reported. These issues cannot, of course, be separated from the nature of the situation being recalled. Coyne and Gottlieb (1996) point to the difficulties when coping instructions are ‘decontextualized’ (Lazarus, 1999), with researchers assuming that the events being recalled actually have a level of stressfulness and “constitute an occasion for effortful coping” (p. 974). Complicating these issues is the fact that researchers seem disinclined to distinguish between the event itself and how that event is appraised (Dewe, 2001), raising further questions about what exactly is being recalled and how exactly instructions are being interpreted. Generating coping items When it comes to generating coping items, two issues need to be addressed, namely, how the task of item generation should be approached, coupled with the degree to which respondents have a variety of coping items to choose from. The latter point is often associated with whether some coping items are “more accessible to use than others” (Suls & David, 1996, p. 1000). Both these issues stem from the requirement that coping checklists must reflect what respondents actually think and do (Holroyd & Lazarus, 1982). Two approaches to item generation can be identified. The first is deductive in nature (literature reviews, theory examination), whereas the second is inductive; collecting and observing what people say and do. Both approaches are needed but “a firm balance between them is rarely found” (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996, p. 125). In

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 169 addition, Schwarzer and Schwarzer (1996) argue that the unsystematic way researchers go about generating items via these two approaches leaves a lot to be desired. Paying lip service to coping theory, and somewhat arbitrarily choosing items from existing checklists, illustrates the randomness that seems to have crept into the way different coping items are generated. Item generation must comply with the dictum of ‘comprehensiveness’, and researchers must become more disciplined when considering whether the items generated adequately reflect “the domain of possible coping responses” (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992, p. 205). To ignore this dictum raises questions about the assumptions researchers make about the way individuals cope. Comprehensiveness, however, must be considered in relation to the context within which coping takes place (Dewe, 2001). This means that items are relevant to the context being explored (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992) and, therefore, applicable to particular kinds of events (Stone et al., 1991). Suls and David (1996) even draw attention to whether it is necessary to consider an individual’s competence to use different coping items. The important message here is that issue of comprehensiveness, may as Folkman (1992) suggests, lie less with the items themselves and more with “our failure to assess the context in which coping takes place” adding “that advances in the assessment of coping must be accompanied by advances in our ability to assess meaningfully the context in which coping takes place” (p. 219). The wording of coping items Many reviewers leave their most trenchant criticism to the way in which coping items are worded (Dewe, 2001). Checklist items have been described as ‘thin descriptions’ of coping “often vaguely worded and with little reference to the specific character or context of coping” (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 976). Aldwin (2000) describes the dilemma facing researchers when it comes to wording coping items by suggesting that in making a coping item sufficiently general to cover many situations “its very vagueness may make it less than useful in any given situation” (p. 117). Similarly Coyne and Gottlieb (1996, p. 977) suggest that the more general the wording, the more items become ‘inextricably woven into daily living,’ making it more difficult for respondents to recall what situation they used it in–reminding researchers of the ‘grey zone’ between every day management skills and intentional coping. Ambiguity in wording (Stone et al., 1988) primarily brought about by a desire to develop coping items that can be applied across a range of situations, brings with it a number of other problems that are worth reporting. One of the problems when coping items are worded in a way to make them broadly applicable, is the tendency for respondents to ‘recognize themselves’ in such items simply because they have used them in the past, making them more likely to endorse them again whether or not they have actually been used (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996). Similarly, generally worded items may lead

170 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 respondents to unintentionally endorse a wider range than they would normally use, and because their wording is so general, this invites respondents to reconceptualize how they used them or how they imagined using them (Stone et al., 1988), adding to the difficulties of interpretation and further sacrificing “the richness and domain specificity of coping” (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 979). Researchers also need to consider ‘self presentational needs’ (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996) where respondents avoid endorsing items that may be perceived as anti social or culturally inappropriate (Dewe & Guest, 1990), or where they do not wish to appear as if they are coping ineffectively (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996). Similarly, Coyne and Gottlieb (1996) go on to suggest that coping items using the word ‘try,’ create a bias between the intention of the researcher and “respondents wishing to please and appear in a good light” (p. 978). Finally, when it comes to the wording of coping items there is the issue of ‘confounding.’ Confounding can occur in a number of different ways. For example, when coping and emotions become merged in the same item (Stanton et al., 1994), or when the item describes both a coping strategy and a goal (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996), or when it is difficult to determine whether the item is a coping strategy, appraisal, or reappraisal (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996), or when the item is not actually a coping strategy but is simply expressing an emotion (Stanton et al., 1994). The wording of coping items presents a challenge to researchers, not the least of which is whether more general coping checklists, should be replaced by those that are context specific. This needs, of course, to be considered in terms of the research objectives, the circumstances that best suit the use of coping checklists, and whether many of these difficulties can be overcome by considering alternative methodologies (Dewe, 2001).

Wording the scoring key The last checklist refinement researchers need to give some attention to is the wording of the scoring key. Scoring keys can be dichotomous, simply requiring respondents to answer yes or no to indicate whether or not a particular strategy was used or, as is more likely to be the case, an interval scale measuring for example, frequency, likelihood, extent, or usefulness. Aldwin (2000) illustrates the difficulties when selecting the wording for a scoring key by declaring the problem as something akin to unravelling the Gordian knot, and illustrates this by pointing to the fact that when revising the Ways of Coping Questionnaire and, after reviewing the various scoring options she and her colleagues settled on the option where respondents were asked to indicate the “extent to which you used each strategy” (p. 124). For Aldwin (2000, p. 124) and her colleagues the “amount of coping effort expended was too important to ignore,” even though the term itself is subjective and vague. Similarly, in trying to answer the question of how best to word the scoring key, Stone et al. (1991) suggest the

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 171 possibility of defining the wording selected operationally for respondents and then to get them to follow that definition when completing the checklist. However, it is, as Stone (1991) and his colleagues point out, still unclear which wording to choose, how respondents judge words like frequency, extent, or likelihood (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992), whether the meaning associated with a scoring key remains constant and has the same impact across situations (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996), whether scoring keys however worded can appropriately rate cognitive coping (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992), and whether a scoring key can be understood without detailed and comprehensive information about the nature of the situation (Dewe, 2001. It is not difficult, argue Coyne and Gottlieb (1996), to derive coping data using ‘standard scoring schemes,’ but the interpretation of these schemes “is less obvious and more controversial than generally assumed” (p. 982). Researchers have, of course, to be pragmatic and “researchers need to think carefully what it is they want the response key to measure and how best to do this uniformly and unambiguously” (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992, p. 212). The irony of all these issues surrounding checklists is not lost on Folkman (1992), when referring to the fact that “a practical, easy-to-administer coping questionnaire may be the most difficult of coping assessment to develop” (p. 216). Work stress and alternative measurement strategies It would be wrong to end this section on the refining of coping checklists, without referring to the way different researchers have tackled some of these issues. The most persistent criticism of checklists is embodied one way or another, in the way they ‘decontextualized’ coping activities, with researchers simply making various assumptions about the nature or type of event. Several researchers (e.g., Dewe, 1991; Newton & Keenan, 1985) have, for example, used a procedure where respondents themselves are asked to identify a stressful event, to write and describe that event, and then, when answering the coping checklist focus on the event they have just written about. This approach allows respondents the opportunity to write about an event that was important to them and which provides the context for understanding the coping that is reported. Another approach has been to use ‘critical incident analysis’ to collect work related coping data. O’Driscoll and Cooper (1994) modelled the use of this technique on behavioral description interviewing, where “the antecedents, behaviours and consequences of behaviour are elicited via direct questioning of individuals about their experiences” (1994, p. 344). In a later paper, these authors contend that the use of critical incident analysis to investigate coping “provides a more comprehensive account of the stress-coping process than is often found with other assessments of coping strategies” (O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1996, p. 127). Similarly, Oakland and Ostell (1996) used semi-structured interviews to explore in some detail work situations, in a way where the interview “paralleled

172 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 the diagnostic approach of a therapist building a model of a client’s problem situation” (p. 144). The data collected using this approach illustrated the tremendous complexity of what is a dynamic process, leaving the authors to conclude that although coping checklists are widely used they cannot capture the “ever changing nature of the coping process” (p. 153) and so, are “limited both in their descriptive and in their explanatory power” (p. 151). Erera-Weatherley (1996) also used an open-ended interview as the data generating method. In this case, however, Erera-Weatherley worked from the premise that coping should be tested indirectly by focusing on the stress that it invokes. In this way, coping data emerged from the in-depth discussion around the ambiguity and conflict experienced by respondents. The use of this approach placed coping within a specific context, provided “an independent confirmation of the connection between specific sources of stress and coping” and pointed to the difficulties in understanding coping when it is studied as “an isolated construct” (Erera-Weatherley, 1996, p. 169). Using journal writing in a rather creative experimental approach, Alford, Malouff and Osland (2005) asked respondents in their intervention group “to write in a journal for 15–20 minutes each day for 3 consecutive days about their recent stresses, emotions, and related thoughts and plans” (p. 181). The authors described this technique as a “low cost emotional-expression intervention” (p. 184). Viewed as useful by the intervention group, the study did show that “most revealed either a moderate or great deal of their emotions in their writing” (p. 184), and for this group writing led to decreased psychological distress and increased job satisfaction. These findings, argue Alford and her colleagues, support the view that “expressing one’s own emotions in words in the context of a story tends to improve mental health status” (p. 183). Daily diaries have also been used (Elfering, Grebner, Semmer, Kaiser-Freiburghaus, Lauper-Del Ponte & Witschi, 2005) to explore how chronic characteristics of work and situational characteristics affect coping success. Participants were trained in the use of pocket diaries and over seven days filled in their diaries each time they experienced stress. While the results pointed to the need to consider both chronic conditions and situational variables in relation to coping, the questions raised by their findings did, according to the authors, “underscore the need for more diary-type studies” (p. 249). Work stress researchers have been slow to adopt qualitative measures, even though those using them report their value as a research tool, describing them as having ‘ecological validity,’ in the sense that events and issues salient to respondents are identified and explored within a more integrated context (O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1996). If work stress researchers needed further reassurance as to the explanatory power of qualitative approaches, then the view that the critical analysis of interview data reveals the “tremendous diversity and complexity of coping behaviours (Oakland & Ostell, 1996, p. 151) coupled with the fact that such approaches “reveals specific facets of coping which have not previously been reported” (Erera-Weatherley, 1996, p. 169) should put their minds at

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 173 rest. If still unconvinced, work stress researchers should turn to the views of researchers from other applied settings, and note that there is certainly agreement that much can be learned about coping by asking individuals in one way or another to provide stories or narratives about stressful events and how those events unfold (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Work stress researchers should also be encouraged by the fact that at the heart of most reviews (Coyne, 1997; Somerfield, 1997; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000; Lazarus, 1990, 1997, 2000) is the contention that it is through qualitative methods that coping processes are best understood. The coping process, as Thoits (1995) suggests, “is far more complex than we have envisioned” and that to understand that process “we may need to consider additional data collection and analytic methods to explore these intricacies further” (p. 68).

COPING CHECKLISTS AND THE PROCESS OF COPING It is difficult when discussing the refinement of coping checklists, in terms of what can be described as ‘operational issues,’ not to let the discussion spill over into the utility of checklists to interpret the coping process (Dewe, 2001). The two–operationalization and interpretation–go hand in hand, and so researchers in organizing their data for analysis need also to consider the impact this has on its interpretation. Drawing attention to these ‘interpretive issues’ at this stage is simply to ensure that when thinking about the measurement of coping, these issues become as much a part of our repertoire of design as the operational issues discussed above. They include issues around the data reduction features of factor analysis, in producing coping components and the meaningful interpretation of those component scores. Factor analysis and the measurement of coping When factor analyzing coping data, attention needs to be given to the loading of factor items, whether it is reasonable to expect coping items to co-vary, and the appropriateness of subjecting coping components to traditional measures of reliability. Because factor loadings are used to include or exclude items on a component, then excluding items because of a low loading or because they load across a number of factors, raises questions about “the comprehensiveness of the coping measure as a whole” (Folkman, 1992, p. 218). For example, a coping item may serve a number of functions, and so by removing it because it loads on more than one factor, diminishes the domain of coping responses (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992), and fails to recognise the different roles a coping item may play. Aldwin (2000) also raises the question of whether the failure of an item to load on a factor means that the item is still not an important coping strategy.

174 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 The loading of different coping items needs also to be considered in terms of co-variation. Again, the issue here centers on the way in which a coping item may be used. The fact that coping items are, for example, “conceptually related in terms of their function” (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992, p. 205) does not necessarily mean that they all have to be used together. Stone and KennedyMoore (1992, p. 205) give as an example the situation where if one coping strategy worked well, then there would be no need to use other conceptually related items, and so ‘it is not reasonable to expect’ that coping items co-vary in the same way as they would for example, on an attitude scale. The covariation difficulties resulting from how coping items are used “may go some way towards explaining the low reliabilities of some coping scales (Cooper et al., 2001, p. 179). Bearing in mind the example given by Stone and KennedyMoore (1992), this raises the issue of how appropriate are internal consistency measures when there is not this consistency in the way coping items are used (Parkes, 1994). Similarly, and in line with the reasoning discussed above, conceptually and empirically distinct kinds of coping may not, as Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) suggest, “be independent of one another” as coping strategies “seem to travel together” (p. 753) frequently in tandem, so to assume independence between factors and to eliminate coping items that load across factors simply to achieve some sort of “psychometric purity” may, as Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) suggest, “actually result in a reduction of the validity of the measure” (p. 753). Because coping items should not be expected to co-vary, then this, as Billings and Moos (1991) point out, places an ‘upper limit’ on what can be achieved in terms of internal consistency. If the aim of coping research is to capture what individuals think and do in a particular encounter, then using a procedure that presumes items co-vary may distort the nature of how individuals cope and the importance of a particular item. As Aldwin (2000) suggests, coping checklists are probably just not meant to be stable, and so until more is learnt about how coping items co-vary then factor analysis should be “viewed circumspectly” (p. 122). However, researchers are generally ‘more sanguine’ (Folkman, 1992) about the use of factor analysis, and even in the face of such criticism, should not be discouraged from using it as “factor-analytic methods offer, clear, tangible benefits that should not be underestimated” (Watson & Hubbard, 1996, p. 746). One of these is that irrespective of the difficulties around stability and reliability, it would be simply “extremely cumbersome to analyze and report findings on an item by item basis” (Watson & Hubbard, 1996, p. 746). Watson and Hubbard go on to suggest that abandoning factor analysis is like saying that reliability as an assessment tool should also be abandoned, even though “thorny problems remain as to the psychometric standards that proposed measures of coping should meet,” and the fact that there is “a lack of consensus concerning the appropriateness of applying traditional psychometric criteria to coping scales” (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 982). Factor analysis does however

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 175 produce “clusters of items that have conceptual as well as empirical integrity” (Folkman, 1992, p. 218) and, therefore, “offers the easiest and best method of determining which items are related and should be grouped together (Watson & Hubbard, 1996, p. 746). Factor analysis should, as Folkman (1991) suggests, be viewed as a method that helps to clarify coping concepts. To benefit from the use of this technique, analysis needs to be set within a theoretical framework that in itself provides the context for evaluating the relevance of the empirically derived coping components. The meaning of coping scores Factor analyzing coping checklists is one thing, interpreting the results is another. The issue here is based around the traditional approach of aggregating endorsed coping items into mean scores. The difficulties in interpreting mean scores are well summed up by the view that such scores “remain ambiguous indicators of what respondents actually thought and did” (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996, p. 985). When coping items are aggregated into a mean score “the likelihood is that crucial aspects of timing, sequencing, and appropriateness will be lost” (Coyne & Racioppo, 2000, p. 657), preventing the opportunity for “more refined and differentiated analysis” (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996, pp. 510–511). Two themes emerge: the first is interpreting a scale score based on the number of coping items endorsed. The second concerns the difficulties of determining just exactly how coping items are being used. In terms of the first theme, the issue here involves the applicability of coping items to the encounter, and because different encounters will invariably limit the number of applicable coping items then, depending on the encounter there “may be different ceilings for coping scores” (Stone & Kennedy-Moore, 1992, p. 210), making the comparison of mean scores misleading (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996). Researchers may also wish to consider whether individuals have the competence to use different coping items, and the impact this may have on the number of items endorsed (Suls & David, 1996). Researchers do, however, need to acknowledge that although two individuals may have exactly the same mean score, how they coped may be completely different (Cooper et al., 2001; Dewe, 2000), again begging the question of the meaning of scale scores when based on the number of coping items endorsed. Complicating the issue of mean scores further is the second theme, that is, the way in which different coping items are being used. When considered within the context of a stressful encounter, the question of what function a particular coping item may be performing is not quite so easy to answer. The function of a coping strategy will shift across encounters (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996), so that the same coping item will have a number of different functions depending on the nature of the encounter (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). The function of a coping item will also be influenced by the other coping items endorsed pointing to the need, when considering how a coping item is used, to better understand

176 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 more about the patterning or ways coping items combine, how, and the reasons why, they relate to one another and why a particular combination of items is selected over another. This is not an argument, as Dewe (2001, p. 84) suggests, for abandoning mean scores but “more an appeal to consider what it is that mean scores can tell us if our goal is to understand the relationship between different coping items and the manner, sequence and way in which they are used.” The debate around the refinement of coping checklists, the growing belief that alternative methods need now to become a significant part of our research repertoire, and the difficulties associated with interpreting coping data, using conventional analyses, are all signals to work stress researchers that there is now a need for a period of reconstruction and transition, recognizing that work stress research has established a number of methodological conventions that will be difficult to ignore let alone change. Even those most critical of the use of checklists acknowledge that until some of the ‘operational challenges’ surrounding the use of alternative methods are worked through, checklists are likely to have a “key role in research for some time,” providing of course they are “focused and carefully constructed” (Coyne & Racioppo, 2000, p. 660). This should not be taken as a reason for failing to engage in coping research using alternative methods, for how else will these ‘operational challenges’ be confronted and resolved? It is more in the way of a reminder to work stress researchers that the role of checklists in coping research may need to be reconsidered, and their use, as suggested before, thought of more in terms of providing an “initial rather than a final step towards understanding” (Lazarus, 2000, p. 666). Moreover there is much to suggest that the “best solution may involve several approaches” (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004, p. 751), using, for example, checklists in conjunction with different narrative approaches to support and complement one another. There is, as Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) make clear, “no gold standard for the measurement of coping” (p. 751). Measurement is, as these authors go on to point out, as much of an art as it is a science. Combining the art with the science means that those wishing to advance our understanding of coping must accept that this requires “more conceptually and methodologically sophisticated research than has typified the field in the past” (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000, p. 624), agreeing that measures, if they are to move us ahead, cannot be devoid of theoretical meaning, understanding that coping research depends as much on our “willingness and ability to improve the reliability and validity of our measures” as it does on giving “equal time and effort to the assessment of the context in which coping occurs” (Folkman, 1992, p. 221), and acknowledging that analysis (investigating relationships between constituent parts of a process) and synthesis (understanding the process as a whole) while complementing each other: “their scientific tasks are sufficiently distinctive to require different lines of thought and research methods” (Lazarus, 2000, p. 668). Researchers are urged to confront these issues

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 177 ‘head on’ (Suls & David, 1996). To fail to do so will be as much a concern to researchers as it is to those whose working lives we study.

WHERE TO FROM HERE? The challenges facing work stress and coping researchers depend in large part on whether there is any agreement about what has been achieved so far. Reviewers are universal in their agreement that coping is a complex process. So, they temper their conclusions as to what has been achieved by drawing attention, when discussing for example, ‘what has been learned’ (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), to the fact that despite the volume of work and the general conclusions that can be drawn that we have still barely scratched the surface in our understanding of coping. This theme is repeated from a range of different perspectives. Carver (1996, pp. xi–xii) for example, draws attention to a number of conceptual and methodological ‘nagging questions’ that whilst remaining unanswered and hanging ‘like smoke rings in the air’ are being ‘staked out’ for further investigation. Burke (2001) tackles this issue by pointing to ‘where we fell short,’ and by drawing attention to some of the difficulties that still need to be overcome when researching coping, suggests that it is now important to be more realistic about what may be expected from coping research. Somerfield and McCrae (2000, p. 623) adopt a similar stance suggesting that research should move ‘toward more realistic expectations about the contribution of coping.’ In this way, they argue, whilst not abandoning the aim of contributing to individual development, we at least acknowledge that more modest and targeted goals may ultimately be more fruitful than universal goals that seek to determine how most people should be coping. It is however, possible to distil from much of the research a number of common themes that represent the challenges facing work stress and coping researchers. These themes reflect many of the issues discussed above. The themes are not necessarily new, are frequently the focus of intense debate, and more often than not require a significant change in how we go about investigating coping. All reflect the idea that coping research must be judged not just in terms of the accumulation of empirical findings, but also in terms of its ‘state of maturity’ (Dewe, 2001) to question those established assumptions, norms, and values that have traditionally guided this type of research. Each theme expresses that ‘creative tension’ (Rynes, Bartunek & Daft, 2001) that is necessary to create new knowledge and advance our understanding. These themes include identifying the ‘organizing concept’ around which coping research can build and develop, the need to adopt more refined descriptive methods, accepting that greater emphasis should be given to the role of emotions in coping research, acknowledging the role of positive psychology and the opportunity to consider different types of coping, and

178 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 recognizing the need to close the gap between research findings and their practical application. Models of work stress and the ‘organizing concept’ Work stress researchers have always been urged to approach the investigation of stress using models that capture the unfolding of the stress encounter (McGrath, 1987). This principle has become the centre point of work stress models (e.g., Cooper, 2001; Cox & McKay, 1981; French, Caplan & Van Harrison, 1982; Karasek, 1979; McGrath, 1976), even if there is still considerable discussion about how to conceptualize and measure the different components to the stress sequence (Cooper et al., 2001). Generally, this stress sequence is represented through the concept of ‘fit,’ with stress occurring when there is a misfit, mismatch, or imbalance between the person and the environment in terms of demands and resources to meet them. The idea of ‘misfit’ is important because it should now require researchers to give more attention to the nature of that misfit and particularly the processes involved rather than simply identifying those structural components that precipitate a misfit (Cooper et al., 2001). Although concepts like coping and appraisal are embedded in the misfit idea, the idea itself has been criticized (Cooper et al., 2001; Lazarus, 1991), because it represents a somewhat static and structural view of coping and in that sense fails to capture the complexity and nature of person-environment processes. The challenge for work stress researchers is whether the idea of ‘fit’ is capable of capturing the richness and nature of the processes involved, robust enough to encourage researchers to consider the methodological and measurement changes necessary if such processes are to be appropriately investigated and authoritative enough to provide researchers with the organizing concept they need to advance our understanding of coping. Liddle (1994, p. 167) describes an organizing concept as one with ‘sufficient logic and emotional resonance to yield systematic theoretical and research enquiry that will make a lasting solution.’ Rather than the idea of ‘fit’ it is the notion of transaction (Lazarus, 1999) and more particularly the processes of appraisal that surely provide researchers with the necessary organizing concept and the context for ‘tracing out’ (Aldwin, 2000) the nature of those person-environment processes and the role of coping in them. As noted earlier, coping is significantly dependent on appraisal and it is the appraisal process that links the person to the environment. To ignore such processes is to fail to consider one of the most powerful explanatory concepts, give little attention to the call for more focused and targeted research (Somerfield and McCrae, 2000), and ‘pay only lip service’ (Lazarus, 1991) to a set of processes that are fundamental to our understanding of coping. The idea of ‘fit has served researchers well but whether it remains a concept around which theory can be organized and understanding advanced must now be questioned when set along side more powerful ideas like transaction and appraisal.

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 179 Methods and the importance of description None of these themes is mutually exclusive. Each represents one part of a mosaic for further developing our understanding of the role of coping in work stress. More than any other, the most consistent theme to emerge from this review is whether established methods and measures are capable of capturing the richness of the coping process. This is not an argument to replace one method by another, nor is it an issue that is unique to coping research. It is more an opportunity to agree that relying on one method to explore practically all issues related to coping research, is now simply beyond the scope of that method. The dictum that ‘every form of coping may require its own methodology if we are to progress beyond the grossest generalizations’ (Costa, Somerfield & McCrae, 1996, p. 48) should be seen as a signal to researchers that different aspects of coping are now best investigated by different methods. The gains that can be made by refining established measures will undoubtedly improve our understanding of coping but these must not be at the expense of avoiding the gains that can also be made by using more contextual and ecological measures that provide a more holistic understanding of coping (Somerfield, 1997). When it comes to considering methods the distinction between analysis and synthesis (Lazarus, 1999) becomes important. The distinction between analysis and synthesis points to the fact that analysis, by exploring the associations between different component parts of the coping process is subtly different from and should not be confused with treating the parts as if they were the whole (Lazarus, 2000). If the aim of coping research is to understand and document a rich, full, and detailed description of the coping process as it occurs, then this requires researchers to think not in terms of analysis but in terms of synthesis. Again as Lazarus (2000) points out synthesis is not being offered as a substitute for analysis but as a ‘necessary complement’ in the sense that it offers a different type of understanding, ‘different lines of thought’, and different research methods. This approach to exploring the coping process requires process orientated longitudinal research designs, in-depth descriptive, person-centered narratives and discourse, daily process designs, and within-person-process-oriented approaches. In this way, as the word synthesis suggests, these approaches attempt to reconstruct as a descriptive portrait the coping process providing a focus, context, insight, and understanding qualitatively different and missing from more traditional analysis. To identify a relationship between two components (analysis) should not be confused with giving it meaning (Cooper & Dewe, 2004). From emotions to positive psychology to proactive coping Given that stress is essentially about emotional reactions (Lazarus, 1993), the lack of attention given to emotions in work stress is surprising (Payne & Cooper, 2001; Pekrum & Frese, 1992) although reviewers have suggested that emotions

180 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 may be more difficult to study in work settings, simply because of the so called ‘rational’ nature of organizations where there is seemingly little place for them (Briner, 1995; Wright & Doherty, 1998). The neglect of ‘emotions at work’ may also stem from the way stress has been measured, with individuals being asked to simply rate how ‘stressed’ they felt on a unidimensional scale. This approach to measurement is, as Lazarus (1998) argues, a rather limited and somewhat blunt way to capture a response compared to the myriad of emotions that stress actually produces. Emotions offer a rich and important source of information (Lazarus & Cohen-Charash, 2001) and exploring this source adds to our understanding of the nature of coping. Shifting the focus to emotions draws attention to the emotional generating qualities of appraisals (Lazarus, 1999), provides a more explicit pathway for understanding the way in which different coping strategies are used and better captures the nature of the stressful encounter. When the focus shifts to emotions (Lazarus, 2001), then the need to consider positive emotions (e.g., pride, joy, relief) draws attention to the unrepresented ‘other side of coping’ (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000, p. 647) its positive affect and the adaptational significance of this type of coping. This not only changes, as Folkman and Moskowitz (2000) suggest, the kinds of questions researchers ask about coping (e.g., ‘which kind of coping generates positive affect’) but also reflects the growth of the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and the search for positive human functioning. Fredrickson (1998, 2001), for example, suggests that positive emotions broaden ‘thought-action repertoires’ helping to build up individual resources. Similarly Folkman and Moskowitz (2003) suggest that positive psychology encourages researchers to expand their thinking around the nature of coping and the way in which it sustains people during stressful encounters. Nevertheless, despite this interest in a positive psychology where the shift in focus is on people’s strengths (Diener, 2003) and the ‘undoing’ of negative emotions (Seligman & Pawelski, 2003), concerns remain and the debate is intense. Stemming from a review and critique by Lazarus (2003a, 2003b) the arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ a positive psychology by commentators range across issues such as conceptual clarity, methodology, and measurement (see Psychological Inquiry, 2003) and include, as examples, whether dividing emotions into positive or negative ones is somewhat misleading as all emotion possess these qualities (Campos, 2003); to the call for more research and greater attention to be given by those interested in positive psychology to how personal strengths are nurtured, how they come about and how they are sustained (Ryff, 2003). What this debate has done is to provide an opportunity to refocus research and to reemphasize the positive qualities of coping. The description and classification of coping strategies has, as previously noted, been the focus of considerable attention. Nevertheless researchers continue to explore the nature and type of coping. Under the heading ‘new developments’ Folkman and Moskowitz (2004), for example, talk about coping and

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 181 positive emotions, religious coping, and future-oriented proactive coping. It is proactive coping that is building a following (Aspinwall, 2003; Greenglass, 2001, 2002; Schwarzer, 2001; Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002) principally as a result of the focus on positive emotions but also as a result of Hobfoll’s (2001) resource based theory that emphasizes the accumulation of resources in contrast to more traditional approaches that primarily focus on the utilization of resources. ‘Proactive coping’ is described in terms of being future oriented, concerned with efforts to build up resources that facilitate movement towards challenging goals and personal growth (Schwarzer, 2001, p. 406). In this way, it is goal management rather than risk management and aimed at improving the quality of functioning. Proactive coping is also viewed as qualitatively different from anticipatory coping (dealing with an imminent threat), preventive coping (building up general resistance) and contrasts with the more traditionally researched reactive coping where the encounter has happened or is ongoing (Schwarzer, 2001, pp. 405–406). The usefulness of these kinds of distinctions and the value of exploring these types of coping deserves attention and offers future challenges for researchers. Applications and interventions While this chapter has primarily focused on individuals and individual coping there is still the question of organizational level interventions. There is a clear literature on organizational interventions (Antoniou & Cooper, 2005; Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman & Phillips, 1990; Kompier & Cooper, 1999; Murphy, 1995; Murphy, Hurrell, Sauter & Keita, 1995; Quick, Quick, Nelson & Hurrell, 1997), a clear framework for identifying the levels at which different interventions should take place (e.g., Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll, 2003), and a developing structure of management standards and policy issues for dealing with work stress (Cousins, Mackay, Clarke, Kelly & Kelly, McCaig, 2004; Cox, 2004; Mackay, Cousins, Kelly, Lee & McCaig, 2004). Reviewers have also been interested in exploring organizational motives for introducing stress management initiatives (Briner, 1997), how concerned managers really are about work stress (Daniels, 1996), and the role of outside experts in work stress interventions (Sunderland & Cooper, 2000). Two issues face researchers when considering organizational intervention. The first concerns the role of theory in intervention design and the second concerns the drawing together of research and practice. The link between theory and practice is essential if organizational interventions are to be effective (Briner & Reynolds, 1999). Interventions, understandably, are likely to reflect the immediate practical needs of the organization and to give little attention to theory and methodology. Theory provides managers with an understanding of how organizations function, how to think about their worlds in different ways, and ultimately provides direction in terms of alternative courses of action (Brief & Dukerich, 1991). A theory like transactional

182 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 theory, for example, where stress resides in the conjunction between the individual and the environment provides a very different perspective on intervention strategies than more traditional theories (Lazarus, 1991). It ‘eschews’ as Lazarus (1991) suggests treating everyone in the same way and workplaces as if they have the same impact on everyone. As transaction implies process, then interventions must be seen within the context of a process where neither the individual nor the environment is solely responsible for stress. To place the sole responsibility for change on one or the other is to fail to understand the nature of stress and the role of coping in that process. The challenge, it seems, is to draw theory and practice closer together. One way, as Somerfield and McCrae (2000) suggest, would be to have more modest expectations and more targeted goals. In this way, the research focus shifts from trying to identify more generally how most people cope to accepting that a ‘more fruitful and clinically relevant’ approach is to focus much more on helping some people some of the time. Another route for drawing theory and practice closer together is to consider whether there is a need to adopt more person-centered methods (Tennen et al., 2000) that make the relevance of the research clearer to practioners. Theory and methods are important. We need to ask how would research look ‘in its application?’ (Coyne & Racioppo, 2000), and consider ways that allow thoughtful and rigorous research to be accompanied by results that are relevant and understandable in their application. Intervention strategies that focus and place responsibility on just one part of a process (i.e., the individual) without giving attention to how that part transacts with other parts of that process (i.e., the environment) fail to make use of one of the most advanced theories but more importantly fail in their goal of providing a work environment within which individuals can grow and develop.

CONCLUSIONS ‘One does not have to look hard these days,’ argue Somerfield and McCrae (2000, p. 621) to find a critique of research on stress and coping. While this review has been critical at times it is not all about unsolvable problems and troublesome concepts. It is clear that those who research in the area of work and those who work in other applied settings are engaging in research that is of a standard of quality and creativity that adds significantly to our understanding of the nature of coping and its role in the stress process. There is also a sense that the field has reached a level of maturity that allows for robust debate and discussion. Maturity brings with it responsibilities and the reason for raising the issues we have is in the hope that ‘strategic pathways’ (Latack & Havlovic, 1992) may be developed that operate as decision points for taking action. It is clear that there are many challenges facing researchers. It is just as clear from the research reviewed that there are as many creative and innovative ways of meeting them as there are pioneering researchers willing to take up the

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 183 challenge and do so. For all of us to fail to take up these challenges and to build them into our research is not just a abdication of our responsibilities as researchers but a dereliction of duty to those whose working lives we study. The choice is ours.

REFERENCES Aldwin, C. M. (2000). Stress, coping and development: An integrative perspective. London: The Guilford Press. Alford, W. K., Malouff, J. M. & Osland K. S. (2005). Written emotional expression as a coping method in child protective services officers. International Journal of Stress Management 12, 177–187. Antoniu, A. & Cooper, C. L. (eds). (2005). Research Companion to Organizational Health Psychology. Cheltenham: Glos: Edward Elgar Pub. Ashkanasy, N. M., Ashton-James, C. E. & Jordan, P. J. (2004). Performance impacts of appraisal and coping with stress in workplace settings: The role of affect and emotional intelligence. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (eds), Research in occupational stress and well being Vol. 3, Emotionsal and physiological processes and positive intervention strategies. (pp 1–44). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Aspinwall, L. G. (2002). Proactive coping well-being and health. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (eds), The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Elsivier. Bar-Tal, Y. & Spitzer, A. (1994). Coping use versus effectiveness as moderating the stress-strain relationship. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 4, 91– 100. Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge. Beehr, T. A. & McGrath, J. E. (1996). The methodology of research on coping: Conceptual, strategic, and operational-level issues. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 65–82). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bhagat, R. S., Allie, S. M. & Ford D. L. (1991). An enquiry into the moderating role of styles of coping. In P. L. Perrewé (ed.), Handbook on job stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 6, 163–185. Billings, A. & Moos, R. (1984). Coping, stress and social resources among depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 877–891. Brief, A. & Cortina, J. (2000). Research ethics: A place to begin. The academy of management research methods division newsletter 15, 1, 4, 11–12. Brief, A. P. & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Theory in organizational behavior: can it be useful? In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior 13, 327–352. Brief, A. P. & George, J. M. (1991). Psychological stress and the workplace: A brief comment on Lazarus’ outlook. In P. L. Perrewé (ed.), Handbook on job stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 6, 15–20. Briner, R. B. (1995). The experience and expression of emotions at work. Paper presented at the 1995 British Psychological Society Occupational Psychology Conference, Warwick UK. Briner, R. B. (1997). Improving stress assessment: Toward an evidence-based approach to organizational stress interventions. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 43, 61–71. Briner, R. B. & Reynolds, S. (1999). The costs, and limitations of organizational level stress interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 647–664.

184 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Burke, R. J. (1971). Are you fed up with work? Personnel Administration 34, 27–31. Burke, R. J. (1982). Interpersonal behaviour and coping styles of Type A individuals. Psychological Reports 51, 971–977. Burke, R. J. (2002). Work stress and coping in organizations; Progress and prospects. In E. Frydenberg (ed.), Beyond coping: meeting goals, visions, and challenges. (pp. 83–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, R. J. & Belcourt, M. L. (1974). Managerial role stress and coping responses. Journal of Business Administration 5, 55–68. Campos, J. J. (2003). When the negative becomes the positive and the reverse: Comments on Lazarus’s critique of positive psychology. Psychological Inquiry 14, 110–113. Cartwright, S. & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Coping in occupational settings. In M. Zeidner & N. M. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 202– 220). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Carver, C. S. (1996). Forward. In M. Zeidner & N. M. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. xi–xiii). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus. (1992). Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers. Cooper, C. L. (ed.). (2001). Theories of organizational stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooper, C. L. & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind, healthy organization–A proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations 47, 45–471. Cooper, C. L. & Dewe, P. J. (2004). Stress: A brief history. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J. & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. London: Sage. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J. & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2003). Employee Assistance Programmes. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (eds), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (pp. 289–304). American Psychological Association: Washington DC. Cooper, C. L. & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology 49, 11–28. Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S. J. & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational stress indicator: Management guide. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Cousins, R., Mackay, C. J., Clarke, S. D., Kelly, C., Kelly, P. J. & McCaig, R. H. (2004). ‘Management standards’ and work related stress in the UK: Practical development. Work & Stress 18, 113–136. Costa, P. T., Somerfield, M. R. & McCrae, R. R. (1996). Personality and coping: A reconceptualization. In M. Zeidner & N. M. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 44–61). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cox, T. (2004). Work-related stress, risk management and management standards. Work & Stress 18, 89–90. Cox, T. & MacKay, C. J. (1981). A transactional approach to occupational stress. In E. N. Corlett & J. Richardson (eds), Stress, work design and productivity. (pp. 91–115). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Coyne, J. C. (1997). Improving coping research: Raze the slum before any more building! Journal of Health Psychology 2, 153–155. Coyne, J. C. & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The mismeasure of coping by checklist. Journal of Personality 64, 959–991. Coyne, J. C. & Racioppo, M. W. (2000). Never the twain shall meet? Closing the gap between coping research and clinical intervention research. American Psychologist 55, 655–664. Daniels, K. (1996). Why aren’t managers concerned about occupational stress? Work & Stress 10, 352–366.

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 185 Daniels, K., Harris, C. & Briner, R. (2004). Linking work conditions to unpleasant affect: Cognition, categorization and goals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77, 343–364. DeFrank, R. S. (1988). Psychometric measurement of occupational stress: Current concerns and future direction. In J. J. Hurrell, L. R. Murphy, S. L. Sauter & C. L. Cooper (eds), Occupational Stress: Issues and developments in research. (pp. 54–65). New York: Taylor & Francis. Dewe, P. J. (1991). Primary appraisal, secondary appraisal and coping: Their role in stressful work encounters. Journal of Occupational Psychology 64, 331–351. Dewe, P. J. (2000). Measures of coping with stress at work: A review and critique. In P. Dewe, T. Cox & M. Leiter (eds), Coping and Health in Organisations. (pp. 3–28). London: Taylor & Francis. Dewe, P. J. (2001). Work stress, coping and well being: Implementing strategies to better understand the relationship. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (eds), Research in occupational stress and well being Vol. 1, Exploring theoretical mechanisms and perspectives. (pp. 63–96). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dewe, P. J. (2003). A closer examination of the patterns when coping with work-related stress: Implications for measurement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76, 517–524. Dewe, P. J. & Brook, R. (2000). Sequential tree analysis of work stressors: Exploring score profiles in the context of the stressor-stress relationship. International Journal of Stress Management 7, 1–18. Dewe, P. & Guest, D. (1990). Methods of coping with stress at work: A conceptual analysis and empirical study of measurement issues. Journal of Organisational Behaviour 11, 135–150. Dewe, P. J. & Ng, H. A. (2000). Exploring the relationship between primary appraisal and coping using a work setting. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 14, 397– 418. Dewe, P., Cox, T. & Ferguson, E. (1993). Individual strategies for coping with stress and work: a review. Work and Stress 7, 5–15. Diener, E. (2003). What is positive about positive psychology: The curmudgeon and pollyana. Psychological Inquiry 14, 115–120. Edwards, J. R. & Baglioni, A. J. (1993). The measurement of coping with stress: Construct validity of the Ways of Coping Checklist and the Cybernetic Coping Scale. Work & Stress 7, 17–32. Elfering, A., Grebner, S., Semmer, N. K., Kaiser-Freiburghaus, D., Lauper-Del Ponte, S. & Witschi, I. (2005). Chronic job stressors and job control: Effects on event-related coping success and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78, 237–252. Endler, N. S. & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 844–854. EreraWeatherly, P. L. (1996). Coping with stress: Public welfare supervisors doing their best. Human Relations 49, 157–170. Faragher, E., Cooper, C. L. & Cartwright, S. (2004). A shortened stress evaluation tool (ASSET). Stress and Health 20, 189–202. Ferguson, E. & Cox, T. (1997). The functional dimensions of coping scales: Theory, reliability and validity. British Journal of Health Psychology 2, 109–129. Folkman, S. (1992). Improving coping assessment: Reply to Stone and KennedyMoore. In H. S. Friedman (ed.), Hostility Coping and Health. (pp. 215–223). Washington: American Psychological Association. Folkman, S. (1997). Holistic approaches: Appealing but unwieldy. Journal of Health Psychology 2, 155–156.

186 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist 55, 647–654. Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T. (2003). Positive psychology from a coping perspective. Psychological Inquiry 14, 121–124. Folkman, S. & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 745–774. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology 25, 364–372. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist 56, 218–226. French, J., Caplan, R. & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Frese, M. & Zapf, D. (1999). On the importance of the objective environment in stress and attribution theory. Counterpoint to Perrewe and Zellars. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 761–765. Freund, A. M. & Reidiger, M. (2001). What I have and what I do–The role of resource loss and gain throughout life. Applied Psychology: An international review 30, 370–380. Gore, S. (1985). Social support and styles of coping with stress. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (eds), Stress and Health. (pp. 263–278). Orlando FL: Academic Press. Gowan, M. A., Riordan, C. M. & Gatewood, R. D. (1999). Test of a model of coping with involuntary job loss following a company closure. Journal of Applied Psychology 84, 75–86. Greenglass, E. R. (1988). Type A behavior and coping strategies in female and male supervisors. Applied Psychology: An International Review 37, 271–288. Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Proactive coping, work stress and burnout. Stress News 13, 1–5. Greenglass, E. R. (2002). Proactive coping and quality of life management. In E. Frydenberg (ed.), Beyond coping: meeting goals, visions, and challenges. (pp. 37–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J. & Ondrack, M. (1990). A gender role perspective of coping and burnout. Applied Psychology: An International Review 39, 5–27. Harris, J. R. (1991). The utility of the transactional approach for occupational stress research. In P. L. Perrewé (ed.), Handbook on job stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6, 21–29. Havlovic, S. J. & Keenan, J. P. (1991). Coping with work stress: The influence of individual differences. In P. L. Perrewe (ed.), Handbook on job stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social behavior and Personality 6, 199–212. Hewitt, P. L. & Flett, G. L. (1996). Personality traits and the coping process. In M. Zeidner & N. M. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 410–434). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and philosophy of stress. New York: Plenum. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review 50, 337–421. Hobfoll, S. E., Schwarzer, R. & Chon, K. K. (1998). Disentangling the stress labyrinth: Interpreting the meaning of the term stress as it is studied in health context. Anxiety, Stress and Coping 11, 181–122. Holroyd, K. A. & Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Stress, coping and somatic adaptation. In L. Goldberger and S. Breznitz (eds), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. (pp. 21–35). New York: Free Press.

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 187 Ito, J. K. & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63, 490–509. Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freeman, S. M. & Philips, J. S. (1990). Worksite stress management interventions. American Psychologist 45, 252–261. Iwasaki, Y. (2003). The impact of leisure coping beliefs and strategies on adaptive outcomes. Leisure Studies 22, 93–108. Iwasaki, Y. & Mannell, R. C. (2000). Hierarchical dimensions of leisure stress coping. Leisure Sciences 22, 163–181. Jones, F. & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, theory and research. Harlow: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Kahn, R. L. (2001). Psychology of stress in organizations. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 22, (pp. 15179–15184). Oxford: Elsevier. Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly 24, 285–308. Kinicki, A. J. & Latack, J. C. (1990). Explication of the construct of coping with involuntary job loss. Journal of Vocational Behavior 36, 339–360. Kinicki, A. J., McKee, F. M. & Wade, K. J. (1996). Annual review 1991–1995: Occupational health. Journal of Vocational Behavior 49, 190–220. Koeske, G. F., Kirk, S. A. & Koeske, R. D. (1993). Coping with job stress: Which strategies work best? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 66, 319– 335. Kompier, M. & Cooper, C. L. (eds). (1999). Preventing stress, improving productivity. London: Routledge. Latack, J. C. (1986). Coping with job stress: measures and future directions for scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology 71, 377–385. Latack, J. C. & Havlovic, S. J. (1992). Coping with job stress: A conceptual evaluation framework for coping measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13, 479–508. Latack, J., Kinicki, A. & Prussia, G. (1995). An interactive process model of coping with job loss. Academy of Management Review 20, 311–342. Lazarus, R. L. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry 1, 3–13. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. L. Perrewé (ed.), Handbook on job stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6, 1–13. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Lazarus rise. Psychological Inquiry 4, 343–357. Lazarus, R. S. (1997). Hurrah for a systems approach. Journal of Health Psychology 2, 158–160. Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: a new synthesis. London: Free Association Books. Lazarus, R. L. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist 55, 665–673. Lazarus, R. L. (2003a). Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological Inquiry 14, 93–109. Lazarus, R. L. (2003b). The Lazarus manifesto for positive psychology and psychology in general. Psychological Inquiry 14, 173–189. Lazarus, R. L. & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2001). Discrete emotions in organizational life. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper (eds), Emotions at Work: Theory, research and applications in management. (pp. 45–81). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

188 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S. & Gruen, R. (1985). Stress and adaptational outcomes: The problem of confounded measures. American Psychologist 40, 770–779. Leana, C. R. & Feldman, D. C. (1990). Individual responses to job loss: empirical findings from two field studies. Human Relations 43, 1051–1081. Leiter, M. P. (1990). The impact of family resources, control coping, and skill utilization on the development of burnout: A conceptualization study. Human Relations 43, 1067–1083. Leiter, M. P. (1991). Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: the function of control and escapist coping patterns. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 3, 95–107. Lewis, S. & Cooper, C. L. (2005). Work-Life Integration: Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Liddle, H. A. (1994). Contextualising resiliency. In M. C. Wong & E. W. Gordon (eds), Educational resilience in inner-city America. (pp. 167–177). Hillsdale, N.Y: Earlbaum. Long, B. C. (1993). Coping strategies of male managers: A prospective analysis of predictors of psychosomatic symptoms and job satisfactions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 42, 184–199. Lowe, R. & Bennett, P. (2003). Exploring coping reactions to work stress: Applications of an appraisal theory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76, 393– 400. Mackay, C. J., Cousins, R., Kelly, P. J., Lee, S. & McCaig, R. H. (2004). ‘Management standards’ and work related stress in the UK: Policy background and science. Work & Stress 18, 91–112. Mak, A. S. & Meuller, J. (2000). Job insecurity, coping resources and personality dispositions in occupational strain. Work & Stress 14, 312–328. McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (pp. 1351–1395). Chicago: Rand McNally. McKee-Ryan, F. M. & Kinicki, A. J. (2002). Coping with job loss: A life-facet perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 17, 1–29. Moos, R. H. & Billings A. G. (1982). Conceptualizing and measuring coping resources and processes. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (eds), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. (pp. 212–230). New York: Free Press. Murphy, L. R. (1995). Occupational stress management: Current status and future directions. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior (pp. 1–14). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Murphy, L. R., Hurrell, J. J., Sauter, S. L. & Keita, C. P. (eds). (1995). Job Stress Interventions. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Newton, T. L. & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work related stress. Human Relations 49, 133–155. O’Brien, T. B. & DeLongis, A. (1996). The interactional context of problem-, emotion-, and relationship-focused coping: The role of the big-five personality factors. Journal of Personality 64, 775–813. Oakland, S. & Ostell, A. (1996). Measuring coping: A review and critique. Human Relations 49, 133–155. O’Driscoll, M. P. & Cooper, C. L. (1994). Coping with work related stress: A critique of existing measures and proposal for an alternative methodology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 67, 343–354. O’Driscoll, M. P. & Cooper, C. L. (1996). A critical incident analysis of stress-coping behaviours at work. Stress Medicine 12, 123–128.

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 189 O’Driscoll, M. P. & Dewe, P. J. (2001). Mediators and moderators of stressor-strain linkages. In P. L. Perrewe and D. C. Ganster (eds), Research in occupational stress and well being Vol. 1, Exploring theoretical mechanisms and perspectives. (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Osipow, S. H. & Davis, A. S. (1988). The relationship of coping resources to occupational stress and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior 32, 1–15. Osipow, S. H. & Spokane, A. R. (1984). Measuring occupational stress, strain, and coping. In S. Oskemp (ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual 5, 67–86. Park, C. L. & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology 1, 115–144. Parkes, K. R. (1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: models, methods and measures. Work and Stress 8, 110–129. Payne, R. L. & Cooper, C. L. (eds). (2001). Emotions at work: theory, research and applications for management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Pekrun, R. & Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 7, 153–200. Perrewe, P. L. & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 739–752. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G. & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Coping and social support. In M. Zeidner & N. M. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 434–451). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Plante, T. G., Coscarelli, L., Caputo, D. & Oppezzo, M. (2000). Perceived fitness predicts daily coping better then physical activity or aerobic fitness. International Journal of Stress Management 7, 181–192. Puffer S. M. & Brakefield, L. T. (1989). The role of task complexity as a moderator of the stress and coping process. Human Relations 3, 199–217. Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L. & Hurrell, J. J. (eds). (1997). Preventive stress management in organizations. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Rahe, R. H. & Tolles, R. L. (2002). The Brief Stress and Coping Inventory: A useful stress management instrument. International Journal of Stress Management 9, 61–70. Roth, S. & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance and coping with stress. American Psychologist 41, 813–819. Ryff, C. D. (2003). Corners of myopia in the positive psychology parade. Psychological Inquiry 14, 153–159. Rynes, S., Bartunek, J. M. & Daft, R. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal 44, 340–355 Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Should the subjective be the objective? On studying mental processes, coping behavior, and actual exposures in organizational stress research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 753–760. Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Coping with job stress. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 22, (pp. 7984–7987). Oxford: Elsevier. Schwarzer, R. (2001). Stress, resources, and proactive coping. Applied Psychology: An International Review 50, 400–407. Schwarzer, R. & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 107–132). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Schwarzer, R. & Stone, A. A. (1993). Coping with daily work problems: Contributions of problem content, appraisals, and person factors. Work & Stress 7, 47–62.

190 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Schwarzer, R. & Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and strivings: Toward personal growth. In E. Frydenberg (ed.), Beyond coping: meeting goals, visions, and challenges. (pp. 19–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist 55, 5–14. Seligman, M. E. P. & Pawelski, J. O. (2003). Positive psychology: FAQs. Psychological Inquiry 14, 159–163. Smith, C. S., Tisak, J., Hahn, S. E. & Schmieder, R. A. (1997). The measurement of job control. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18, 225–237. Snyder, C. R. (1999). Coping: The psychology of what works. New York, Oxford University Press. Snyder, C. R. (ed.). (2001). Coping with stress: effective people and processes. Oxford: Oxford: University Press. Somerfield, M. R. (1997). The utility of systems models of stress and coping for applied research. Journal of Health Psychology 2, 133–151. Somerfield, M. R. (1997a). The future of coping research as we know it: A response to commentaries. Journal of Health Psychology 2, 173–183. Somerfield, M. R. & McCrae, R. R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, Theoretical Advances. American Psychologist 55, 620–625. Spiegel, D. (1997). Understanding risk assessment by cancer patients. Journal of Health Psychology 2, 170–171. Stanton, A. L. & Franz R. (1999). Focusing on emotion: An adaptive coping strategy? In C. R. Snyder (ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works. (pp. 90–118). New York: Oxford University Press. Stanton, A. L., Danoff-Burg, S., Cameron, C. L. & Ellis, A. P. (1994). Coping through emotional approach: Problems of conceptualization and confounding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, 350–362. Stone, A. A., Greenberg, M. A., Kennedy-Moore, E. & Newman, M. G. (1991). Selfreport, situation specific coping questionnaires: What are they measuring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, 648–658. Stone, A. A. & Kennedy-Moore, E. (1992). Assessing situational coping: Conceptual and methodological considerations. In H. S. Friedman (ed.), Hostility coping and health. (pp. 203–214). Washington: American Psychological Association. Stone, A. A., Helder, L. & Schneider, M. S. (1988). Coping dimensions and issues. In L. H. Cohen (ed.), Life events and psychological functioning: Theoretical and methodological issues. (pp. 182–210). London: Sage. Stroman, C. A. & Seltzer, R. (1997). Racial difficulties in coping with job stress. In P. L. Perrewé (ed.), Handbook on job stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6, 309–318. Suls, J. & David, P. D. (1996). Coping and personality: Third time’s the charm? Journal of Personality 64, 993–1005. Suls, J., David, J. P. & Harvey, J. H. (1996). Personality and coping: Three generations of research. Journal of Personality 64, 711–735. Sulsky, L. & Smith, C. (2005). Work stress. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Sunderland, V. & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Strategic stress management. London: Macmillan Books. Tennen, H., Affleck, G., Armeli, S. & Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process approach to coping. American Psychologist 55, 626–636. Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior (Extra Issue), 53–79. Trenberth, L. D. & Dewe, P. J. (2002). The importance of leisure as a means of coping with work related stress: an exploratory study. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 15, 59–72.

C OPING R ESEARCH AND M EASUREMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF W ORK R ELATED S TRESS 191 Trenberth, L. D., Dewe, P. J. & Walkey, F. H. (1996). A factor replication approach to the measurement of coping. Stress Medicine 12, 71–79. Troup, C. & Dewe, P. (2003). Exploring the nature of control and its role in the appraisal of workplace stress. Work & Stress 16, 335–35. Walsh, S. & Jackson, P. R. (1995). Partner support and gender: contexts for coping with job loss. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 68, 253–268. Watson, D. & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality 64, 737–774. Westman, M. (2004). Strategies for coping with business trips: A qualitative exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management 11, 167–176. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Brockner, J., Petzall, B., Wolf, R. & Bailey, J. (2001). Stress and coping among layoff survivors: A self-affirmation analysis. Anxiety, Stress and Coping 74, 15–34. Winstanley, S. & Whittington, R. (2002). Anxiety, burnout and coping styles in general hospital staff exposed to workplace aggression: a cyclical model of burnout and vulnerability to aggression. Work & Stress 16, 302–315. Wright, T. A. & Doherty, E. M. (1998). Organizational behavior ‘rediscovers’ the role of emotional well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19, 481–485. Xie, J. L. & Schaubroeck, J. (2001). bridging appraoches and findings across diverse disciplines to improve job stress research. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (eds), Research in occupational stress and well being Vol. 1, Exploring theoretical mechanisms and perspectives. (pp. 1–62). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Zeidner, M. & Saklofske, D. (1996). Adaptive and maladaptive coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (eds), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications. (pp. 505–531). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Chapter 5 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING Linda Argote and Gergana Todorova David A. Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Research on organizational learning has increased dramatically in recent years. Several important books on the topic have been published (e.g., Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003; Hodgkinson, 2005; Garvin, 2000; Greve, 2003; March, Schulz & Zhou, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Furthermore, a number of special issues of journals have been devoted to organizational learning and the management of the knowledge produced by that learning, including Organization Science (Cohen & Sproull, 1991; Grandori & Kogut, 2002), Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (Argote, Ingram, Moreland & Levine, 2000), Strategic Management Journal (Helfat, 2000; Spender & Grant, 1996) and Management Science (Argote, McEvily & Reagans, 2003). The goals of this chapter are to review and integrate research findings on organizational learning, to provide a theoretical framework, and to suggest future research directions on this important topic. Our focus is on research published since 1995. Reviews of earlier organizational learning theory and research can be found in Huber (1991), Miner and Mezias (1996), Crossan, Lane and White (1999), Argote and Orphir (2002), and Schulz (2002). The chapter is organized as follows. In the first section, we define organizational learning and present our theoretical framework. Because we define learning as change in the organization that occurs as a function of experience, we provide a new classification of types of experience. We then review the literature on knowledge, learning, and innovation, according to the dimensions of experience we propose. We also discuss promising future directions for research on organizational learning.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The concept of organizational learning has been defined in a variety of ways (Friedman, Lipshitz & Popper, 2005). Taking a cognitive approach to learning, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2007, Volume 22. C 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Edited by G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford. Copyright

194 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Fiol and Lyles (1985) defined learning as changes in knowledge (see also Duncan & Weiss, 1979). Levitt and March (1988) argued that experience is embedded in an organization’s routines (see also Cyert & March, 1963). Huber (1991) defined learning as a change in the range of potential behavior in an organization’s repertoire associated with experience. Other researchers have examined changes in organizational performance that occur as a function of experience as indicators of organizational learning (Argote, 1999; Dutton & Thomas, 1984). The core elements of learning that these definitions share in common is that organizational learning is a change in the organization that occurs as a function of experience. Although the definitions differ in where the change occurs, most approaches can be grouped into conceptualizing the change as occurring in the organization’s cognitions or knowledge (e.g., Fiol & Lyles, 1985), its routines or practices (e.g., Levitt & March, 1988), or its performance (e.g., Dutton & Thomas, 1984). Thus, we define organizational learning as a change in the organization that occurs as a function of experience. This change could be reflected in various ways, most prominently by changes in the organization’s knowledge, its routines, or its performance. Another challenge in conceptualizing organizational learning is the level of analysis at which organizational learning occurs. We take a multi-level approach to analyzing organizational learning. Although individuals are the media through which organizational learning generally occurs, learning by individuals within the organization does not necessarily imply that organizational learning has occurred. In order for the learning to be organizational, it has to have a supra-individual component (see Levitt & March, 1988). For example, others in the organization would have to know that a particular individual possessed the knowledge so that they could access the individual’s knowledge. Our review does not focus on the voluminous literature on individual learning but rather includes individual learning to the extent that it enhances our understanding of organizational learning. We extend theorizing on multi-level learning (Crossan, Lane & White, 1999; Ingram, 2002). In contrast to prior theories on multi-level learning, which posit different processes at different levels (Crossan, Lane & White, 1999), we propose that the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of learning consist of experience, learning processes, and the knowledge stock at all three levels: individual, group, and organizational. Thus, the main structure of the model repeats itself at each level in the organization (see Figure 5.1). At the individual level, we study the individual experience, the individual learning processes, and the resulting knowledge stock in the individual member (see Quinones, Ford & Teachout, 1995; and Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998, for reviews of the effects of individual experience). At the group level, we study the group experience, the group learning processes, and the knowledge stock in the group (e.g., see Argote, Gruenfeld & Naquin, 2001; Edmondson, 2002). The difference between levels and the interaction between levels is captured in the concepts of

O RGANIZATIONAL L EARNING

Figure 5.1

195

Major variables in organizational learning framework

context and experience. These two concepts allow us to capture the complex link between levels, which consists of more than knowledge or informational flows characteristic of prior theorizing. In addition to the environment and organizational structure, the concept of context includes the higher level for each of the levels of learning that the model describes. For example, for individual learning, the context includes the groups in which the individual is nested. Thus, the influence of the higher group-level learning on individual learning is captured. Moreover, the model encompasses the influence of the lower level on the learning processes through the concept of experience. In learning at the group level, for example, both group experiences and individual experiences are processed by the group and then retained in the knowledge stock of the group. We argue that the learning processes in groups have as inputs both individual and group experience and lead to changes in the knowledge stock at the group level. In this way, we propose new ways to study learning at different levels, including the interactions between levels. We examine how one organizational unit learns from another. This form of learning is generally referred to as knowledge transfer and occurs when one subunit learns from or is affected by the experience of another. For example, one product development team in an organization can learn from the experience of another. Or a manufacturing plant could benefit from the experiences of its sister facility. Not only do organizations learn from their own direct experience, they also learn from the experience of other organizations in the environment (Levitt &

196 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 March, 1988). Thus, we examine how a focal organization learns by acquiring or transferring knowledge from other organizations. Our interest, however, is in how a focal organization learns from other firms rather than the learning that occurs within a population or network of firms, which is beyond the scope of this chapter. Reviews of population-level learning can be found in Miner and Haunschild (1995) and Miner and Anderson (1999); a review of interorganizational learning can be found in Ingram (2002). Research on learning through interorganizational relationships such as cooperative relationships (Powell, Koput & Smith-Doerr, 1996; Shan, Walker & Kogut, 1994), alliances (Mowery, Oxley & Silverman, 1996), joint ventures (Kogut, 1991), interlocking boards of directors (Davis, 1991; Haunschild, 1993), and interactions among groups of competitive firms (Hodgkinson, 2005; Porac, Thomas & Baden-Fuller, 1989; Porac, Thomas, Wilson, Paton & Kanfer, 1995; Reger & Palmer, 1996) is also beyond the scope of this chapter. Learning Processes Our framework for organizational learning is presented in Figure 5.1. The framework has four major classes of variables: experience flows, learning processes, the knowledge stock, and the organizational context. Consistent with the primacy of experience in our definition of organizational learning, the framework begins with the flow of experience. Experience is conceptualized in terms of cumulative units of task performance. For example, in the case of a surgical team, experience could be represented by the number of surgical procedures performed. In the case of an automotive assembly plant, experience could be expressed in terms of the number of automobiles produced. For consulting teams, experience could be the number of consulting engagements. The concept of experience flows differs from the concept of knowledge because experience comprises not only informational but also motivational and social components. Experience is what occurs to the individual, group, or organization in the process of performing the task while knowledge is the outcome of the processing of the experience through learning. Experience can be characterized in terms of many dimensions, which will be discussed shortly. Organizational learning processes translate experience into knowledge. The learning processes mediate the relationship between experience flows and the knowledge stock. The learning processes sift through experience, screen out some bits or combine others to produce an organization’s stock of knowledge. Through the learning processes, experience is interpreted and transformed into knowledge. Learning processes vary in the “mindfulness” of processing of experience, ranging from mindful (Weick & Sutcliff, 2006) to less mindful (Levinthal & Rerup, 2006) processes. Mindful processes involve attention while less mindful processes are driven by routines and rules. This distinction is similar to Shiffrin and Schneider’s (1977) distinction between controlled and


197

automatic processing. Controlled processing is primarily under the individual’s control and requires attention; automatic processing occurs without the active control of individuals. For example, stimulus-response learning can be low in mindfulness: Responses that are reinforced increase in strength, while responses that are punished decrease in strength and frequency, with little or no cognitive mediation. At the other end of the mindful continuum are deliberative learning attempts that involve drawing inferences from experience. For example, a surgical team that conducts an “after-action review” after performing a surgical procedure to learn what went well and where they could have improved would be an example of a group engaging in mindful learning processes. The organizational and environmental context moderates the relationship between experience and learning processes. For example, an organization with a culture that fosters feelings of psychological safety is likely to lead to more mindful processing of experience, where members feel free to express their views (Edmondson, 1999). Similarly, an organizational context in which groups share a superordinate identity is likely to engender more mindful processing of ideas proposed by other group members and more learning from the experience of other groups (Kane, Argote & Levine, 2005). By contrast, a group or organization experiencing considerable threat may be less likely to engage in thorough processing of experience (Staw, Sandelands & Dutton, 1981). Most types of organizational learning studied in past research can be catalogued into the matrix shown in Table 5.1. The matrix has two dimensions: the mindfulness of learning processes and the source of experience. In addition to varying in the extent to which they involve mindful processing, learning

Table 5.1

Learning processes for creating knowledge

Mindfulness of Processing Less Mindful

Very Mindful

Own

Trial and Error

Inferential

(Direct)

Stimulus-Response

Deliberate

Automatic

Controlled

Imitation

Vicarious

Source of Experience

Others (Indirect)

198 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 processes also vary according to whether the learning occurs directly as a result of the organization’s own experience or indirectly through the experience of other organizational units. The surgical team doing an after-action review on its own experience would be an example of learning from the unit’s own experience. A surgical team that consults another surgical team and adopts a superior practice it had used is an example of learning from the experience of other units or knowledge transfer. Crossing the two dimensions, the extent of mindfulness and the source of experience, results in the 2 × 2 matrix shown in Table 5.1. In the upper right corner, we have mindful learning from a unit’s own experience. Learning in this cell has been termed inferential, deliberate, cognitive, or controlled learning. Significant cognitive effort is expended to interpret experience and draw appropriate inferences from it. In the upper left quadrant, we have less mindful learning from one’s own experience. Trial and error learning or stimulus-response learning would typically fit here. In the lower right quadrant, learning processes involve mindful interpretations of the experience of other organizational units. Vicarious learning that involves thoughtfully interpreting experience and understanding cause-effect relationships would fit in this cell. In the lower-left quadrant, learning processes involve using the experience of other units, without mindful processing. Imitation (Miller & Dollard, 1941), in which organizational units perform responses that match an example and their imitative behavior is positively reinforced, fits this cell. The “copy exactly” approach used by firms that replicate processes, technology, and layout exactly across locations without understanding which elements of process, technology, or layout contribute to performance would be an example of this type of learning (Szulanski & Winter, 2002). “Social learning” or learning from the example of a model (Bandura, 1977) would fit in either of the two lower cells, depending on the mindfulness of processing of experience. Learning not only involves creating new knowledge from experience, it also involves recombining existing knowledge with experience in novel ways (Fleming, 2001; Galunic & Rodan, 1998; Schumpeter, 1939). Organizations reuse knowledge even when they develop radically new technologies. Recombination can occur through processing the search space seeking suitable components (e.g., Fleming & Sorenson, 2004; Majchrzak, Cooper & Neece, 2004), which we term mindful recombination and position in the upper right corner of the matrix when it involves the organization’s direct experience. Alternatively, recombination can occur through less mindful recombination of existing pieces of knowledge and experience within the organization (e.g., Barrett, 1998; Crossan, 1998), which we position in the upper left cell. Recombination can involve mixing and reconfiguring the knowledge components of other units’ experience as well as the knowledge components of one’s own unit. Therefore, we include mindful recombination and less mindful recombination of the experience of others in the lower right and the lower left cell, respectively.


199

Knowledge Stock After knowledge is created through learning processes, it is embedded in a reservoir, repository, or retention bin in the organization (see Walsh & Ungson, 1991, and Argote & Ingram, 2000, for discussions of organizational memory). For example, the knowledge the surgical team acquired could be encoded into a new routine, or the knowledge could be embedded in technology by modifying equipment, or the knowledge could be embedded in individual team members’ understandings of some aspect of the procedure. The framework we use for conceptualizing organizational knowledge reservoirs or repositories is the framework of people, tools, and tasks and the subnetworks formed by crossing them (Arrow, McGrath & Berdahl, 2000; McGrath & Argote, 2001). According to the framework, knowledge is embedded in individual organizational members, in the tools they use and the tasks they perform as well as in the various subnetworks formed by crossing members, tasks, and tools. For example, the member-member network is the organization’s social network (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1988). The task-task network is the task sequence or routines the organization uses (Cyert & March, 1963; Nelson & Winter, 1982). The member-task network is the organization’s transactive memory network (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004; Wegner, 1986); it embodies information about which member is good at which tasks. The member-tool network could also be part of the organization’s transactive memory because it embodies which members are good at using which tools. The learning processes affect characteristics of the knowledge stock. For example, knowledge acquired about how to hand toss a pizza through trial and error learning will be primarily tacit and embedded in individuals. Knowledge about who was good at what acquired though having a group or team perform a task together would be embedded in the group’s transactive memory system or task-member network. The knowledge stock in turn affects the organizational context and subsequent units of experience. An organization can change its context based on its knowledge. For example, an organization might acquire knowledge that more learning occurs in decentralized than centralized structures. The organization could then shift to a more decentralized structure and thereby change its context. The changed context in turn could lead to deeper learning. Changes in the knowledge stock can also affect subsequent units of experience. For example, a surgical team that has acquired knowledge about how to coordinate its activities more effectively is likely to perform the next procedure differently. Or an applied Research and Development team that has acquired knowledge about where information resides in the rest of the firm will complete its project faster than a team lacking such knowledge. Knowledge is a challenging concept to measure. Two general approaches have been taken to measuring organizational knowledge. One approach is to attempt to measure the knowledge directly. The other is to view changes in

200 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 organizational performance indicators associated with experience as reflecting changes in knowledge. Both approaches pose challenges. Direct attempts to measure organizational knowledge can take several forms. Questionnaires, interviews, or verbal protocols can be used to measure knowledge embedded in individuals. King and Zeithaml (2003) proposed a perceptual approach to measuring organizational knowledge. They identified the feasible set of knowledge resources for a specific industry and then measured managers’ perceptions of the value added of each of the knowledge assets for their organizations. This approach cannot capture tacit aspects of knowledge (see Berry & Broadbend, 1984, 1987; Bussing & Herbig, 2003). Cognitive mapping is another tool used to study organizational cognition by measuring knowledge embedded in individuals (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001; Huff, 1990). Huff and Jenkins (2001) and Hodgkinson and Sparrow (2002) reviewed these methods. The former argued that cognitive mapping methods reveal tacit routines in organizations, although to what extent tacit knowledge can be elicited using such relatively direct methods of assessment is debatable (cf. Hodgkinson & Sparrow, 2002). In addition to the challenge of measuring tacit knowledge, direct attempts to measure knowledge also should be sensitive to the myriad repositories in which knowledge is embedded. For example, knowledge can be embedded in tools, in social networks, in transactive memory systems, and in routines as well as in individuals. Because of the challenges of measuring knowledge embedded in routines, qualitative research and simulations have been used to demonstrate how routines change as function of experience (e.g., Dosi, Levinthal & Marengo, 2003; Feldman, 2000; Narduzzo, Roco & Waglien, 2000). Because knowledge can also be embedded in organizational products, the evolution of products has been conceived as reflecting changes in organizational knowledge (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000). Some progress has been made in developing measures of knowledge in these various repositories but clearly more work is needed. Another approach to assessing organizational knowledge is to measure the knowledge through patents or publications (e.g., Fleming & Sorenson, 2004; Henderson & Cockburn, 1994). These measures of organizational knowledge capture explicit knowledge but may not capture tacit knowledge. Another challenge in using patents as a measure of organizational knowledge is that citations in the patent may have been added by external patent examiners rather than by members of the organization (Alcacer & Gittleman, 2006) and may not be good indicators of organizational knowledge. Another approach to measuring organizational knowledge is to view changes in organizational performance associated with experience as indicators of changes in knowledge. Much of the work in the learning curve tradition uses this approach (e.g., see Argote & Epple, 1990; Dutton & Thomas, 1984; Benkard, 2000; Lapré & von Wassenhove, 2001). Changes in performance


201

indicators such as productivity or quality that occur as a function of organizational experience are seen to reflect changes in the organization’s knowledge. For example, Reagans, Argote and Brooks (2005) found that the more experience a surgical team had, the faster it completed subsequent surgical procedures (see also Pisano, Bohmer & Edmondson, 2002). The researchers attributed the performance gains to improved knowledge about how to perform the task and how to coordinate team member activities. A key issue in using changes in organizational performance as indicators of changes in organizational knowledge is controlling for factors other than experience that can affect organizational performance. For example, in the Reagans, Argote and Brooks (2005) study of learning in surgical teams, measures of the severity of patient conditions, of the type of surgical procedure performed, and the size and composition of the team were included as control variables in addition to measures of experience. Experience was significant when these myriad other factors were taken into account, suggesting that performance gains could reasonably be attributed to experience, and thereby providing evidence that organizational learning occurred and the organization’s knowledge stock had changed. A benefit of performance-based approaches to assessing organizational learning is that changes in tacit knowledge are reflected in performance but not in direct, verbal measures of knowledge. Berry and Broadbent (1984, 1987) showed that participants’ performance improved with experience in a management simulation game. Further, participants with experience performed better on a related task than participants without previous experience. Experienced participants, however, did not differ from inexperienced participants in their responses to questionnaires or verbal protocols used to measure their knowledge. The researchers concluded that participants had acquired tacit knowledge because their performance improved with experience but they were not able to articulate why it improved. Performance-based approaches to measuring knowledge capture tacit knowledge, while verbal approaches to measuring knowledge do not. Context The learning context consists of two main components: the organization and the environment. Both formal and informal aspects of the organization can affect organizational learning. Formal organizational arrangements, such as technology, structure, and strategy, can influence organizational learning and knowledge transfer (e.g., Adler, Riley, Kwon & Singer, 2003; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Szulanski, 1996). Informal aspects of the organizational context also influence learning processes. Learning processes can be localized in communities of practice (e.g., Brown & Duguid, 1991; Orr, 1996; Thompson, 2005) and

202 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 can be influenced by the culture and properties of networks of formal and informal ties (e.g., Hansen, 1999; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Uzzi & Lancaster, 2003). Learning can be context-specific and learning about the organizational context can improve individual performance (Huckman & Pisano, 2006). How organizations learn from experience also depends on the volatility and heterogeneity of the environment (e.g., Grant, 1996; Levinthal & March, 1993). In highly dynamic environments, organizations must rapidly process new experiences, where the causality of events may be difficult to untangle (Levitt & March, 1988; March, Sproull & Tamuz, 1991). The constraints on learning can lead to a bias towards less mindful, stimulus-response learning processes and to “superstitious” learning where inappropriate inferences are drawn from experience (Lave & March, 1975; Levitt & March, 1988). In addition, because factors contributing to success in one period may differ drastically from factors of success in another period, the knowledge derived from learning from success experience in one period can become obsolete and hence irrelevant for task performance during the next period. Thus, the current knowledge stock may not be valuable or may even be detrimental to the quality of future task performance and the feedback link between the current knowledge stock and future experience can have a negative impact on learning. Other characteristics of the environment can influence learning from experience. For example, Uzzi and Lancaster (2003) provided evidence that forms of learning depend on the networks within which firms embed their relationships. The researchers developed a framework that relates different types of informal ties to different types of learning models. By combining different types of ties, the firm can expand its ability to learn through creating forms of learning that build on one another. The organizational context distributes and structures the attention of decision makers to aspects of the environment (March & Olsen, 1975; March & Simon, 1958; Ocasio, 1997). Organizational members focus their attention on and process thoroughly only a limited set of issues from the environment. The organizational communication channels, rules, and social relationships allocate attention and structure the set of problems and solutions to which organizational members attend. The organizational context interacts with the environment in affecting an organization’s learning processes. Sorenson (2003) found, for example, that increasing the vertical integration of the organization decreased the negative impact of environmental volatility on learning from production experience. Through vertical integration the organization increased its control of the external environment and simplified learning from experience. Other organizational characteristics that influence interdependence such as modularization (Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996) can also impact the link between environmental dynamics and learning processes. In the following discussion of dimensions of experience, we present key findings on the complex relationship between context, experience, learning


203

processes, and changes in the knowledge stock. Our model provides a new perspective for investigating when experience is useful and when it is not. Dimensions of Experience The flow of experience in an organization can be characterized along many dimensions which can operate at the individual, group, or organizational levels of analysis. A key dimension of experience is whether the experience is based on an organizational unit’s own experience or the experience of another unit. The first type of experience is referred to as direct experience; the latter type of experience is referred to as indirect experience. Another dimension of experience is its content: whether the experience is about tasks or about relationships. For example, as members of a surgical team acquire experience, they learn how to perform the task better. They also learn about relationships, including who is good at what and who likes to do what, which enables them to communicate and coordinate their activities better. Experience can also be characterized in terms of a spatial dimension. Experience can be acquired in close spatial proximity or it can be acquired across distant locations. A co-located team would be an example of a team acquiring experience in close proximity, while a geographically distributed team would be an example of a team acquiring experience in a distant mode. Novelty and heterogeneity are other dimensions of experience. A research team working in a new area would be acquiring novel experience, while one proceeding along a proven path would not be. A research team working in many areas would be acquiring heterogeneous experience while one focusing on one area would not be. Experience can also be characterized in terms of its ambiguity. Ambiguity of experience refers to the causal ambiguity of task performance or the extent to which cause-effect relationships are not well understood. For example, one semiconductor plant of a firm might produce a high yield or number of defectfree products while another plant produces a much lower yield, without the firm understanding what caused the difference between the two plants. The firm would experience relatively high causal ambiguity. By contrast, another firm, whose manufacturing processes were well understood, would experience low causal ambiguity. Experience can also be characterized in terms of whether it is a success or failure. A Space Shuttle launch, such as Challenger or Columbia, which ended in disaster would be an extreme form of failure. A Space Shuttle that was propelled into orbit and returned safely to earth would be an example of success. The flow of experience can also be characterized along temporal dimensions. Experience can be recent or it can be from the distant past. Units of experience can be acquired at a steady rate or with many intervening interruptions.

204 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Experience can be acquired before, during or after task completion. Each dimension of the flow of experience is discussed in turn. Direct versus indirect experience Organizational units learn both from their own direct experience and the experience of other units. The latter form of learning, knowledge transfer, can occur across units within the same organization or across different organizations. When the transfer occurs across different organizations, it is often referred to as knowledge spillover (e.g., see Irwin & Klenow, 1994). Knowledge transfer can also occur from a parent organization to a new firm (Carroll, Bigelow, Seideal & Tsai, 1996; Klepper & Sleeper, 2005; Phillips, 2002). According to our model, the organizational context moderates the relationship between experience and organizational learning. Only a few studies have explicitly examined how dimensions of the context moderate the relationship between direct experience and organizational learning. For example, Macher and Mowery (2003) found that team diversity moderated the relationship between direct experience and organizational learning in semi-conductor plants: functionally heterogeneous teams learned more from their experience than homogeneous teams. Ashworth, Mukhopadhyay and Argote (2004) found that information technology interacted with direct experience in units of a financial services firm. The use of information technology enabled the units to increase the rate at which they learned. Organizational form has also been found to interact with experience: Specialist organizations that focus on a narrower range of products or services have been found to benefit more from experience than generalist organizations (Barnett, Greve & Park, 1994; Haunschild & Sullivan, 2002; Ingram & Baum, 1997a). Although other studies have not explicitly examined the interaction between experience and the organizational context, they suggest how other dimensions of an organization’s context are likely to moderate the relationship between experience and organizational learning. A contextual dimension that has received considerable attention is the diversity or heterogeneity of organizational members. While not explicitly studying the interaction between experience and member heterogeneity, many other studies have suggested that heterogeneous teams will be better at learning than homogeneous teams. Heterogeneous groups have been found to be more innovative than their homogeneous counterparts across a variety of contexts, including scientific laboratories (Dunbar, 1995), new product development teams (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Moorman & Miner, 1997), and top management teams (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Lant, Milliken & Batra, 1992). The dimension of heterogeneity that contributes the most to innovation is functional heterogeneity or heterogeneity in members’ backgrounds (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Other dimensions of heterogeneity have yielded more mixed results (e.g., see Murnighan & Conlon, 1991). Groups with


205

members that express “minority” views are more likely to be creative than those lacking minority input. Groups that are exposed to a minority view are more likely to engage in “divergent thinking” that involves considering an issue from multiple perspectives (Nemeth, 1992). Interestingly, minority viewpoints are most beneficial when they are contributed by an individual who is a minority in terms of some demographic characteristic (Philips, 2003). The congruence of a minority view being expressed by a minority member, whom other group members expect to have a divergent view, promotes its acceptance. Thus, informational heterogeneity (minority views) interacts with member heterogeneity to predict learning outcomes. Diversity of tools or technologies can also enhance creativity and innovation. Hargadon and Sutton (1997) showed how having a variety of tools in an organization can enhance “technology brokering” or the application of knowledge from one technology to another, and thereby increase innovation. Technology brokering is a form of analogical reasoning, in which solutions from one problem domain are imported to solve another (Dunbar, 1995; Gick & Holyoak, 1980, 1983). Encouraging organizational members to compare and identify the underlying structure of problems rather than focus on superficial attributes facilitates analogical reasoning (Thompson, Gentner & Lowenstein, 2000). Several recent trends in research on heterogeneity are particularly promising. One is examining the mechanisms though which member heterogeneity affects organizational processes and outcomes (Lawrence, 1997; Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999; Pettigrew, 1992; Reagans, 2005). For example, Reagans, Zuckerman and McEvily (2004) found that the communication network accounted for much of the effect of team diversity on outcomes. Another trend is examining the effect of heterogeneity over time. For example, Watson, Kumar and Michaelson (1993) found that although culturally homogenous groups initially outperformed heterogeneous groups, the heterogeneous groups learned at a faster rate than the homogenous groups. This study underscores the importance of taking a dynamic approach to understanding the effect of member composition on organizational learning processes and outcomes. Several studies have focused on dimensions of an organization’s culture and how they affect organizational learning. For example, a culture where members experience “psychological safety” and feel free to voice their views is likely to facilitate organizational learning (Edmondson, 1999) while defensive routines that members evoke to prevent embarrassment are likely to impede learning (Argyris, 1992). The shared language that members of a group develop can also facilitate the interpretation of experience (Weber & Camerer, 2003). A “learning orientation” where team members focus on learning rather than performing is likely to facilitate learning and performance gains up to a point but high levels of learning orientation may impede performance (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Cohesion is likely to facilitate learning from direct experience (Wong, 2004).

206 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Training also may affect learning processes and the accumulation of knowledge in organizations. Experience observing someone perform a task has been found to facilitate subsequent performance more than other types of training, such as lectures or other didactic techniques (Nadler, Thompson & Van Boven, 2003). Group training has been found to be more beneficial for subsequent group performance than individual training (Hollinghead, 1998; Liang, Moreland & Argote, 1995). Training members of a group together can promote learning by facilitating the development of “transactive memory” or knowledge of who knows what (Wegner, 1986). These transactive memories transfer to other similar tasks (Lewis, Lange & Gillis, 2005). Heedful interacting, where members attend to how their activities fit with the activities of other team members, is also likely to facilitate organizational learning (Weick & Roberts, 1993). Clearly, more research is needed on how the context affects organizational learning. Analyzing how aspects of the organization’s context interact with experience to affect organizational learning is a promising direction for future research. Further, examining higher-order interactions is likely to be fruitful. For example, does information technology enhance the ability of less expert organization members to learn from experience more (or less) than it enhances the experience of expert members? Is a culture where members trust each other more likely to enhance the ability of heterogeneous than homogeneous teams to learn from experience? These higher-order interactions between experience and dimensions of the context are promising areas for future research. Not only do organizational units learn directly from their own experience, they also learn indirectly from the experience of other organizational units (Huber, 1991; Levitt & March, 1988). The latter form of learning or knowledge transfer can occur through a variety of mechanisms. People can move from one organizational unit to another and bring their experience to the new unit (Almeida & Kogut, 1999; Song, Almeida & Wu, 2003). Technology, which has knowledge embedded in it, can be transferred from one site to another (Galbraith, 1990; Zander & Kogut, 1995) and products can be “reversed engineered” to uncover knowledge. Routines and practices can be transferred from one organizational unit to another (Kane, Argote & Levine, 2005). In addition to transferring knowledge by moving people, technology or routines, knowledge can also be transferred through social networks (Hansen, 1999; Reagans & McEvily, 2003) and relationships (Rulke, Zaheer & Anderson, 2000; Uzzi & Lancaster, 2003). Organizations can also learn from the experience of suppliers and customers (von Hippel, 1988). Interruptions in the flow of direct experience provide opportunities for knowledge transfer (Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003). According to our model, just as the context moderates the relationship between direct experience and organizational learning, the context also moderates the relationship between learning from indirect experience and organizational learning processes and outcomes. Only a few studies have explicitly examined how the context interacts with indirect experience. Ashworth, Argote and


207

Mukhopadyay (2005) found that information technology enhanced the ability of units of a financial services firm to learn from the experience of other units. Being embedded in a relationship such as a franchise, chain, or federation has also been found to facilitate learning from the experience of other units (Baum & Ingram, 1998; Darr, Argote & Epple, 1995; Ingram & Simons, 2002). Groups or organizational units that share a superordinate social identity are more likely to learn from each other than units not sharing a social identity (Kane, Argote & Levine, 2005). Organizations learn more from other organizations following a similar than dissimilar strategy (Darr & Kurtzberg, 2000; Hodgkinson, 2005; Porac, Thomas & Baden-Fuller, 1989; Porac, Thomas, Wilson, Paton & Kanfer, 1995). Other studies underscore that relationships are likely to be especially important in learning from the experience of other units (see also Szulanski, 1996). Interorganizational relationships, such as participation in Research & Development alliances, are likely to facilitate learning from the experience of others (McEvily & Zaheer, 1999; Powell, Koput & Smith-Doerr, 1996). Firms embedded in a network are more likely to learn from each other than ones linked only by arms-length ties (Uzzi, 1996). Properties of an organization’s social network are also likely to affect learning from indirect experience. For example, Hansen (1999) found that weak ties facilitated access to a wide range of information, while strong ties facilitated the transfer of tacit knowledge. Reagans and McEvily (2003) found that both cohesion or dense ties and range or ties that spanned structural holes contributed to knowledge transfer. Ahuja (2000) found that while direct and indirect ties increased innovation, structural holes in the network decreased innovation. In addition, direct ties moderated the relationship between indirect ties and innovation. An organization’s structure such as the extent to which it is centralized (Chang & Harrington, 2003) or integrated (Sorenson, 2003) is also likely to affect knowledge transfer. Contextual characteristics of the units are also likely to affect the extent to which they learn from each other. Units that are high in “absorptive capacity” are more likely to recognize the value of external information, assimilate it and apply it successfully than units that are low in absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Absorptive capacity is primarily a function of a firm’s prior level of knowledge. High absorptive capacity on the part of recipients in knowledge exchanges has been found to facilitate the transfer of best practices (Szulanski, 1996). In addition, previous experience with technology transfer, which arguably increases the organization’s absorptive capacity, has been found to increase the likelihood of a successful transfer (Galbraith, 1990). Status is another contextual characteristic that can affect knowledge transfer. Thomas-Hunt, Ogden and Neale (2003) demonstrated that expert status affects knowledge sharing within groups: experts were more likely than non-experts to discuss both knowledge that members shared in common and unshared knowledge that members uniquely possessed. Similarly, Larson,

208 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Abbot and Franz (1996) found that experts were more likely to emphasize both shared and unshared information than individuals lacking expert status. Further, information provided by experts was more likely to be accepted and remembered than information contributed by a non-expert (Stasser & Stewart, 1992; Stewart & Stasser, 1995). Knowledge created by a high status organization was also more likely to be used than knowledge created by a low status organization, even when the organization’s past performance was taken into account (Sine, Shane & DiGregorio, 2003). A greater understanding of how the context moderates the relationship between indirect experience and organizational learning processes and outcomes is needed. Investigating higher-order interactions between dimensions of the context and indirect experience is particularly promising. For example, do social identity, status, and indirect experience interact in predicting knowledge transfer within teams? Would a shared identity weaken status effects on learning from the experience of other members? Is there an interaction between the distribution of member skills, the communication network, and indirect experience? A decentralized communication structure seems likely to facilitate learning from the experience of others in organizations where members have specialized skills (e.g., see Rulke & Galaskiewiz, 2000). Another promising area for research concerns the relationship between learning from direct and learning from indirect experience. This is a question that only a few researchers have addressed (e.g., Wong, 2004). Haas and Hansen (2004), for example, found that the performance of highly experienced consulting teams was harmed by extensive external search for indirect experience. Similarly, Wong (2004) found that as learning from indirect experience increased, learning from direct experience became less positively related to group efficiency. Additional research is needed to understand the relationship between learning from direct and learning from indirect experience. How does learning from direct experience affect learning from indirect experience? Are the types of experiences complements or substitutes for each other? Do the interactions between each type of experience and contextual variables take the same or different forms? Relationship-based versus task-based experience We define a dimension of experience which characterizes the content of experience in terms of relationship-based versus task-based experience. Individuals in a group context learn both about the task and about the other individuals with whom they perform the task. The latter type of knowledge derives from relationship-based experience. Borgatti and Cross (2003) demonstrated that characteristics of relationships in terms of (1) knowing what the other person knows, (2) valuing what that person knows and (3) accessing the other person’s knowledge, influence information seeking, and learning in organizations. The difficulty of a newcomer in separating relationship-based from task-based


209

experience illustrates that these two types of experience are different concepts (Reagans, Argote & Brooks, 2005). Prior research on groups and teams suggests that relationship-based experience and group performance are either associated in a monotonic increasing (Goodman & Leyden, 1991; Reagans, Argote & Brooks, 2005) or an inverted U shape (see Berman, Down & Hill, 2002; Katz, 1982). Relationship-based experience is generally measured by the stability and longevity of groups or how long members have worked together. Working together increases the knowledge about who knows what and improves the transactive memory of the group (Liang, Moreland & Argote, 1995; Moreland, Argote & Krishan, 1996). It also improves information sharing (Wittenbaum, 1996) and idea generation (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993). Too much experience working together, however, can impair the learning processes by isolating the group from external knowledge (Katz, 1982; Kim, 1997). When groups become increasingly isolated, the variety and novelty of task-based experience may decrease while relationshipbased experience increases. The lack of novel experience is likely to be especially harmful on complex tasks (Virany, Tushman & Romanelli, 1992). Research on the effects of turnover and member rotation on group performance provides evidence on the effects of relationship versus task experience. Although newcomers lack relationship-based experience, they can represent repositories of new task-based knowledge, depending on their previous experience and education. Research indicates that newcomers can bring new knowledge into the unit (Almeida & Kogut, 1999; Choi & Levine, 2004), stimulate existing members to be more creative (Gruenfeld, Martorana & Fan, 2000), and increase group creativity (Choi & Thompson, 2005) and performance (Arrow & McGrath, 1993). Movement of members between groups can also improve knowledge flows between groups (see Almeida & Kogut, 1999; Argote & Kane, 2003). Both relationship-based experience and task-based experience influence organizational learning. Our model provides a framework for studying how relationship-based and task-based experience impact learning and how they interact with the context to determine learning processes and outcomes. How these two types of experience interact over time is not well understood. Nor do we know how organizational members learn from task-based and relationshipbased experience. At the same time we also need to learn more about which organizational contexts fosters effective learning from both types of experience. For example, one of the trade-offs is the trade-off between maintaining team stability, which fosters the building of relationship-based experience and transactive memory systems, and the rotation of team members which stimulates the development of new task experiences and spreads knowledge throughout the organization. Further research is required to understand when the positive impact of novel task-based experience of the new team members on learning can counteract the negative impact of their lack of relationship-based experience on learning.

210 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Spatial distribution of experience Organizations increasingly use geographically dispersed systems of collaboration to accomplish tasks (Boudreau, Loch, Robey & Straud, 1998; Cummings, 2004; Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1998). The geographical location of organizational members or teams can influence their learning processes. Partner proximity can increase learning and knowledge transfer, because it increases communication and motivation to engage in learning from each other (Brown, 1981; Galbraith, 1990; Mahajan & Peterson, 1979). Geographical dispersion of teams can lead to failures in information exchange and interpretation and to relational problems, which decrease learning from experience. Olivera and Argote (1999) provided an example of such a failure: a global product development team that met for the first time the night before its product was to be unveiled discovered that one of the subteams had designed a component that was inconsistent with a key design feature. Drawing on a study of thirteen geographically dispersed teams, Cramton (2001) argued that geographically concentrated teams are more likely to develop mutual knowledge, common understandings, and motivation to work together. Shared experience in a particular settings leads to the development of “common ground”, which represents a system of both shared understanding and shared affiliation (Clark, 1996; Clark & Marshall, 1981; Fussell & Krauss, 1992). Common ground improves coordination and learning processes and facilitates the retention of contextual information and the communication of the salience of information (Cramton, 2001). Studies of knowledge transfer across organizational units have also found that units benefit more from local than distant experience. In a study of hotel chains, Ingram and Baum (1997b) found that Manhattan hotels benefited only from the chain’s local experience. Moreover, the Manhattan hotels were actually harmed by the experience of their hotel chain outside Manhattan. Similarly, in a study of branch systems in radio broadcasting, Greve (1999) found that experience acquired by the branch outside the focal market hurt the performance of units in the focal market. In addition to communication problems associated with distance, these findings may also reflect the lower relevance of knowledge acquired in different markets. Customers may have different preferences and expectations in different geographic areas. Thus, knowledge of how to serve customers in one market may be less relevant or even harmful for another. By contrast, in a study of knowledge transfer between stores in a pizza franchise, Darr and Kurtzberg (2000) found that the distance between stores did not have a significant effect on knowledge transfer, while the similarity of store strategy did. Strategy similarity enhanced the relevance of knowledge acquired at one store to another. It may also have created a common ground that facilitated knowledge transfer. Alternatively, the conflicting findings on the effects


211

of distance can be reconciled by investigating the moderators of the relationship between experience and learning. Low task interdependence and low task complexity in the organizations studied by Darr and Kurzberg (2000) are plausible explanations for the lack of effect of geographical distance on knowledge transfer. The results of a study by Borgatti and Cross (2003) provide another interpretation for the mixed results regarding the impact of physical distance on learning and knowledge transfer. Borgatti and Cross (2003) found that the effect of distance on information seeking was mediated by an organization’s transactive memory. In organizations with well-developed transactive memories where members knew what others knew, distance did not affect information sharing. Thus, a well-developed transactive memory could overcome the negative effect of distance on learning. Similarly, advances in communication technology that enable globally dispersed teams to fit their communication to the task may help overcome distance barriers (Maznevski & Chuboda, 2000). Although geographically distributed experience poses challenges for organizational learning and knowledge transfer, spatially distant experience can be a source of new ideas. Organizations that search over greater geographic areas have access to more knowledge than those that search locally (Ahuja & Katila, 2004). The extent of geographic search an organization conducts has been found to be positively associated with its innovativeness (Sidhu, Commandeur & Volberda, 2007). Thus, geographically distributed search can be a source of novel experience. If the novel experience is inappropriately applied to the local context, it can harm task performance (e.g., see Greve, 1999). If the novel experience is processed appropriately, however, it can be a source of innovation. How organizations best learn from novel experience is discussed under the section on novelty of experience. Prior studies of learning from geographically distributed organizational units point to potentially contradictory conclusions about the relationship between the proximity of experience and learning outcomes. We suggest that scholars investigate characteristics of the organizational context as moderators of the relationship between the proximity of experience and the accumulation of knowledge. For example, can a dense communication network or a strong social identity overcome distance barriers? In addition, the interaction between different dimensions of experience is also a promising research area. For example, is spatially distributed experience about tasks associated with different learning processes and outcomes than spatially distributed experience about relationships? Further, the model of organizational learning raises a number of new and interesting questions. How does the prior knowledge stock influence learning from distant experience? Which learning processes can stimulate learning from geographically distributed experience and help overcome the distance barrier? Do different types of knowledge stock result from experience with different degrees of physical proximity?

212 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Novelty of experience Novelty of experience refers both to the degree of novelty of activities for performing the task and the degree of novelty of the task itself. The more distant the search processes, the more novel the activities for task performance and the more novel the experience. Innovation also involves novel experience. Surprisingly, research on innovation remains largely disconnected from the study of organizational learning. We see enormous opportunities for integrating research on innovation with research on organizational learning. Improvisation, an unplanned type of search, can also lead to novel activities in task performance. An influential distinction related to the novelty of experience is the difference between “exploitation” and “exploration” (March, 1991). While exploitation denotes low novelty of experience, exploration refers to high novelty of experience (March, 1991). The use of the terms “incremental” and “radical” innovation, however, as synonyms for exploitation and exploration may be inappropriate. The conceptual distinction between exploitation and exploration refers to the search processes, while incremental versus radical innovation refers to the outcomes of search processes and the resulting knowledge stock (He & Wong, 2004). The outcomes of search processes depend on how the context interacts with experience to influence learning processes and the knowledge that results from those processes. Researchers have argued that there are trade-offs between exploration and exploitation, which leads to skewing the balance in favor of excessive exploitation or excessive exploration (Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991). At the same time, empirical studies have found that organizations perform better if they both exploit and explore (Burgelman, 1991, 2002a, 2002b; He & Wong, 2004; Katila & Ahuja, 2002; Knott, 2002). For example, based on a study of manufacturing firms, He and Wong (2004) found that the interaction between exploitation and exploration had a positive impact on sales growth, while the relative imbalance between exploitation and exploration had a negative impact on sales growth. To counteract the trade-offs between exploration and exploitation, He and Wong (2004) suggested that managers allocate resources to both kinds of search processes. Our model provides another insight. The trade-offs between exploitation and exploration arise from the conflicting requirements of the organizational and environmental context, which affect learning from the two types of experience. Studies have shown that exploitation and exploration require contradicting organizational structures, cultures, and strategies in order to have a positive impact on innovative outcomes and performance (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996; Van den Bosch, Volberda & De Boer, 1999; Winter & Szulanski, 2001). Exploration is enhanced by organic structures, loosely coupled systems, and autonomy. Exploitation requires mechanistic structures, tightly coupled systems, control, and bureaucracy. For example, in a study of new business


213

development projects, McGrath (2001) found that learning from exploration was more effective when projects operated with high autonomy with respect to goals and supervision. At the same time, low autonomy enabled the exploitation of new knowledge through its transfer across units in the organization. To balance exploitation and exploration, managers must be able to design organizations that either have simultaneously conflicting structures, cultures, and strategies, or that have the capability to switch from one type of structure, culture, and strategy to the opposite one in a fast and reliable way (Adler, Goldaftas & Levine, 1999; Holmqvist, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). How these hybrid contexts function and how they influence the processing of search experiences are important topics for future research. Moreover, we suggest that researchers investigate whether the learning processes for the two types of experiences are different and whether the outcomes of learning from the two types of search are retained in different knowledge stocks. Our model suggests a focus on the interaction between the novelty of experience and the organizational context and an emphasis on the study of the types of learning processes and knowledge stocks in future research on exploitation and exploration. Searching for ways to design organizations that generate experiences with high novelty, scholars have borrowed the tools of improvisation from theater and jazz (Barrett, 1998; Bourdeau & Robey, 2005; Crossan, 1998; Miner, Basoff & Moorman, 2001; Moorman & Miner, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2005). While considerable research has provided evidence on learning from planned search activities such as R&D activities and new product and process development projects (Benner & Tushman, 2002; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Katila & Ahuja, 2002; Lieberman, 1984; Sinclair, Klepper & Cohen, 2000), research on learning through improvisation is a new stream. Barrett (1998) argued that the context of improvisation comprises a combination of minimal structures, orientation towards learning from errors, and learning in communities of practice. Vera and Crossan (2005) found that improvisation experience led to learning and the development of new products only in the context of high teamwork quality, high expertise, an experimental culture, real-time communication, and training. Our model points to unanswered questions about learning from improvisation experience. We know little about the learning processes that organizational members and teams use when improvising and about how the organizational context can stimulate effective learning from improvisational experiences. Hopefully future research will also shed light on the knowledge stocks that result from improvisations as well as the impact of prior knowledge stocks such as team memory on future improvisation experiences. In our framework, novelty of experience refers not only to the novelty of task performance activities, but also to the novelty of the task itself. The aspiration level of an organization affects the search processes and types of tasks (Cyert & March, 1963; Greve, 2002). For example, in a study of the radio

214 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 broadcasting industry, Greve (1998) showed that managers interpreted organizational performance by comparing it with their aspiration levels. The degree of novelty of experience in organizations is constrained not only by the aspiration levels but also by the cognitive structures of managers (Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000) and the structures, processes, and values in the organization (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Leonard-Barton, 1992). Thus, novelty of experience does not lead to learning and change in the knowledge stock in all contexts. Novel experiences may remain unprocessed, because they are out of the range of the aspiration levels or because they contradict the current structures and values of the organization (Hill & Rothaermael, 2003). We believe that a better understanding of learning from novel experiences can be gained through a study of the relationships between experience, context, learning processes, and knowledge stock presented in our model. A new set of research questions arises from the connections identified in the model. How does the degree of novelty of experience influence the selection of a particular type of learning process? How can hybrid organizational contexts foster effective learning from both explorative experience and exploitative experience? Where and how are the results from learning from improvisation and other highly novel experiences stored? Do individuals learn from novel experiences faster than teams and organizations? How does the prior knowledge stock stimulate improvisation and innovation? Heterogeneity of experience Experience can be characterized in terms of its heterogeneity. Several studies suggest that some degree of diversity or heterogeneity in the task is beneficial for learning. For example, Littlepage, Robinson and Reddington (1997) found that experience on related tasks improved group performance by improving individual members’ proficiency at the task, while experience on comparable but not related tasks improved group performance by enhancing members’ knowledge of which group members were good at which tasks. Haunschild and Sullivan (2002) found that heterogeneous accident experience was associated with greater learning by specialist airlines. Schilling, Vidal, Ployhart and Marangoni (2003) reported that related task experience was more valuable than either unrelated or identical experience in improving learning outcomes. Some variety or heterogeneity in the task provides organizational members with a deeper understanding of what contributes to success on the task and thereby improves learning outcomes. A cautionary note on the benefits of task heterogeneity is sounded by Pisano, Bohmer and Edmondson (2002) who, based on their study of surgical completion rates, argued that keeping tasks the same improves learning outcomes. Keeping tasks the same at the start of task performance may be valuable. As members master the tasks, however, introducing heterogeneity facilitates a greater understanding of the task and improves learning outcomes.


215

Our model suggests several research directions that are likely to be fruitful for developing a greater understanding of the effects of experience heterogeneity on organizational learning. One very promising area is to examine how the context interacts with experience heterogeneity to affect learning processes and outcomes. Are the learning processes associated with interpreting diverse experience different from those associated with interpreting homogenous experience? Is diverse experience stored in a different knowledge stock than similar experience? We believe that these questions are promising areas for future research. Causal ambiguity of experience We define causal ambiguity as uncertainty about the true relationship between cause and effects. Causally ambiguous experience can result in lost learning (Carley & Lin, 1997) and in superstitious learning (March & Olsen, 1975). Causal ambiguity of experience refers to the causal ambiguity of the process of task performance. Causal ambiguity of knowledge characterizes the knowledge stock and is the result of the learning from experience in a specific organizational context. Bohn (1995) found that learning from experiments in the semiconductor industry was largely ineffective due to process noise or causally ambiguous experience. Process variability made learning difficult and obscured the true cause and effect relationship. Further, Bohn (1995) found large differences in noise across plants and encouraged investigation of the factors in the organizational context that influenced the noise level of the experience. Repenning and Sterman (2002) investigated the dynamics of learning from ambiguous experience though a causal loop diagram. They provided evidence on the co-evolution of the attribution of causes of poor performance, managers’ and workers’ actions, and the production technology through a complex structure of feedback loops. In different contexts in terms of delays between investing in improvements and rewards, ambiguous experiences were processed in different ways. In contexts in which there were considerable delays between introducing a process improvement and achieving the gains from the improvement, managers were likely to make self-confirming attribution errors and follow the wrong set of feedback cues. The causal ambiguity of experience depends on characteristics of feedback during the process of task completion (Greve, 2003). When actions do not have direct payoff, but are a phase in a sequence of actions with an overall payoff, learning and the resulting organizational knowledge are fragile (Denrell, Fang & Levinthal, 2004). High turnover in a setting with a delay in feedback inhibits learning because parts of the sequence of interdependent experiences are lost when members change. When experiencing feedback delays in a repeated task, decision makers develop internal representations of the task that help them perform (Gibson, 2000). Increasing delay increasingly degrades

216 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 performance. Although decision makers have difficulty learning the temporal interdependencies, the more time spent on the task improves their learning abilities. In the context of delays between cause and effects, people do not learn very well from experience. Diehl and Sterman (1995) found that although participants had full information, training, and incentives, they tended to focus on controlling the inventory stock to be managed during the experiment instead of understanding the cause-effect relationships. Deficiencies in participants’ mental representations as well as their limited computational capabilities made them unable to understand cause-effect relationships in these settings. Feedback specificity represents another factor that may affect the causal ambiguity of the experience. Goodman, Wood and Hendrickx (2004) provided experimental evidence that high feedback specificity initially improves performance. High feedback specificity, however, negatively affects exploratory behavior. Thus, organizational members who have experience with different feedback specificity may use different learning processes. Research on the causal ambiguity of experience and its impact on learning processes can extend current theorizing on organizational learning. The study of learning from causally ambiguous experience flows can benefit from prior research on the impact of noise and uncertainty on learning as well as from research on the impact of feedback characteristics on learning. Of particular importance is understanding the learning mechanisms which are operative when organizations learn from experiences with different degrees of causal ambiguity. Learning in settings with high causal ambiguity may require different learning processes, including the use of computer simulations and training. Another important question is how the organizational context can mitigate the detrimental effects of causal ambiguity of experience on the outcomes of learning in terms of knowledge and performance. Success and failure experience Learning from success and learning from failure take place in different ways and have different consequences. Organizations develop competencies, which improve their performance. Organizations can repeat their successful competencies until they fall into a “competency trap” (Levitt & March, 1988). When in a competency trap, the organization repeats the experience with large payoffs, does not experiment with new processes, and does not learn effectively. Organizations can also fall in “failure traps,” when a failure experience does not provoke learning but instead leads to an escalation of increasingly futile efforts (Levinthal & March, 1993). The investigation of experience flows as the input in learning processes facilitates understanding learning from success versus learning from failure. Learning from success and failure experiences takes place through different learning processes and is influenced by the organizational and environmental context.


217

Organizational members may fear negative deviations from plans, repeat successful practices, and generate insufficient variety of experience (McGrath, 1999; Edmondson, 1999). Biases in learning against both risky and novel activities are produced because of the tendency to sample, select, and reproduce success (Denrell & March, 2001). Failure can be useful because it allows organizations to generate a variety of experiences. A simulation of experiential learning demonstrated that the propensity to engage in risky or novel activities increased when adaptation failed (Denrell & March, 2001). Increases in the safety climate and effectiveness of communication decrease biases towards learning from successes and improve learning from failures (Hoffman & Stetzer, 1998). Experimental evidence suggests that improvements in the organizational context in terms of safety climate and communication reduced attribution errors and enabled organizational members to interpret accidents better. Individuals involved in error management training rather than in error avoidant training learned better from errors. In addition, individuals with higher self-regulation in terms of emotional control and meta-cognitive ability learned better from errors than individuals lower in selfregulation (Keith & Frese, 2005). Counterfactual thinking and responding to scenarios also improved learning from failed experiences. Morris and Moore (2000) provided empirical evidence from narrative reports of pilots and from experiments that organizational accountability inhibited learning from closecall accidents. Thus, individuals and organizations are biased towards learning from successes. Features of the context, such as accountability, may amplify or counteract these biases. Another stream of research demonstrates that learning from success may actually be less effective than learning from failures. Failures have been considered better motivators of search and subsequent learning than successes (Sitkin, 1992; Shank, 1986). Empirical research shows that mental models of failed events are richer in constructs and links than mental models of success events and that the use of after-event reviews on both successes and failures improves the quality of learning from successes (Ellis & Davidi, 2005). Improvement in the quality of learning from success is important for cases when failure is extremely costly or when successful experiences occur with a high degree of causal ambiguity. Therefore, introduction of after-action reviews on both successes and failures represents an important organizational context variable that improves learning. Empirical research on learning from failure of chains of nursing homes demonstrated that organizations learned both from their own errors and from the errors of other organizations, but that they learned less from their own failures when they had historical investment in the failed activity (Chuang & Baum, 2003). Similarly, Burgelman (2002a) investigated the impact of a long period of success on learning and the adaptive capability of organizations. Due to the prolonged period of success in a specific environment, organizations became increasingly inert and dependent on existing markets and customers.

218 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Organizations did not explore other environments effectively and became unable to adapt when changes in the environment occurred (Burgelman, 2002a). In another study of learning from failures, Haunschild and Sullivan (2002) found that airline accidents contributed to reducing their future accident rate. Heterogeneity in the causes of errors decreased subsequent accidents more than homogeneity in the causes of errors, for specialist airlines. Heterogeneous experience initiated deeper and broader search for explanations than homogenous accident experience. Generalist airlines learned in a different way than specialist airlines and focused more on learning from the experience of other airlines. In summary, prior research provides evidence that organizations, groups, and individuals learn in different ways from successes and failures. While there is a general bias towards sampling success experiences, failures may be better motivators of learning and produce more elaborate mental models with more links and relationships. Several directions for future research on learning from success and failure emerge from organizing prior research according to our model. Organizations may engage in different learning processes when processing failure or success experiences. Learning processes may also differ depending on the level of analysis. Individuals may learn in a different way from teams and organizations when faced with failure or success. It is also important to gain a better understanding of how the organizational and environmental context influence learning from success and failure. How do organizational cultures, structures, and strategies moderate the relationship between failure or success experiences and the initiation, timing, and effectiveness of learning processes? We also encourage future research on how organizations learn simultaneously from both success and failure experiences and from the interactions of the two types of experience. Temporal dimensions of experience Temporal dimensions of experience also have implications for organizational learning. Experience can be characterized along several temporal dimensions such as its recency, pace, and timing. Experience can be acquired very recently or acquired in the distant past. Studies of shipbuilding (Argote, Beckman & Epple, 1990), aircraft construction (Benkard, 2000) and pizza production (Darr, Argote & Epple, 1995) found that recent experience was a more important predictor of current productivity than cumulative experience and thereby suggested that knowledge depreciated. Other studies, however, have not found evidence of knowledge depreciation. For example, Ingram and Simons (2002) did not find evidence of depreciation in their study of Israeli kibbutz and suggested that the lack of depreciation could be due to the stable and motivated membership in kibbutzim.


219

Whether recent experience is more important than cumulative experience depends on both the extent of change in the organizational context and on where knowledge acquired from experience is embedded. If the context has changed and the organization is producing a new or significantly modified product or service, past experience will be less relevant than recent experience. Similarly, if past experience has not been retained in the organization, it will not impact current performance. This might occur, for example, if experience is retained primarily in individuals who leave the organization. Consistent with this conjecture, it is interesting to note that the fastest rate of depreciation reported in the literature was found in a context characterized by extremely high member turnover–fast food franchises (Darr, Argote & Epple, 1995). By contrast, if knowledge is embedded in organizational routines, it will not be lost when members leave (Rao & Argote, 2006). Thus, characteristics of the context affect whether recent or cumulative experience affects learning processes and outcomes. Organizations also vary in their pace of acquisition of experience with some organizations acquiring experience at an even rate, while others acquire it at an uneven pace. Lockheed’s production of the L-1011 Tri-Star is a classic example of an organization that acquired production experience at a very uneven rate (Argote & Epple, 1990). To accomplish a dramatic increase in production in the late 1970s, the number of employees was almost doubled in two years. These workers, many of whom did not have high school degrees or previous experience in aircraft construction, were blamed with hurting Lockheed’s learning curve (“Tri-Stars’ Trail,” 1980). If organizational learning processes cannot keep pace with the rapid increase in organizational experience, the organization will not benefit from experience. This was the case at Lockheed, where costs rose rather than fell with increasing experience in this period (Benkard, 2000). Apparently, low levels of individual experience had a negative impact on the organization’s ability to learn from its experience. By contrast, knowledge embedded in routines should be subject to less decay from interruptions than knowledge embedded in individuals (Cohen & Bacdayan, 1996). Thus, the organizational context interacts with the pace of experience to determine learning processes and outcomes. An organization where considerable knowledge is embedded in routines should be less affected by interruptions in experience than an organization where less knowledge is stored in routines. Another temporal dimension of experience is its timing. Whether experience is acquired before, during, or after task completion has important implications for learning processes and outcomes. Experience can be acquired before task completion through activities such as training (see Antonocopoulou, 2001; Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003; Baldwin & Ford, 1988; Salas & CannonBower, 2001; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992) or experimentation (Pisano, 1994). Experience can be acquired during task completion. Or it can be acquired after

220 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 task completion through after-action reviews and the like. We have already discussed how after-action reviews can improve learning outcomes. Whether learning before doing is more effective than learning by doing depends on the extent to which cause-effect relationships are well-understood. For example, Pisano (1994) found that if the knowledge base was well understood, an emphasis on laboratory experimentation and learning before doing was associated with more rapid product development, while if the knowledge base was not understood, laboratory experimentation did not speed product development. Similarly, Eisenhardt and Tabrizi (1995) found that learning by doing was more effective than planning or learning before doing for launching new products in the computer industry. Thus, dimensions of experience interact to predict learning processes and outcomes. Experience acquired before task performance is associated with more effective learning outcomes if uncertainty about cause-effect relationships is low, while experience acquired during task performance is associated with more effective learning outcomes if uncertainty about cause-effect relationships is high.

CONCLUSION In this chapter we reviewed research on learning, innovation, and knowledge in organizations and provided a new framework for analyzing organizational learning. The framework not only helps summarize research and identify gaps in our understanding, but also suggests testable propositions on the mechanisms and contingencies of learning from experience. We emphasized that organizations learn from experience not from knowledge. We defined experience as a unit of task performance and argued that experience flows during the process of task performance consist not only of cognitive components, but also of motivational and social components. Dimensions of experience differ from the dimensions of knowledge that have been the focus of much prior research. Focusing on experience rather than knowledge opens up important avenues for research. Future research is needed to determine if other dimensions characterize the range of experience organizations encounter. In each of the sections on dimensions of experience, we discussed directions for future research about the specific dimension of experience. Our model suggests important questions about each dimension of experience. How does the context interact with the particular dimension of experience to affect learning processes and outcomes? Are certain processes more effective for certain types of experience? Are different types of experience embedded differently in the organization’s stock of knowledge? The study of the interaction of different types of experience can provide further important insights into organizational learning. For example, Pisano (1994) found that the timing of experience interacted with the causal ambiguity of experience to predict learning outcomes. Different kinds of experience may interact with the environment and


221

organizational context in different ways. We suggest that future research focus on the interaction between different types of experience as well as interactions between dimensions of experience and the organizational context. Previous research has provided evidence on differences in rates of learning across organizations. Our approach should enable researchers to identify the sources of the variation. We proposed a new conceptual framework of organizational learning processes. We argued that learning processes differ along two dimensions, namely direct versus indirect experience and the mindfulness of processing. These two dimensions captured most previous types of learning discussed in the literature. Future work is needed to determine if there are other important dimensions of learning. For example, in organizations, learning processes may be concentrated in a few individuals or distributed more widely. Research is needed to determine whether this, or other, dimensions are useful in characterizing organizational learning processes. Organizational learning involves knowledge creation, transfer, and retention processes. These processes are often studied separately (Argote, McEvily & Reagans, 2003; Carlile and Rebentisch, 2003; Lee, Edmondson & Thomke, 2004; Szulanski, 1996; Vera & Crossan, 2005). Moreover, researchers have focused more on knowledge transfer, and less on knowledge creation and retention. We suggest that the study of organizational learning involves knowledge creation, retention, and transfer and encourage future work on these processes and their interrelationships. Learning in organizations occurs at multiple levels. Current discussions of organizational learning emphasize that we lack understanding of how learning at one level enables or constrains learning at other levels. We proposed that learning follows the logic of our model on each of the three levels, i.e. at the individual, group, and organizational. The difference between levels and the interactions between levels is captured in the concepts of context and experience. The top-down relationship between levels is captured through the impact of context on learning. The higher level of learning is part of the context for lower-level learning processes. The impact of experience on learning captures the bottom-up relationship between levels. For example, task performance in teams generates both individual and team experience. Experience at the individual level and experience at the team level become inputs for team learning processes. We believe that the study of multi-level learning processes will provide answers to the question of who actually does the learning in organizations and how interactions across levels of learning occur. The use of multiple methods to study organizational learning is a current research trend that we view very positively. Scholars use surveys, archival analyses, simulations, qualitative techniques, and laboratory experiments to investigate aspects of organizational learning. This multi-method approach increases our understanding of the phenomenon because the strengths of one method can offset the weaknesses of another. For example, archival analyses are useful

222 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 in establishing relationships among variables in the field. Laboratory studies are useful for establishing causality and testing theoretical mechanisms that explain how the variables are related. Simulations are valuable in investigating how relationships among key variables are likely to be affected by other variables, which is very useful in developing theory. Qualitative research is also very valuable in developing theory. We hope that the multi-method approach to studying organizational learning continues. Given that learning is inherently a dynamic process, it is important that study designs have a longitudinal component to capture how the organization changes as a function of experience. Learning curves are well-suited for capturing the dynamic aspect of organizational learning. Although early work in the learning-curve tradition focused just on the relationship between an organization’s cumulative output or task experience and performance indicators, more recent work has introduced more complexity and more behavioral realism into learning-curve analyses. Many of the dimensions of experience we described can be analyzed in a learning-curve framework. For example, the effect of indirect as well as direct experience can be assessed (e.g., Argote, Beckman & Epple, 1990; Ingram & Baum, 1997b). Learning curves can also be generalized to investigate whether cumulative or recent experience has a greater effect on learning processes and outcomes by analyzing whether experience depreciates (e.g., Argote, Beckman & Epple, 1990; Benkard, 2000; Darr, Argote & Epple, 1995). Learning curves can be used to analyze the contribution of task versus relationship experience (e.g., Reagans, Argote & Brooks, 2005) and to assess whether spatial dimensions of experience affect organizational learning (e.g., Darr & Kurtzberg, 2000). Similarly, assessing the effect of heterogeneous versus homogeneous experience can be accomplished through learning-curve analysis (e.g., Haunschild & Sullivan, 2002). Learning-curve analysis could be extended to assess the affects of other dimensions of experience, such as its causal ambiguity, novelty, or degree of success. Further, dimensions of experience can be interacted with dimensions of the context to examine the conditions under which experience is most valuable. Thus, we see enormous opportunities in using the learning-curve framework to investigate the effects of dimensions of experience on organizational learning processes and outcomes. Learning curve analysis should be complemented by other methods. While learning curves are well-suited for examining relationships among variables, they are less well-suited for analyzing the process though which effects occur. Qualitative studies and experimental studies are well-suited for examining processes or mechanisms though which effects occur. Thus, quantitative field analysis can be combined with qualitative methods and laboratory studies and simulations to arrive at a deeper understanding of organizational learning processes and outcomes. To guide research on organizational learning, we have provided a review of the literature and a new theoretical model of organizational learning. The


223

model is useful in generating testable propositions about organizational learning. Ultimately, we hope that our contribution will assist in generating ideas for new research experiences on organizational learning. We believe that such research will be useful in answering the fundamental question of why some organizations are better at learning than others.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank Michael Cohen, Gerard Hodgkinson, and Tammy Madsen for their very helpful comments. We also wish to acknowledge the support of the Center for Organizational Learning, Innovation and Performance at Carnegie Mellon University.

REFERENCES Adler, P. S., Goldaftas, B. & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in Toyota Production System. Organization Science, 10, 43–68. Adler, P. S., Riley, P., Kwon, S. W. & Singer, J. (2003). Performance improvement capability: Keys to accelerating performance improvements in hospitals. California Management Review, 45, 33. Ahuja, G. (2000).Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. Ahuja, G. & Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 887–907. Ahuja, G. & Lampert, J. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue, 22, 521–543. Alcacer, J. & Gittelman, M. (2006). How do I know what you know? Patent examiners and the generation of patent citations. Forthcoming, Review of Economics and Statistics. Almeida, P. & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45, 905–917. Ambrosini, V. & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38(6), 811–829. Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2001). The paradoxical nature of the relationship between training and learning. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 327–350. Argote, L. (1999). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Argote, L., Beckman, S. L. & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36, 140–154. Argote, L. & Epple, D. (1990, February 23). Learning curves in manufacturing. Science, 247, 920–924. Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D. & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In M. E. Turner (ed.), Groups at Work: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 369–411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

224 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Argote, L. & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150–169. Argote, L. & Kane, A. A. (2003). Learning from direct and indirect experience in organizations: The effects of experience content, timing, and distribution. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (eds), Group Creativity (pp. 277–303). New York: Oxford University Press. Argote, L., McEvily, B. & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49, 571–582. Argote, L. & Ophir, R. (2002). Intraorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (pp. 181–207). Oxford, England: Blackwell Business. Argyris, C. (1992). On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business. Arthur Jr., W., Bennett Jr., W., Edens, P. S. & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234–245. Arrow, H. & McGrath, J. E. (1993). How member change and continuity affect small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334–361. Ashworth, M., Argote, L. & Mukhopadhyay, T. (2005). The effect of information technology on organizational learning and knowledge transfer. Paper presented at meetings of the Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (INFORMS), November 2005. Ashworth, M., Mukhopadhyay, T. & Argote, L. (2004). Information technology and organizational learning: An empirical analysis. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) (pp. 11–21). Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Baldwin, T. T. & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105. Bantel, K. A. & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10,107–124. Barnett, W. P., Greve, H. R. & Park, D. Y. (1994). An evolutionary model of organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (winter special issue), 11–28. Barrett, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9, 605–622. Baum, J. A. C. & Ingram, P. (1998). Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry, 1898–1980. Management Science, 44, 996–1016. Benkard, C. L. (2000). Learning and forgetting: The dynamics of aircraft production. American Economic Review, 90, 1034–1054. Benner, M. & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 676–706. Berman, S. L., Down, J. & Hill, C. W. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 13–31. Berry, D. C. & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 209–231. Berry, D. C. & Broadbent, D. E. (1987). The combination of explicit and implicit learning processes in task control. Psychological Research, 49, 7–15.


225

Bohn, R. E. (1995). Noise and learning in semiconductor manufacturing. Management Science, 41, 31–42. Borgatti, S. P. & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432–445. Boudreau, M., Loch, K., Robey, D. & Straud, D. (1998). Going global: Using information technology to advance the competitiveness of the virtual transnational organization. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 120–128. Boudreau, M. & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency perspective. Organization Science, 16, 3–19. Brandon, D. P. & Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise and people. Organization Science, 15, 633–644. Brown, L. A. (1981). Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. New York: Methuen. Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Towards a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57. Bunderson, J. S. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552–560. Burgelman, R. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation. Organization Science, 2, 239–262. Burgelman, R. A. (2002a). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 325–359. Burgelman, R. A. (2002b). Strategy is Destiny: How Strategy-Making Shapes a Company’s Future. New York: Free Press. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bussing, A. & Herbig, B. (2003). Implicit knowledge and experience in work and organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 239–279). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Carley, K. M. & Lin, Z. (1997). A theoretical study of organizational performance under information distortion. Management Science, 43, 976–998. Carlile, P. R. & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science, 49, 1180–1195. Carroll, G. R., Bigelow, L. S., Seidel, M. L. & Tsai, L. B. (1996). The fates of the de novo and de alio producers in American automobile industry: 1885–1981. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 117–137. Chang, M. H. & Harrington, J. (2003). Multi-market competition, consumer search, and the organizational structure of multi-unit firms. Management Science, 49, 541– 552. Choi, H. S. & Levine, J. M. (2004). Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 273–280. Choi, H. S. & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132. Chuang, Y. & Baum, J. A. C. (2003). It’s all in the name: Failure-induced learning by multiunit chains. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 33–61. Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. Joshi, I. Sag & B. Webber (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding (pp. 10–63). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, M. D. & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5, 554–568.

226 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Cohen, M. & Sproull, L. (1991). Organizational learning: Papers in honor of (and by) James G. March. Special issue of Organization Science, 2, 1991. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346–371. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522– 537. Crossan, M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9(5), 593–599. Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50, 352–364. Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Darr, E. D., Argote, L. & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41,1750–1762. Darr, E. D. & Kurztberg, T. R. (2000). An investigation of partner similarity dimensions of knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 28– 44. Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davis, G. (1991). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 583–613. Denrell, J., Fang, C. & Levinthal, D. A. (2004). From T-mazes to labyrinths: Learning from model-based feedback. Management Science, 50, 1366–1378. Denrell, J. & March, J. (2001). Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science, 12, 523–538. Diehl, E. & Sterman, J. D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 198–215. Dosi, G., Levinthal, D. & Marengo, L. (2003). Bridging contested terrain: Linking incentive-based and learning perspectives of organizational evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 413–436. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (eds), The Nature of Insight (pp. 65–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Duncan, R. & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 75–123. Dutton, J. M. & Thomas, A. (1984). Treating progress functions as a managerial opportunity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 235–247. Easterby-Smith, M. & Lyles, M. A. (eds) (2003). The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128–146. Eisenhardt, K. M. & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84– 110. Ellis, S. & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857–871.


227

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as sources of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611–627. Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803–813. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132. Fleming, L. & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technology search. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 909–928. Friedman, V. J., Lipshitz, R. & Popper, M. (2005). The mystification of organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 19–30. Fussell, S. R. & Krauss, R. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speaker’s assumption about what others know. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 378–391. Galbraith, C. S. (1990). Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. California Management Review, 32, 56–70. Galunic, D. C. & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1193–1201. Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gibson, F. P. (2000). Feedback delays: How can decision makers learn not to buy a new car every time the garage is empty? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 141–166. Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355. Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38. Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E. & Hendrickx, M. (2004). Feedback specificity, exploration and learning, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 248–262. Goodman, P. S. & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578–586. Grandori, A. & Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on organization and knowledge. Organization Science, 13, 224–231. Grant, R. M. (1996). A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. Organization Science, 7, 375–387. Greve, H. (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 58–87. Greve, H. (1999). Branch systems and nonlocal learning in populations. Advances in Strategic Management, 16, 57–80. Greve, H. (2002). Sticky aspirations: Organizational time perspective and competitiveness. Organization Science, 13, 1–18. Greve, H. (2003). Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P. V. & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldiest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 60–74. Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473–496. Haas, M. R. & Hansen, M. T. (2004). When using knowledge can hurt performance: The value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1–24. Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S. & Chen, M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.

228 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82– 112. Hargadon, A. B. & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749. Haunschild, P. R. (1993). Interorganizational imitation: The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 564–592. Haunschild, P. R. & Sullivan, B. N. (2002). Learning from complexity: Effects of prior accidents and incidents on airlines’ learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 609–643. He, Z. & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494. Helfat, C. E. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction to the special issue: The evolution of firm capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 955–959. Helfat, C. E. & Raubitschek, R. (2000). Product sequencing: Co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 961–979. Henderson, R. & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in drug discovery. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 15, 63–84. Hill, C. & Rothaermel, F. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28, 257–274. Hodgkinson, G. P. (2005). Images of Competitive Space: A Study in Managerial and Organizational Strategic Cognition. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. Hodgkinson, G. P. & Sparrow, P. R. (2002). The Competent Organization: A Psychological Analysis of the Strategic Management Process. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Hoegl, M. & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435– 449. Hoffman, D. A. & Stetzer, A. (1998). The role of safety climate and communication in accident interpretation: Implications for learning from negative events. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 644–658. Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 70–81. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Group and individual training: The impact of practice on performance. Small Group Research, 29, 254–280. Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88–115. Huckman, R. S. & Pisano, G. P. (2006). The firm specificity of individual performance: Evidence from cardiac surgery. Management Science, 52, 473–488. Huff, A. S. (1990). Mapping strategic thought. In A. S. Huff (ed.), Mapping Strategic Thought (pp. 11–49). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Huff, A. S. & Jenkins, M. (2001). Mapping managerial knowledge. In A. S. Huff & M. Jenkins (eds), Mapping Managerial Knowledge. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ingram, P. (2002). Interorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 181–207). Oxford, England: Blackwell Business. Ingram, P. & Baum, J. A. C. (1997a). Opportunity and constraint: Organizations’ learning from the operating and competitive experience of industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18,75–98. Ingram, P. & Baum, J. A. C. (1997b). Chain affiliation and the failure of Manhattan hotels, 1898–1980. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 68–102. Ingram, P. & Simons, T. (2002). The transfer of experience in groups of organizations: Implications for performance and competition. Management Science, 48, 1517– 1533.


229

Irwin, D. A. & Klenow, P. J. (1994). Learning-by-doing spillovers in the semiconductor industry. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 1200–1227. Kane, A. A., Argote, L. & Levine, J. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56–71. Katila, R. & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104. Keith, N. & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management training. Emotion control and metacognition as mediators of performance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 677–691. Kim, P. H. (1997). When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 165–177. King, A. W. & Zeithaml, C. P. (2003). Measuring organizational knowledge: A conceptual and methodological framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 763–772. Klepper, S. & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51, 1291– 1306. Knott, A. M. (2002). Exploration and exploitation as complements. In N. Bontis & C. W. Choo (eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge: A Collection of Readings (pp. 339–358). New York: Oxford University Press. Kogut, B. (1991). Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire. Management Science, 37, 19–33. Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J. & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 585–608. Lapré, M. A. & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2001). Creating and transferring knowledge for productivity improvement in factories. Management Science, 47, 1311–1325. Larson, J. R., Christensen, C., Abbott, A. S. & Franz, T. M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315–330. Lave, C. & March, J. G. (1975). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Harper & Row. Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8, 645–664. Lee, F., Edmondson, A. C. & Thomke, S. (2004). The mixed effects of inconsistency on experimentation in organizations. Organization Science, 15, 310–326. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125. Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. Levinthal, D. & Rerup, C. (2006). Bridging mindful and less mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17, 502–513. Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340. Lewis, K., Lange, D. & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16, 581–598. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory system. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.

230 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Lieberman, M. B. (1984). The learning curve and pricing in the chemical processing industries. The Rand Journal of Economics, 15, 213–228. Littlepage, G., Robinson, W. & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 133–147. Macher, J. T. & Mowery, D. C. (2003). Managing learning by doing: An empirical study in semiconductor manufacturing. Journal of Production Management, 20, 391– 440. Mahajan, V. & Peterson, R. A. (1979). Sage University Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences: Models for Innovation Diffusion. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L. P. & Neece, O. E. (2004). Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management Science, 50, 174–188. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1975). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Universitesforlaget Bergen: Norway. March, J. G., Schultz, M. & Zhou, X. (2000). The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. March, J. G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. March, J. G., Sproull, L. S. & Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2, 1–14. Maznevski, M. & Chudoba, K. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473–492. McEvily, B. & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156. McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real option thinking and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management Review, 24, 13–30. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and management oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 18–131. McGrath, J. E. & Argote, L. (2001). Group processes in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 3: Group Processes (pp. 603–627). Oxford: Blackwell. Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press. Miner, A. S. & Anderson, P. (1999). Industry and population-level learning: Organizational, inter-organizational and collective learning processes. In A. S. Miner & P. Anderson (eds), Advances in Strategic Management: Population Level Learning and Industry Change (pp. 1–32). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Miner, A. S. & Haunschild, P. R. (1995). Population-level learning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 115–166. Miner, A. S., Basoff, P. & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 304–337. Miner, A. S. & Mezias, S. J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Past and futures of organizational learning research. Organization Science, 7, 88–99. Moorman, C. & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 91–106. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L. & Krishan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In J. L. Nye and A. M. Bower (eds), What’s Social about Social Cognition? (pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morris, M. W. & Moore, P. C. (2000). The lessons we don’t learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 737–766.


231

Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E. & Silverman, B. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77–91. Murnighan, J. K. & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165–186. Nadler, J., Thompson, L. & van Boven, L. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science, 49, 529–540. Narduzzo, A., Rocco, E. & Waglien, M. (2000). Talking about routines in the field. In G. Dosi, R. R. Nelson & S. G. Winter (eds), The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities (pp. 27–51). New York: Oxford University Press. Nemeth, C. J. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. In S. Worchel, W. Wood & J. A. Simpson (eds), Group Process and Productivity (pp. 95– 111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Boston: Belkman Press. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (Summer Special Issue), 187–206. Olivera, F. & Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning and new product development: CORE processes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick & J. M. Levine (eds), Shared Knowledge in Organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum. Orr, J. (1996). Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press. Osterloh, M. & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538–550. Paulus, P. B. & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575–586. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M. & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. Pettigrew, A. (1992). On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 163–182. Philips, D. J. (2002). A genealogical approach to organizational life change: The parentprogeny transfer among Silicon Valley law firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 474–506. Philips, K. W. (2003). The effect of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3–13. Pisano, G. P. (1994). Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 85–100. Pisano, G. P., Bohmer, M. J. & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Science, 47, 752–768. Porac, J. F., Thomas, H. & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 397–416. Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D. & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 203–227. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.

232 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Quinones, ˜ M., Ford, J. & Teachout, M. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887–910. Rao, R. D. & Argote, L. (2006). Organizational learning and forgetting: The effects of turnover and structure. European Management Review, 3, 77–85. Reagans, R. (2005). Preference, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength from demographic data. Management Science, 51, 1379–1383. Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240– 267. Reagans, R., Argote, L. & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing what to do and knowing who knows what. Management Science, 51, 869–881. Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E. W. & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective projects in a contract R&D firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 101–133. Reger, R. K. & Palmer, T. B. (1996). Managerial categorization of competitors: Using old maps to navigate new environments. Organization Science, 7, 22–39. Repenning, N. P. & Sterman, J. D. (2002). Capability traps and self-confirming attribution errors in the dynamics of process improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 265–295. Rulke, D. L. & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance, Management Science, 46, 612–625. Rulke, D. L., Zaheer, S. & Anderson, M. (2000). Sources of managers’ knowledge of organizational capabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 134–149. Salas, E. & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499. Sanchez, R. & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design, Strategic Management Journal, 17, Winter Special Issue, 63–76. Schilling, M. A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R. & Marangoni, A. (2003). Learning by doing something else: Variation, relatedness, and organizational learning. Management Science, 49, 39–56. Schank, R. (1986). Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schulz, M. (2002). Organizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (pp. 415–441). Oxford, England: Blackwell Business. Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business Cycles. McGraw-Hill: New York. Shan, W., Walker, G. & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 387–394. Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, M. W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. Sinclair, G., Klepper, S. & Cohen, W. (2000). What’s experience got to do with it? Sources of cost reduction in a large specialty chemical producer. Management Science, 46, 28–45. Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R. & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science. Sine, W., Shane, S. & Di Gregorio, D. (2003). The halo effect and university technology licensing. Management Science, 49, 478–497.


233

Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231–266. Song, J., Almeida, P. & Wu, G. ( 2003). Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science, 49, 351–365. Sorensen, O. (2003). Interdependence and adaptability: Organizational learning and the long-term effect of integration. Management Science, 49, 446–463. Spender, J. C. & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 5–10. Stasser, G. & Stewart, D. D. (1992). The discovery of hidden profiles by decision making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426–434. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E. & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524. Stewart, D. D. & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43. Szulanski, G. & Winter, S. (2002). Getting it right the second time. Harvard Business Review, 80, 62–69. Tannenbaum, S. I. & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441. Tesluk, P. & Jacobs, R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51, 321–355. Thomas-Hunt, M., Ogden, T. & Neale, M. (2003). Who’s really sharing: Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49, 464–477. Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science, 16, 151–166. Thompson, L., Gentner & Lowenstein, J. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 60–75. The TriStar’s trail of red ink (1980, July 28). Business Week, 88–90. Townsend, A., DeMarie, S. & Hendrickson, A. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17–29. Tripsas, M. & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147–1161. Tushman, M. L. & Benner, M. J. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 676–709. Tushman, M. L. & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–30. Uzzi, B. (1996). Sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698. Uzzi, B. & Lancaster, R. (2003). Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49, 383–399. Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W. & De Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10, 551–568. Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16, 203–224.

234 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Virany, B., Tushman, M. L. & Romanelli, E. (1992). Executive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent environments: An organizational learning approach. Organization Science, 3, 72–91. von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Walsh, J. P. & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–91. Watson, W. E., Kumar, K. & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602. Weber, R. A. & Camerer, C. (2003). Cultural conflict and merger failure: An experimental approach. Management Science, 49, 400–415. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (eds), Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 185– 205). New York: Springer-Verlag. Weick, K. E. & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381. Weick, K. E. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17, 514–524. Williams, K. Y. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140. Winter, S. G. & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730–743. Wittenbaum, G. M. (1996). Information sampling in mixed-sex decision-making groups: The impact of diffuse status and task-relevant cues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Miami University, Oxford, OH. Wong, S. S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15, 645–656. Zander, U. & Kogut, B. (1995). Knowledge and the speed of transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6, 76–95. Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2003). Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49, 514–529.

Chapter 6 CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN INDIVIDUAL JOB PERFORMANCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY Rabi S. Bhagat University of Memphis, USA

James R. Van Scotter Louisiana State University, USA

Pamela K. Steverson University of Memphis, USA

and Karen Moustafa Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne, USA From its inception, industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology has recognized the central importance of individual job performance as one of its ultimate criterion variables. The large research literature examining various work and organizational attitudes, norms, and processes is motivated by the assumption that understanding these factors will help us to understand and control variations in individual job performance. Although I/O psychologists have long recognized the role of social, cultural, and environmental influences in shaping individual performance, the ubiquitous use of cross sectional research designs and single sample studies has frequently made it impossible to separate their effects from the effects of individual differences (Cronbach, 1957). The current expansion of businesses into global markets and increasing reliance on overseas production facilities and suppliers makes it important to extend these analyses to include a wider range of environmental and cross-cultural antecedents of job performance and broader definitions of the job performance


236 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 criterion domain. Research suggests that the relative amount of emphasis employees and their supervisors place on different facets of performance depends, in part, on social, cultural, and environmental factors (e.g., Lam, Hui & Law, 1999). The importance of cultural variations in job performance was recognized in a review of work motivation by Latham and Pinder (2005). National culture strongly influences two key components of an individual’s work motivation and job performance: (1) one’s self concept including personal beliefs, structure of needs, and values and (2) norms such as those about work ethics and sense of entitlement versus obligation, tolerance for ambiguity, and locus of control. The objectives of our chapter are as follows: 1. To review and discuss the significance of Campbell’s (1990) model of job performance as an etic or culture-general framework within which to consider international and cross-cultural variations in job performance. 2. To review the existing empirical literature on job performance taking into account major facets of cultural variations (i.e., individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance). 3. To review the selective emergence of task versus contextual performance across a major cultural divide of individualism-collectivism. 4. To discuss the theoretical rigor and methodological robustness of the studies and suggest ways of integrating the role of cultural differences in theoretical frameworks and research strategies on job performance. 5. To discuss the implications of research in cultural variations in job performance for industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology in the 21st century. We are concerned with the elements of job performance and the behaviors that comprise them (Borman, 1991, p. 276; Campbell, 1990; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler & Weick, 1970). Our review encompasses much of the important cross-cultural research in this area, but it is not meant to be an exhaustive review. In selecting the studies, we were guided by their implications in providing insights into the role of cultural variations on job performance. Furthermore, the studies are to be concerned with one or more of the facets of Campbell’s (1999) model of job performance, as described below. Our guiding assumption is that Campbell’s model is etic (i.e., universally applicable in international and cross-cultural settings) in nature and, therefore, provides us with the appropriate set of criteria for cross-cultural studies. Campbell (1990) noted that job performance is not one thing; it is a complex activity. For any job there are a number of major performance components that can be distinguished in terms of their contribution to the organization. Job performance is comprised of a cluster of actions or behaviors that are relevant to the organization’s goals and objectives. One of the fundamental axioms in cross-cultural organizational psychology is that work behavior that is appropriate and useful in one cultural setting might be inappropriate and

C ULTURAL V ARIATIONS IN I NDIVIDUAL J OB P ERFORMANCE

237

counterproductive in another. Exactly which job behaviors are encouraged or discouraged in a cultural context is determined by a complex interaction of task related contingencies and internalized cultural values and norms (Hofstede, 2001; Steers & Sanchez-Runde, 2002; Triandis, 1994a; 1994b). I/O psychologists have suggested that behaviors should be used to define job performance rather than outcomes of the behaviors (Borman, 1991; Campbell, 1990; Guion, 1998; Murphy, 1989). Behaviors are an appropriate level of analysis because they are what people actually do at work. Performance behaviors are observable and are under the individual employee’s control; however, some behaviors are more organizationally relevant than others. Performance criteria inform employees and their supervisors which behaviors are more relevant and important and represent judgments about the value of specific behaviors to the achievement of organizational outcomes. They link an individual employee’s performance to organizational outcomes. Effectiveness is concerned with evaluation of those job relevant actions that directly contribute to organizational outcomes. Because effectiveness is often influenced by factors not controlled by the individual, it is not appropriate to employ it as a criterion in measuring individual job performance. Our primary focus is on individual performance, including work performed alone and work performed as a member of an informal group or a formally designated group or team. Individual performance is different from team performance because it focuses on individual behavior and its contribution to the group’s activities and performance. But it is not focused on the collective action of the group designed to bring about group level outcomes. More specifically, our review is concerned with how differences in cultural variations influence the behaviors that comprise individual job performance.

CAMPBELL’S MODEL AS A FRAMEWORK Performance is a behavior or a set of behaviors or actions that is relevant to organizational goals and effectiveness (Campbell, 1999; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler & Sager, 1993). These behaviors can be measured in terms of the level of proficiency they reflect and their relevance to achievement of organizational goals. The identification of goals and judgments regarding what are relevant behaviors for sustaining those goals are essential in measuring performance. Campbell (1999) noted that persons responsible for assessing performance in organizations do not necessarily think alike; therefore, some disagreements exist regarding the links between individual performance and organizational goals. Campbell’s model advances the notion that performance in all jobs, occupations, or roles is essentially multi-dimensional and that each dimension can be defined as a cluster of similar behaviors or actions. In our view, the eight factors

238 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 discussed by Campbell (1999) are appropriate for reviewing international and cross-cultural research on individual job performance. They are: 1. Job specific task proficiency–this factor is concerned with the level of proficiency with which an individual performs the assigned tasks of his or her job role. 2. Non-job specific task proficiency–this facet is concerned with proficiency with which an individual performs certain task related behaviors that are not tied to a specific job or work role but are nonetheless required. For example, plant workers may be required to know basic first aid procedures, regardless of their primary jobs. 3. Written and oral communication proficiency–individuals in many jobs are required to make formal oral or written presentations. Proficiency in communication tasks is viewed as critical in most organizations today. 4. Demonstration of effort–this factor is concerned with the extent an individual expends extra effort when asked and keeps working under adverse or difficult situations. It demonstrates the degree to which an individual commits him or herself to all aspects of the job tasks, works in a sustained manner even when challenged. 5. Maintenance of personal discipline–this factor is characterized by the degree to which negative or counterproductive behaviors such as alcohol and substance abuse or excessive absenteeism are avoided. 6. Facilitation of peer and team performance–this factor reflects the degree an individual supports his or her peers, assists them with their job-related problems and also facilitates the functioning of the work group by being a good role model and keeping the group goal oriented and encouraging participation of others in the work group. 7. Supervision/leadership–this component reflects proficiency in all of the behaviors directed at influencing the performance of subordinates. Campbell (1999) noted that the distinction between this factor and the previous one is essentially grounded in the distinction between peer leadership and supervisory leadership. 8. Management/administration–this eighth factor reflects all of the functions of management that are distinct from direct supervision and is concerned with articulating goals for the work unit, organizing people and resources for them, monitoring progress, assisting others to solve problems that impede unit or organizational goal accomplishment. Various dimensions of this factor are described Borman and Brush (1993). Other approaches for understanding individual job performance have been offered by Borman and Motowidlo (1993), Ilgen and Hollenbeck (1991), Murphy (1989), and Organ (1997). A significant amount of research on alternative dimensions of performance explores facets of behaviors that comprise organizational citizenship (Organ & Paine, 1999; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) as


239

those behaviors that are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system but, when taken collectively, enhance organizational effectiveness. Research on performance related to OCB includes extrarole behavior (Scholl, Cooper & McKenna, 1987; Van Dyne, Cummings & Parks, 1995; Van Dyne & Lepine, 1998), non-prescribed behaviors (Orr, Sackett & Mercer, 1989), prosocial behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), and the helpful behaviors of organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992). Another type of performance related to Campbell’s factors is contextual performance, which has been examined in the U.S. (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter, 2000; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996; Van Scotter, Motowidlo & Cross, 2000). Although they differ in some respects, these dimensions of performance all support the basic distinction between task performance and contextual performance proposed by Borman and Motowidlo (1993). They described task performance as a set of behaviors directly associated with the production of goods or service in the organization’s technical core, or skilled behaviors that support other organizational systems necessary for task performance, such as finance, human resource management, or information technology. Task performance depends on the types of technical knowledge and skills developed through educational programs, formal training, on-the-job training, or experience. Contextual performance involves helpful, considerate, cooperative behaviors that help create and sustain effective relationships among organizational members, reduce friction, and promote effective cooperation. It also encompasses behaviors demonstrating personal discipline, innovativeness, persistence in overcoming problems, and the willingness to work hard and occasionally go beyond formal job requirements to handle unforeseen contingencies that threaten the organization, its employees, or customers. Figure 6.1 depicts how task and contextual aspects of performance are reflected in the eight dimensions of Campbell (1999), the five dimensions of OCB (Organ, 1997), and other dimensions of performance described in the literature. We chose Campbell’s (1999) model of job performance because of its implied etic nature and because of its suitability as a criterion that all organizations, no matter which national or cultural context they are located in, need to emphasize. Next, we review the role of cultural differences in job performance.

ROLE OF CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN JOB PERFORMANCE Culture is to society what memory is to an individual (Triandis, 1998, 2000). Hofstede’s (1980, 1991) study of national culture identified four dimensions of cultural variation. The first four dimensions were individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. In later studies by Bond (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), another cultural


Task Performance Campbell’s (1999) Performance Components 1–Job-specific task performance 2–Non Job-specific task performance 3–Written and oral communication 4–Demonstration of effort 5–Personal Discipline 6–Faciliation of peer/team performance 7–Supervision/Leadership 8–Management/Administration

X X X X X X X X

OCB Dimensions (Organ, 1997) 1–Altruism 2–Conscientiousness 3–Civic virtue 4–Sportsmanship 5–Courtesy Role behavior (Van Dyne & Lepine, 1998) 1–In-role behavior 2–Extra-role behavior Figure 6.1

Contextual Performance

X X X X X

X X

Job performance: Task and contextual dimensions

dimension concerned with the significance of long-term versus short-term orientation was identified (see Hofstede, 2001). A careful review of the literature reveals that these five dimensions, along with other dimensions of cultural variation, may influence the emphasis that individuals in work organizations put on the various components of job performance. Because of this, it is important to understand the nature of these dimensions. Individualism and collectivism are shared patterns of beliefs, attitudes, and values organized as one theme. Individualism is defined as a social pattern that consists of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of their immediate in-groups and collectives and who are primarily motivated by their own set of personal needs, agendas, rights, and contracts. Collectivism, on the other hand, is defined as closely linked individuals who view themselves as interdependent with each other and as belonging to one or more in-groups (e.g., family, work group, work organization, tribe, etc) and who are largely motivated by social norms, duties, and obligations of these collectives. Collectivists’ selves are spread and rooted in the selves of other individuals in the immediate social context. They give priority to the goals and objectives of their collectives or in-groups and are often willing to subordinate their personal goals in favor of group goals.


241

Power distance reflects the extent to which less powerful and privileged members of the society accept that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980, 1991). In societies characterized by higher scores on power distance, centralized authorities in organizations create rules and procedures for others to follow, and inequalities in rewards are easily accepted. Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which members of a society wish to avoid uncertainties in their immediate environments. Individuals in countries characterized by high uncertainty avoidance feel threatened by uncertain or ambiguous situations. The dimension of masculinity versus femininity is concerned with the extent to which gender roles are clearly distinct in a society. Societies characterized by high scores on masculinity tend to be assertive, tough, and more concerned with material success than members from societies characterized by high levels of femininity. In feminine societies, gender roles tend to overlap, i.e., modesty is the norm for both males and females and quality of life is emphasized. The dimension of long versus short term orientation is concerned with different emphases that societies put on the significance of time. Societies with long term perspectives often sacrifice gains in the short term for goals that require longer time frames to achieve. Short term perspectives are found most often in societies who “live by the quarter,” emphasizing the need to make gains in short time frames without considering longer term repercussions. An important refinement of the individualism-collectivism dimension has been proposed by Triandis (1994a, 1995, 1998) and is concerned with its vertical (i.e., inclination to stand out from other members of the society) and horizontal (i.e., the inclination to not differentiate oneself from others) aspects. Verticals view people as differing in social status and they think it is appropriate, even highly desirable, to stand out from the crowd. Horizontals, on the other hand, see themselves as people who have more or less the same status as others in their significant circle of friends, family, etc. This cultural pattern evolves when the people view their selves as an integral part of the in-group, family, and community. This refinement is a combination of the individualism-collectivism and the power distance dimensions previously discussed. A major concern of multi-cultural work teams in today’s global organizations is to maximize the contributions of the individual members toward attainment of organizational goals (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). The tendency on the part of some group members to restrict or lower their individual contributions in the belief that others in the work team will make up the deficiency or loss in productivity is a serious impediment. Called social loafing, this strategy can only succeed when such individual behaviors can be masked or hidden behind the collective efforts of the group (Latane, Williams & Harkins, 1979). Olson (1971) emphasized that social loafing is an attractive alternative when the individual who engages in social loafing believes that the actions of others will guarantee the attainment of the group goals.

242 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Based on these predictions, Earley (1993, 1997) hypothesized that individualists consistently perform better while working alone than in a group, whereas collectivists perform better when working in an ingroup. He suggested that collectivists do not perform as well while working with an outgroup or working individually. These studies were concerned with Campbell’s factors 4 (demonstration of effort) and 6 (facilitation of peer and team performance) as the main components of performance as a function of cross-cultural variation in individualism-collectivism. Earley (1989a) found support for social loafing in managerial trainees in a U.S. sample who held individualistic beliefs, but not in the members of a Chinese sample who held collectivistic beliefs. He also found that the performance of individualists in the group setting was lower than their performance when working alone, consistent with earlier research findings on the social psychology of loafing (Harkins & Petty, 1983; Latane et al., 1979). Collectivists, on the other hand, did not engage in social loafing and performed better in the group setting. Furthermore, performance was highest when collectivists performed tasks with a high degree of shared responsibilities. Earley interpreted his findings by noting that collectivistic work groups put a strong premium on collective action and achievement of in-group goals. Collectivists expect the members of the work group to contribute their fair share of effort towards the group’s performance, and they do so themselves. Chinese managers viewed their contributions to the group accomplishment as prescribed and role related behaviors. The implication of this research is that job performance in collectivistic work groups is not likely to be significantly affected by social loafing tendencies. In another study, Earley (1993) examined individuals’ individualism versus collectivism to predict effectiveness of several management functions. Using a quasi-experimental design with American, Israeli, and Chinese managers, he found that the performance of individualists who were led to believe they were working in an in-group or outgroup was lower than individuals working alone. However, for collectivists, performance was higher in the in-group situation compared to working alone or in an outgroup situation. Erez and Somech (1996) examined four causes of performance loss in groups: goal specificity, communication, goal attainment incentives, and high versus low cultural collectivism. The sample consisted of managers from an Israeli kibbutz (primarily collectivistic and viewing the self as interdependent with others) and cities (primarily individualistic and viewing the self as independent of others) who worked on a simulated task requiring them to evaluate resumes on the suitability of candidates for a production manager position (Campbell’s factor 1, job specific task proficiency). Task complexity was not high in the study, as it did not involve the processing of a lot of information nor did it require a high level of coordination with others, although individuals performed in the presence of others. Performance was measured as the number of criteria checked and completed by participants at each performance phase.


243

Individual performance was the basis for comparison with later performance in the group setting. After controlling for ability, findings indicated participants in the kibbutz sample outperformed participants in the urban sample. Participants performed poorest under conditions of a do-your-best goal (as opposed to individual or group goals). In the absence of specific goals, communication, and incentives, urban groups experienced performance loss. In contrast, participants from a collectivist sub-culture with an interdependent view of the self (i.e., one’s self is considered to be closely linked with others) contributed to group performance even in the absence of specific goals (Erez & Somech, 1996). Under the do-your-best condition, the cultural variation of individualism-collectivism moderated the effect of intra-group communication on group performance. Intra-group communication increased performance for the urban sample but did not increase performance for the kibbutz sample. Kibbutz members were less sensitive to the changes from no-communication to intra-group communication. Erez and Somech interpreted the results as evidence of cultural influences moderating the effect of group incentives on performance. Kibbutz members attained the highest level of performance under the group goal condition, when incentives accompanied goal attainment by the group, but the effect for urban members was weaker because they did not value contribution to group goals as much as the kibbutz members did. Jung and Avolio (1999) examined individualism-collectivism as a moderator of the relationship between leadership style (i.e., transformational versus transactional) and individual or group task performance. Participants were asked to brainstorm (i.e., generate as many ideas as possible) in a timed session, which reflects Campbell’s factor 1, job specific task proficiency. Participants were Caucasians (individualists) and Asians (collectivists) at a large public university in the northeastern U.S. The average length of time in the U.S. for the Asian students was 10.6 years. Findings indicated that different cultural groups perceived identical leadership styles in different and such differences had effects on their levels of individual performance. Individualists generated more ideas with a transactional leader, but collectivists performed better working with a transformational leader. Group performance was generally higher than the performance of individuals working alone for both individualists and collectivists but, contrary to predictions, collectivists generated more ideas necessitating fundamental changes in the organization when working alone (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Organizational Citizenship Behavior Studies Although a few studies provide relevant results, we have much to learn about OCB in the global context (Farh, Earley & Lin, 1997). Paine and Organ (2000) investigated the meaning and applicability of OCBs in a small exploratory survey of 38 individuals from 26 nations. Their study focused on two cultural

244 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 variations: individualism-collectivism and power distance. Paine and Organ found that while workplace behaviors described as “altruistic, courteous, and conscientious” (p. 56) occur throughout the world in one form or another, cultural variations pertaining to their intrinsic significance as well as the various factors restricting or promoting their existence also exists. Equity and instrumental rewards were regarded to be more important for the performance of OCBs in groups composed of individualists as opposed to groups composed of collectivists who viewed OCBs as an expectation inherent in their work roles. Moorman and Blakely (1995) examined the role of individualism and collectivism as predictors of OCB in a southeastern financial services organization in the U.S. They found that individuals with collectivistic beliefs are more predisposed to demonstrate OCB. From this, they proposed that variances in collectivistic orientations within a single country are meaningful and shows the importance of cultural values as predictors of OCB. Konovsky, Elliott and Pugh (1997) examined the cross-cultural nature of OCB and found that the factor structure was similar in U.S. and Mexico. Predictors of OCB in the Mexican sample were conscientiousness, achievement related striving, and distributive justice. However, the authors did not find support for a social exchange based model of OCB in the Mexican sample but it was present in the U.S. sample. The social exchange model suggests that employees perform OCBs in order to reciprocate the benefits they receive from the organization. Later OCB research has been directed to decipher the role of cultural differences across nations or in dissimilar cultural contexts (e.g., Lam, Hui & Law, 1999), such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (e.g. Farh, Zhong & Organ, 2004). This line of research has been guided by the central hypothesis that, because individuals differ in beliefs, values, and attitudes, it is possible that they will differ systematically in the way relevant work and non-work behaviors pertaining to one’s performance effectiveness are conceptualized. Lam et al. (1999) evaluated the perceived job role related boundaries of subordinates in a study of independent supervisor and subordinate dyads in the U.S., Australia, Japan, and Hong Kong. Participants provided ratings on the organizational citizenship behavior scale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990). Each supervisor was teamed with only one subordinate, and all of the participants had identical jobs working for subsidiaries of the same global organization in these countries. After establishing the conceptual equivalence of the OCB scale across the samples in these four countries, Lam and his colleagues examined supervisory perceptions and definitions of job/work related roles of subordinates. Supervisors from Japan and Hong Kong perceived some categories of OCB as more integral (i.e., an expected part of the job) than did supervisors from the U.S. and Australia. At the time the study was conducted, examination of OCB as an important determinant of individual performance effectiveness was rare outside the U.S. context. This study provided evidence that individuals holding the same job across different cultures perceived and


245

treated some categories of OCB in identical fashion and other categories in a more differentiated manner. The findings of Lam et al. (1999) support the earlier research of Farh, Earley and Lin (1997): there are both emic (culture-specific) and etic (culturegeneral) aspects of OCB. The etic dimensions of OCB in this study were altruism, conscientiousness, and civic virtue and emic dimensions were courtesy and sportsmanship. The authors found that emic dimensions were perceived differently by Australians, Americans, Japanese, and Hong Kong Chinese, but the etic dimensions were not. These researchers concluded there are certain performance norms (i.e., the etic aspects of OCB) that are likely to vary across cultures. They urged future researchers to examine significant interactions between the cultural values of a society and the etic and emic dimensions of OCB. An insightful study which examined the indigenous effects of a national culture on the emergence of citizenship was conducted by Farh et al. (2004). Using a diverse sample of employees and managers in 72 enterprises (stateowned, foreign invested, town and village owned, and private) in the PRC, they collected 726 descriptions of OCB incidents that were common in these organizations. A content analysis revealed ten major dimensions with at least one dimension not previously identified in the Western literature on OCB, which they called interpersonal harmony, reflecting the indigenous effects of mainland Chinese culture. Four other dimensions of OCB emerged in the Chinese sample but do not figure prominently in the Western literature. These four dimensions of OCB were: (1) emphasis on self training, and improving one’s job knowledge and working skills; (2) social welfare participation such as engaging in public welfare activities; (3) protecting and saving company resources, including the use of personal resources for company benefit; and (4) keeping the workplace clean. Fahr et al. suggested that these dimensions may be more salient in China because of the differences in economic development from the West. For example, employees may be willing to maintain clean workplaces and invest in self-training as important forms of OCB because of limitations in organizational support and scarcity of resources in China (Fahr et al., 2004). Further examination of the influence of organization type in which the individuals worked revealed that employees from state-owned enterprises (SOE) put significant emphasis on social welfare participation and protecting company resources from wastage (Fahr et al., 2004). However, these employees reported fewer efficiency-oriented OCB compared to employees in non-SOEs. Employees from SOEs also reported participating more in community oriented behaviors compared with those from non-SOEs. The authors suggested that employees consider non-work related helping behavior as an important type of performance. Before the reforms took place in China in the late 1970s, SOEs provided comprehensive employee benefits. Therefore, SOE employees may be more inclined to initiate community oriented aspects of OCBs as a result

246 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 of paternalistic benefit policies. However, with the reforms initiated in the post-Mao era and market competition enlarging, SOEs no longer provide such comprehensive benefits. In the 1990s, dramatic reductions in healthcare, childcare, employee assistance, and employment security necessitated that supervisors help their co-workers and subordinates cope with personal difficulties. Thus, a unique cultural form of OCB evolved as the PRC was making the transition from a Communist state to a state where market-based principles began to shape economic activities in the enterprises. Fahr et al. (2004) noted that, in China, organizational support for employee training and development is more limited than in the U.S. One’s willingness to engage in training and also to maintain a clean and neat workplace represent salient forms of OCB that are unique to the cultural context of China. Interpersonal harmony has not been proposed as an important dimension of organizational citizenship behavior in the U.S. context, but it emerges as a culture-specific OCB dimension of interpersonal harmony in the Taiwanese culture (Farh et al., 1997). A review of the dominant themes of the indigenous Chinese culture reveals the importance of maintaining harmony and social solidarity in the workplace as well as elsewhere. Individuals, including supervisors, who foster such tendencies are likely to be regarded higher on this dimension of culture-specific OCB. These researchers urged examination of interpersonal harmony and its contribution to organizational effectiveness in dissimilar cultural contexts. The dimensions of OCB that were not reported by the respondents from China and Taiwan included sportsmanship, courtesy, and advocacy participation. However, Lam et al. (1999) found that employees from U.S. and Australia (two largely individualistic countries) were less likely to consider sportsmanship as a part of their work role behavior compared to employees from Hong Kong and Japan. It is possible that sportsmanship-like behaviors are considered as OCBs in the Western cultural context. They seem to be regarded as in-role behavior in China. The roles of uncertainty avoidance and power distance as possible cultural dimensions fostering different types of OCBs was also explored but not developed. A concentric model of OCB that is particularly unique to the Chinese context was offered by Farh et al. (2004) and promises to provide further insights into the role of OCBs as possible enhancers of individual performance effectiveness in the Chinese organizations. What we learned from these investigations is that different aspects of OCBs (Campbell’s factors 4, 5, and 6) are important across the individualismcollectivism divide. In the future, it would be more useful to employ the vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism syndromes as proposed by Triandis (1994a, 1998, 2002). These syndromes, as explained earlier, have potential for influencing components of job performance including task and contextual dimensions. Taxonomies of OCBs as a function of vertical individualism-collectivism and horizontal individualism-collectivism would be


247

helpful to have precise understanding of how vertical and horizontal aspects of individualism and collectivism influence the various components of OCBs. Task Performance and Contextual Performance Early research by Frederick Taylor, the Gilbreths, and other industrial engineers focused on the task environment and task specific processes (Campbell, 1976). Task performance captures the part of the performance domain that differentiates one job from another (e.g., Campbell’s factors 1, job specific task proficiency job specific task proficiency; 2, non job-specific task proficiency; 3, written and oral communication; 7, supervision/leadership; and 8, management/administration). However, it ignores performance elements that are not task specific but that may still be important in most jobs (Borman, 1991). For example, contextual performance was proposed as a general performance dimension, which expands the domain of performance to include a variety of non-task performance behaviors supporting the organization’s social and psychological infrastructure (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). The research on contextual performance shows that these behaviors promote effective cooperation and teamwork, and reduce barriers to effective task performance. Contextual performance originated as a separate line of inquiry from OCB. It differs from OCB in three main ways. First, contextual performance focuses on observable patterns of behavior whereas OCB research has often made assumptions about employees’ intentions and who (or what) their OCB was intended to benefit. Second, contextual performance studies have typically included measures of task performance and measures of overall performance. As a result, they have been able to assess the relative value of task performance and contextual performance in explaining an employee’s overall performance contribution. This is consistent with the position that contextual performance is different from task performance, but still an important component of overall performance and still valuable to organizations. Third, OCB was originally described as behaviors that might benefit the organization, but were not likely to be formally rewarded by the organization. However, in a 1997 article seeking rapprochement, Organ noted that the underlying behaviors were the same and that the lack of immediate rewards for OCB did not mean they would not be rewarded over time. Contextual performance was the focus of a study by Griffin, Neal and Neale (2000) in Australia. The authors argued that contextual performance has been investigated in a variety of occupations that are managerial versus technical in character. They posited that contextual performance is likely to be less important in highly technical occupations, such as air traffic controllers. In Australia, each air traffic controller works alone and each controller is completely responsible for the safety of air traffic in their assigned sectors. The core elements of their technical behaviors (i.e., task performance) are strictly controlled and include such tasks as maintaining awareness of the situation; interpreting and

248 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 evaluating traffic events and performing various air traffic control actions; and maintaining separation of traffic flows and operating the technical equipment. Contextual performance is not regulated as is task performance. The elements of contextual performance which are important in these situations as noted by the authors are teamwork (e.g., helping co-workers), professionalism (e.g., providing a sophisticated level of service to the airline pilots), and supporting the organizational objectives (e.g., integrating new technological procedures). Each of these behaviors is highly discretionary and different from task related behaviors. In this study, performance data were collected from 56 air traffic controllers who had a minimum of six months experience in their sector (Griffin, Neal & Neale, 2000). Seven supervisors provided performance ratings. The results showed that contextual performance can be differentiated from task performance. In addition, both task and contextual performance contributed to a better work environment. The findings also demonstrated that these two performance indicators can be separated even in highly technical and regulated work environments. This study was done in a cultural context distinct from the U.S. (where are majority of the studies of task versus contextual have been conducted) and it demonstrates the generalizability of Campbell’s factors 4, (demonstration of effort), 5 (personal discipline), and 6 (the facilitation of peer and team performance). Because contextual performance is more likely to be influenced by cultural beliefs than task performance variations, it is surprising that cross-cultural research has not produced more investigations into this performance domain. Other Studies The studies reviewed in this section do not follow a consistent theme except that they each represent research examining the influence of cultural variations on various aspects of job performance. We review them for their cumulative significance in furthering the role of cultural variations in individual performance effectiveness. The moderating effects of allocentrism versus idiocentrism on the relationship between participative decision making and employee performance were examined by Lam, Chen and Schaubroeck (2002) in Hong Kong and the U.S. Participative decision making, which is typically defined as joint decision making by a supervisor and his or her subordinate, has been a focus in enhancing performance for a long time in industrial and organizational psychology. Modest positive correlations between these two constructs have been reported in the literature (i.e., Miller & Monge, 1986) but there are also studies which do not report positive effects (i.e., Wagner, 1994). Lam et al. (2002) found that perceptions of efficacy of participation and allocentrism moderated the relationship between participative decision making opportunity and performance. Allocentrism versus idiocentrism is an individual level attribute of the general attributes of collectivism-individualism (Triandis, 1989). Allocentrics view


249

their “self ” as interlinked with others and they are concerned with interpersonal harmony and are often willing to subordinate their individual goals and pursue collective goals. Idiocentrics, on the other hand, view their “self ” as relatively independent from others and are concerned with achievement related values and the pursuit of personal goals over the goals of the group to which they belong. Idiocentric individuals are less inclined to cooperate with members of the group outside the context of their individual roles and therefore pay little attention to the efficacy related cognitions of the collective. Idiocentrics value individual achievements and are more interested in pursuing rewards that are associated with effective individual performance on their own. For individuals scoring high on both idiocentrism and participation efficacy, there was a strong and positive relationship between opportunity to participate in decision making and individual performance. However, this relationship was negative among individuals who were highly idiocentric but nonetheless reported low levels of participation efficacy (Lam et al., 2002). Also allocentrism (aggregated to a work group level) and idiocentrism mediated the relationship between the societal difference on individual (and group) performance reflected in the two samples from Hong Kong and the U.S. In other words, when allocentrism and idiocentrism were controlled for the interaction between participation selfefficacy, participative decision making opportunity, and sample was no longer a significant predictor of individual or group performance (Lam et al., 2002). Allocentrism and idiocentrism seem to be powerful indicators of culturespecific individual differences that although socialized by different means in different national contexts have nonetheless meaningful patterns of influences on work related performance behaviors regardless of national boundaries (Lam et al., 2002). Firms have been increasingly concerned with maintaining their competitive advantage in a globalizing world economy. Chow, Shields and Chan (1991) investigated whether the superior performance of Asian manufacturing firms in Singapore in comparison to U.S. firms was related to their management control systems, the national culture of their employees, or the interaction of the two factors. The two management controls were work flow interdependence and pay interdependence. The national culture dimension examined was individualism-collectivism because of the divergence of Asian and Western cultures on this cultural variation. The experimental procedure involved task completions under timed conditions (relates to Campbell’s factor 1, job specific task proficiency). Each site had 96 participants yielding 32 work groups. Eight groups were assigned to each of the four work flow interdependence-pay interdependence conditions. Manipulation checks were performed for work flow interdependence, pay interdependence, and individualism. Years of work experience was a covariate in the hypothesis tests. The research findings indicated that individualism and management controls have independent, but interactive, effects on manufacturing performance. The significant main effect of cultural individualism was related to the higher level of normalized performance for individualism subjects. The researchers offered two caveats

250 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 regarding this finding. First, strict pay equivalence may not have been attained even though the pay per unit of output was varied between the two research sites to make them equivalent to the pay scales of the locale. Second, bias against the high individualism subjects may have been introduced by the normalizing procedure (each participant’s absolute performance was normalized by his or her performance capability) given that the performance capability session was individualistic in nature. The result may have been depression of the performance of the high individualism subjects’ relative to the performance of the low individualism subjects. Low individualism participants also outperformed the high individualism subjects when pay was interdependent among workers (Chow et al., 1991). Chow, Lingquist and Wu (2001) explored the influence of national culture on the reactions of employees to different implementation modes of highstretch performance standards. High-stretch performance objectives challenge the employee to exceed their past performance to attain organizational objectives. Study participants were Chinese and U.S. nationals representing cultures with two divergent dimensions of culture: individualism-collectivism and power distance, the belief that inequality between individuals should be minimized. Subordinates from high power-distance cultures more readily accept supervisor decisions and demands than subordinates in low power distance cultures (Hofstede, 2001). Chow et al.’s (2001) study was primarily concerned with Campbell’s factor 4, demonstration of effort or the degree to which an individual commits to all components of the job task aspects and continues to exert effort when challenged. They employed a full 2 × 2 × 3 design. National culture (Chinese, U.S.) and level of participation (consultative, participative) were the two between subject variables. The within subject variable was three levels of production periods. The experimental task involved building toy castles using Loc-Blocs. Relative to U.S. nationals, Chinese nationals more readily accepted the imposition of high-stretch performance standards, as evidenced by the degree to which they performed up to the standards. Differences were also found between Chinese and U.S. nationals’ satisfaction with the standards under autocratic versus consultative participation: Consultative sharing was not enough of an incentive to increase U.S. participants’ satisfaction to the level of the Chinese. Having an opportunity for consultation in high-stretch performance standard settings did not have the predicted negative reaction in Chinese participants. Consultative participation was associated with increased efforts by the Chinese toward attainment of the high-stretch performance standard. The researchers postulated that, because the sample consisted of Chinese university students, some internalization of the West’s cultural values may have occurred through exposure to Western materials (Chow et al., 2001). In samples of U.S. and expatriate Korean information system (IS) managers in the U.S. banking industry, Choi and Choi (2003) examined cross-cultural


251

influences on their performance, job satisfaction, and managerial value. Their investigation primarily explores Campbell’s factors 4, (demonstration of effort), 5 (personal discipline), and 6, facilitation of team performance. In order to examine the dimensions of culture between the two national groups of IS managers, Choi and Choi used 35 questions in the questionnaire to test the dimensions of individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance (the acceptance of ambiguity and uncertainty), and femininity and masculinity work role environment. IS managers behaviors and attitudes were found to be determined by their specific cultures, and measurable differences exist in the cognitive value systems relating to job satisfaction and performance. American and Korean expatriate managers may have different levels of cognitive value expectation and as a result have different motivations on the job. Korean IS expatriate managers also reported using a greater percentage of their free time for job related activities than U.S. IS managers and more integration in a network of personal affective relationships with co-managers than U.S. IS managers (relates to Campbell’s factor 6). Using data collected in Japan and the U.S. from large multinational electronics firms, Money and Graham (1999) tested a causal model of salesperson performance and satisfaction (valence for pay→ performance→ pay level→ job satisfaction). Instead of the traditional use of dollar volume of sales to measure salesperson performance, the study employed self-ratings and managerial ratings to evaluate the performance of salespersons. Evaluation areas included knowledge of products, report filing, route planning, territory coverage, sales objectives attainment, new account prospecting, customer service, and maintenance of satisfactory relations with supervisors, peers, and customers. The performance measurement in this study reflects Campbell’s factor 1, job specific task proficiency and factor 2, non-job specific job proficiency. Campbell’s factor 6 may be captured as well; however, the extent to which maintaining satisfactory peer relationships incorporated the facilitation of peer and team performance is not clear from the study report. Although support for the model was found in both cultural groups, i.e., comparable levels of variance were explained, culture moderated the relationships among constructs in the Money and Graham (1999) study. Compared to the Japanese, pay and valence for pay played a more important role in the U.S. sample. Additionally, value congruence had a strong influence on Japanese salesperson job satisfaction, but not the U.S. salespersons. Consistent with prior theoretical predictions, the overall fit of the data to the model lends support to the idea that individual characteristics and performance are more salient in the individualistic U.S. than in the more collectivistic Japanese culture. Americans’ performance was influenced by education and valence for pay, and pay level was related to individual performance for the U.S., but not for the Japanese. Japanese employees seem to derive the most satisfaction from group membership. The researchers contend that U.S. compensation systems may not work in Japan. Instead, the primary means of motivating Japanese

252 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 salespersons might be to encourage firm commitment and clearly communicate organizational goals and values. Overall, the study highlights the importance of localizing sales management strategies (Money & Graham, 1999). The role of Protestant work ethic (PWE) in enhancing job performance and other related affective outcomes was investigated by Firestone, Garza and Harris (2005). They hypothesized that for workers who endorse PWE, job performance would be higher. The average score of PWE in the sample of 100 male workers in Mexico (highly collectivistic country with high power distance relative to the U.S.) was lower than the average found in U.S. samples in other studies. Results indicated that supervisory assessment of productivity was higher in the sample that endorsed PWE related beliefs. The findings are interpreted in terms of generalizability and utility of the PWE construct in dissimilar cultures. A study examining the role of feedback on enhancing performance as a function of cultural differences of individualism versus collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance was conducted by Earley and Stubblebine (1989). Data were collected from surveys in a total of 24 manufacturing plants, 12 plants each from U.S. and England. The plants represented a variety of manufacturing facilities including automotive, rubber, computer, glass, steel, and textile. They predicted that, for U.S. workers, supervisory feedback would have a stronger positive relationship to job performance compared to English workers. In addition, feedback was expected to have a stronger effect for individuals who hold low power distance as opposed to high power distance beliefs. Feedback was also expected to have a stronger effect for individuals who hold high individualistic beliefs compared to those with low individualistic beliefs. Finally, feedback was expected to have a stronger effect on individuals with high as opposed to low uncertainty avoidance beliefs. They assessed individual performance using a composite of two indices. The first index of performance was the ratio of an individual’s output to expected output based on a job analysis for a two month period prior to survey completion (relates to Campbell’s factor 1, job specific task proficiency) and the second performance index was an overall performance measure that was based on supervisor ratings of level of performance, comparison to other employees performing the same job, effectiveness in the job, and quality of work produced by the employee. Cultural beliefs were measured by items presented in Hofstede (1984). These items were factor analyzed separately for each country/sample and the items corresponding to each dimension were averaged to form a composite score representing power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance. Results showed that feedback was more strongly related to the overall performance of American as opposed to English workers. Modest support for the moderating influence of cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and power distance on the relationship between feedback and performance was also found. No significant moderating effects were observed for the cultural dimension of individualism. The research suggests


253

that feedback characteristics are more strongly related to performance in the U.S. sample (low power distance, high uncertainty avoidance) compared to the English sample (high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance).

AN ASSESSMENT On Theoretical Rigor The review of these studies on the role of cultural variations on individual performance effectiveness raises the issue of their broader significance for the field of industrial and organizational psychology. Our review of the literature suggests cultural differences do influence individual performance and the relative emphasis on task performance versus contextual performance. Many of the studies we reviewed reflected on or more components of Campbell’s model of job performance that we delineated as the guiding framework. The dimension of individualism-collectivism was clearly the dominant cultural variation that guided the majority of the studies conducted in the past two decades. We also get the clear impression that more recent studies are more focused and more strongly associated with a theoretical base. A significant portion of the research is rooted in the work of Hofstede (1980, 1984, 1991) and Triandis (1984, 1995, 1998). The scope of the topics, including the range of independent cultural variables, needs to expand significantly. The work environments of the 21st Century global organizations are changing significantly in order to adapt to the challenges of global competition, increasingly competitive markets, and expanding consumer bases in Asia and Eastern Europe. Increasingly, organizations are relying on electronic media and computer-mediated communication to accomplish their work. Technology permeates the workplace. Issues concerning virtual teams, shift work, telecommuting, flexible working arrangements, and internet related work activities have increased over the last two decades, not only in the U.S. and Western Europe but in other parts of the world which are considered as emergent economies such as China, India, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Mexico, etc. Issues concerning managing the performance of an aging workforce (e.g., see The Economist, February 18, 2006) are also gaining considerable importance. All of these changes may heighten pressures to adopt similar production methods, products, and communication technologies, significantly affecting the way work is structured in various societies. We need to know more about the effects of such environmental and technological changes on the cultural characteristics of the organizations and the work units from which performance data are sampled. There is also a need to be concerned about other components of the Campbell model of performance. Some of the factors which are not in the studies reviewed in this chapter (i.e., factors 3, 7, and 8) could be of considerable value in future studies.

254 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 All of these changes significantly affect the structure of work in various societies, and we need to know more about the effects of such environmental and technological changes on the cultural characteristics of the organizations and the work units from which performance data are sampled. There is also a need to be concerned about other components of the Campbell model of performance. Some of the factors which are not captured in the studies reviewed in this chapter (e.g., written and oral communication proficiency, maintenance of personal discipline, supervision, leadership, management, and administration) could be of considerable value in future studies. With respect to the significance of the constructs, we find that there is an increasing focus on research which is theoretically grounded. While this trend is laudable in many respects, we need to remind ourselves that the state of research in this area is not all that high and much of it is based on studies conducted in Europe or the U.S. When it comes to culture (and apparently performance, too) one size may not fit all. Each culture may need performance frameworks that are tailored to its specific requirements and the capacities and temperaments of its people. Moreover, the existence of some theoretical findings from Western cultures must not close the door on the search for alternate explanations that better fit other cultures. Problems arise when investigators choose to ignore other relevant, but often pragmatic, independent variables of more immediate concern for understanding cultural differences in job performance. We strongly recommend that greater attention be directed at articulating the theoretical significance of new work arrangements (i.e. internet-based work, telecommuting) for individual performance effectiveness across cultures. Dimensions of cultural values proposed by Schwartz (1994), who identified seven culture-level dimensions of values: Conservatism, Intellectual Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy, Egalitarian Commitment, Mastery, and Harmony, have been used to predict important individual level variations of locus of control (Smith, Trompenaars & Dugan, 1995), as well as organizational level variation that managers use as sources of guidance in their work activities (Smith, Peterson & Schwartz, 2002). Additional analyses of individualism and collectivism in terms of their horizontal and vertical components (Triandis, 1998, 2002) are also important theoretical constructs of cultural variations which hold promise for more innovative studies on job performance. For example, the role of horizontal and vertical components of individualism and collectivism may have strong relevance for differential emphasis of task versus contextual performance in dissimilar cultural contexts. Empirical research designed to explain how these generic types of individualism versus collectivism (Triandis, 2002) work to create differential emphases on task versus contextual performance will go a long way to demonstrate the role of cultural differences. As we have noted in the earlier part of our review, these two components comprise some of the more important components in Campbell’s model of job performance, which we assumed to be etic in nature and applicable across dissimilar cultural contexts. No doubt,


255

some components would be more strongly emphasized in one cultural context compared to another, but this model is fairly comprehensive and should act a guiding framework for future research on job performance across nations and cultures. There are other dimensions of cultural variations discussed in Lytle, Brett, Barsness, Tinsley and Jansens (1995), such as tightness versus looseness, interpersonal trust versus interpersonal wariness that might be particularly well-suited for future research on cultural influences on job performance. Perhaps the most productive way to incorporate the role of cultural differences in eliciting different kinds of performance related norms and behaviors is to deal with independent versus interdependent construal of self. This dimension is concerned with the “lock and key” arrangement between the affective and behavioral responses of an individual and the ongoing social order of the cultural context. A sense of being culturally proper is an integral part of one’s self, and one’s sense of self influences the kind of behaviors one engages in (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman & Markus, 1993). In cultures that emphasize independent construal of self, individuals view themselves as distinct from others and are more concerned with performing those actions or behaviors (including those components of the Campbell’s performance model) that are of immediate benefit to themselves. The opposite occurs in societies where interdependent construal of self is the governing cultural norm. People in these societies are more predisposed towards performing actions or behaviors that are likely to benefit the ingroups with whom they view themselves as strongly connected. Additional theory is also needed to explain the potential interactions among the cultural dimensions under investigation as possible antecedents of differences in job performance. For example, the effect of individualism on performance may be different in societies characterized by low uncertainty avoidance than those characterized by high uncertainty avoidance. Failure to consider interactions of this type could lead to distorted results and incorrect conclusions. There is also a need for incorporating individual level differences concerning culturally derived work norms and values in future research. Cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions are key sources of criteria people use to decide such things as what constitutes fair working conditions, one’s entitlements, and one’s obligations to the work organization. A partial list of variables included in these culturally derived work norms and values are the strength of work ethic (such as the emphasis on Protestant work ethic or Asian work ethic, etc.), locus of control, individual versus family oriented achievement values (Bhagat & McQuaid, 1982; Heckhausen, 1980), tolerance for ambiguity, propensity towards social loafing, and norms for conformity. Cultural variations influence individual’s self-efficacy beliefs in different ways (Erez & Earley, 1993). Theoretical analyses of how various cultural values influence work related norms and one’s self efficacies are likely to be helpful in guiding research investigating the role of cultural differences on individual performance effectiveness. While studies attempted this, the efforts are modest at best.

256 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 It would be useful if theoretical parameters of both culture variations as well as other national variations could be explicitly included in the theoretical models that guide the collection of data. A model discussed by Bhagat, Baliga, Moustafa and Krishnan (2003) which incorporates the roles of societal culture based syndrome, organizational culture, computer-mediated communication, and level of globalization present in the societal context would be useful as a point of departure to conceptualize performance related as an interactive outcome of these variables from a macro-level of analysis along with the other culture-specific influences on individual performance. As global organizations begin to employ more intercultural teams for executing tasks across national boundaries, there is also a need to know the psychological dynamics of how organizational groups that have never met or are not likely to meet face to face in the immediate future construe their performance. To what extent are social loafing mechanisms present in multinational teams that accomplish most of their tasks by using the Internet and related forms of computer-mediated communication? Also, to what extent is contextual performance likely to be either emphasized or deemphasized in the context of Internet-based multi-cultural work teams? Can contextual performance occur among coworkers who never meet in person? These issues represent a sampling of some of the concerns that should be dealt with in future research efforts concerning the role of cultural variations on performance. Next we examine the methodological issues related to these studies. Methodological Robustness There has been solid progress on methodological issues in this area. Studies on the social loafing and performance by Earley (1989a, 1993) using experimental methods are indeed laudable. More studies are needed using experimental methods discussed by Leung and Su (2004). Without question, use of experimental methods is not only difficult but it becomes even more so when one has to conduct experiments across national and cultural boundaries. However, the benefits of experimental methods, especially field experiments dealing with the role of culture-specific beliefs and values on how individuals construe their performance, will be of significant value in future research endeavors. There is a need to conduct studies dealing directly with self-construal and determinants of performance at the individual level, not necessarily individual performance as a function of ingroup-outgroup dynamics in work groups. Use of multiple methods and sources for collecting job performance related information as well as other contextual factors will also be of value to improve the methodological rigor of the findings. Testing the cross-cultural equivalence of job performance ratings is another methodological step that should be incorporated in future research. Ployhart, Schmitt, Sacco and Rogg (2003) found that supervisors in fast food restaurants in Canada, South Korea, and Spain rated their employees fairly similarly on performance dimensions of technical proficiency, customer service,


257

and teamwork. Ratings demonstrated a basic level of measurement invariance. However, the error variances of the ratings and the pattern of construct variances and covariances were largely cultural-specific. Their study suggested that while some of the components of performance are rated fairly in an invariant fashion across cultures, overall assessments of performance might be strongly influenced by culture. Performance, that is overall performance, may not mean the same thing in different cultural settings. We recommend that future researchers wishing to compare levels of performance in similar jobs across various subsidiaries in multinational and global corporations attempt to establish the cross-cultural invariance of those dimensions of performance that are central to the investigations. The assertion that cultural issues come into play in ratings of performance is supported in a methodological study by Fahr, Dobbins and Bor-Shiuan (1991). Their findings indicated that Chinese employees rate their own job performance less favorably compared to the ratings of their supervisors. However, results for U.S. studies showed that self-ratings of performance are more lenient than supervisory ratings (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). The researchers note that Chinese employees, who are more collectivistic in nature, have tendencies towards exhibiting a modesty bias. Their findings clearly reveal the importance of the role of cultural variations in influencing workers’ perceptions of their own performance. Assumptions that individuals and their supervisors provide ratings of job performance in a similar fashion are of questionable value. It is safe to assume that several highly technical and task related aspects of performance as noted in the Campbell (1990) model might be perceived fairly invariantly across cultures. Other non-task related aspects of performance are likely to be influenced by cultural factors. We believe it is important to examine the crosscultural generalizability of the dimensions of performance that are crucial to the investigation and not assume that these performance dimensions are being perceived in the same way by raters located across cultural divides. The need to use research instruments other than those developed in the West is also of immediate concern for the field. The Confucian-dynamism scale (Bond, 1987) and the Chinese Culture Connection Study (1987) are good examples of emic research instruments suitable for examining some of the relevant facets of performance in Chinese and other East Asian contexts where Confucian values prevail. Given that a large number of the studies reviewed in this chapter were concerned with differences with job performance between Chinese and Western workers, it is surprising that these instruments or some variations of these instruments to measure the emic dimensions of the Chinese culture were not employed. At present we do not know if performance differences are real or if they just reflect differences in the cognitive filters of the raters. Another methodological concern is the selection of cultures: most of the studies cited only examined two or three national cultures. It would be valuable to employ a larger number of national cultures in order to discern the pattern of variation in a finer grained manner. Most studies were concerned

258 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 differences between Asian and Western workers in terms of their job performance behaviors. Given the rising importance of Asian producers and Asian consumer markets, this is not surprising. However, in order to develop a robust body of knowledge concerning the role of cultural differences on job performance, we need to incorporate cultural influences from other parts of the world, including Latin America, Africa, and Central Europe. Implications for Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the 21st Century Job performance has always been a central importance in the field. There has been a great deal of interest in the various antecedents and determinants of job performance in organizational settings. Ilgen & Pulakos (1999), in their edited volume, The Changing Nature of Performance, provided perspectives of changes in the workplace that affect job performance in ways not previously emphasized in the literature. In our chapter, we chose to focus on the role of cultural variations in job performance–an area whose importance is likely to increase significantly as global organizations expand their reach in dissimilar cultures. Using Campbell’s (1990) model as an etic or culture-general framework for delineating various components of job performance in a comprehensive fashion, we examined the role of cultural differences on job performance. It is clear from our review that cultural differences can exert significant influences on how individuals perform their jobs whether working alone or in the context of work groups. While our discussion focuses mostly on differences between employees with different cultural orientations, we acknowledge that a considerable amount of variance may exist within a given culture. Between-cultural differences tend to be larger and more consistent for core beliefs, values, and attitudes than for peripheral beliefs, attitudes, and values (Lachman, Nedd & Hinings, 1994). Employees from different cultures, on the average, can be expected to have different mean levels of core culturally-oriented beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. However, cultures do not disagree on every belief, value, or attitude and some culturally-related beliefs, values, and attitudes are less culturally-centric than others. As a result, the amount of variation within a single culture may be greater than the amount of variation between two cultures. Research reviewed in this chapter supports the idea that engagement in social loafing by individuals and the tendency to perform more energetically when working with others or for incentives varies in accordance with norms of individualism-collectivism. The construct of individualism-collectivism (and to a lesser extent the constructs of power distance and uncertainty avoidance) has provided much of the theoretical impetus in research on job performance across cultural divides. While this has been helpful and individualism-collectivism is indeed a “deep structure” of cultural difference among societies (Greenfield, 1999; Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1995, 1998), the fact remains that not all cultural differences in performance related behaviors can be adequately explained


259

in terms of one or two constructs of cultural variations. We do believe that research on this dimension has been considerable significance in providing insights into the dynamics of performance across cultures. However, the time is ripe for examining the role of other constructs and especially the interactive effects of cultural variations, along with other individual and organizational factors that are of immediate theoretical relevance. Differences in cultural orientations within multinational teams may affect performance because team members depend on each other. On the other hand, team members would also have more opportunities for interaction which might help them understand the problem areas, and they may receive feedback from the results of their team’s work. In addition team members would share the same goal. Over time, members of multinational teams should be able to adapt. Comparison of one-shot studies does not provide any opportunity for adaptation. Thus, these results may be too pessimistic. As the world becomes increasingly globalized, the structure and patterning of work is changing rapidly (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez & Gibson, 2005). Few organizations can afford to ignore opportunities that exist through international and intercultural business. In searching for global opportunities (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001), multinational organizations are realizing the crucial importance of human capital. The performance of expatriates, third-country nationals, and others from dissimilar cultures has emerged as an important issue in international human resources management (IHRM). The expertise of industrial and organizational psychologists in enhancing our understanding of the role of the various national and cultural factors that are idiosyncratically responsible for sustaining similar and dissimilar patterns of job performance in different parts of the world is important. This chapter is offered a stimulus to begin further systematic investigations into this area of inquiry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work on this chapter was made possible by a summer research grant from the Graduate Research office of the University of Memphis in 2005. The authors express their sincere appreciation to Kevin Ford for his constructive feedback and suggestions as well as his encouragement.

REFERENCES Bhagat, R. S., Baliga, R., Moustafa, K. S. & Krishnan, B. (2003). Knowledge in crosscultural management in the era of globalization: Where do we go from here? In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (eds), Cross-Cultural Management: Foundations and Future (pp. 155–175). London: Ashgate Press. Bhagat, R. S. & McQuaid, S. J. (1982). Role of subjective culture in organizations: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 67(5), 653–685.

260 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Bond, M. H. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese value surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009–10015. Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.), Vol. 2 (pp. 271–326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Borman, W. C. & Brush, D. H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of managerial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6, 1–2. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71–98). New York: Jossey-Bass. Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725. Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the New Age. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (eds), The changing nature of performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1 (2nd ed., pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Campbell, J. P. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 147–150). Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E. & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H. & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (eds), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chinese Culture Connection, The (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164. Choi, H. & Choi, H. (2003). An exploratory study and design of cross-cultural impact of information systems managers’ performance, job satisfaction and managerial value. Journal of Global Information Management, 11(2), 1–30. Chow, C. W., Lindquist, T. M. & Wu, A. (2001). National culture and the implementation of high stretch performance standards: An exploratory study. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 85–109. Chow, C. W., Shields, M. D. & Chan, Y. K. (1991). The effects of management controls and national culture on manufacturing performance: An experimental investigation. Accounting Organizations and Society, 16(3), 209–226. Cronbach, L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony and social structure: An analysis of organizational behavior across cultures. New York: Oxford University Press. Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 319–348. Earley, P. C. (1989a). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565–581. Earley, P. C. (1989b). Intercultural assessment of performance feedback. Group and Organization Studies, 14(2) 161–181. Earley, P. C. & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of international team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26–49.


261

Earley, P. C. & Stubblebine, P. (1989). Multi-cultural examination of performance feedback. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 161–181. Economist, The (2006). Turning boomers into boomerangs. (How to manage an aging workforce), February 18–24, 65–67. Erez, M. & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self identity, and work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erez, M. & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of culture and group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1513–1537. Farh, J., Dobbins, G. H. & Cheng, B. (1991). Cultural relativity in action: A comparison of self-ratings made by Chinese and U.S. workers. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 129– 147. Fahr, J., Earley, P. C. & Lin, S. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421–443. Fahr, J., Zhong, C. & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241–253. Firestone, J. M., Garza, R. T. & Harris, R. J. (2005). Protestant work ethic and worker productivity in a Mexican Brewery. International Sociology, 20(1), 27–44. George, J. M. & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329. Govindarajan, V. & Gupta, A. (2001). In search for global dominance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Greenfield, P. (1999). Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they come from? Paper presented at the Third Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology, Taiwan, August. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A. & Neale, M. (2000). The contribution of task performance and contextual performance to effectiveness: Investigating the role of situational constraints. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 517– 533. Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (p. 112) Harkins, S. G. & Petty, R. E. (1983). Social context effects in persuasion. In P. Paulus (ed.), Basic group processes, (pp. 149–175). New York: Springer-Verlag. Harris, M. M. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62. Heckhausen, H. ( 1980). Motivation theory. In H. C. Triandis (ed.). Handbook of CrossCultural Psychology, Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Ilgen, D. R. & Hollenbeck, J. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.), Vol. 2 (pp. 165–208). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Press. Igen, D. R. & Pulakos, E. D. (eds). (1999). The changing nature of performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

262 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Jung, D. I. & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 208–218. Konovsky, M. A., Elliot, J. & Pugh, S. D. (1997). The dispositional and contextual predictors of citizenship behavior in Mexico. Unpublished manuscript. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University. Lachman, R. NEdd, A. & Hinings, B. (1994). Analyzing cross-national management and organizations: A theoretical framework. Management Science, 40, 1, 40–55. Lam, S., Chen, X. & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905–914. Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C. & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 594–601. Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832. Latham, G. P. & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M. & Gibson, C. (2005) Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357–378. Leung, K. & Su, S. K. (2004). Experimental methods for research on culture and management. In B. J. Punnett & O. Shenkar (eds), Handbook for International Management Research, (2nd ed.) (pp. 68–95). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Lytle, A. L., Brett, J. M., Barsness, Z. I., Tinsley, C. H. & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, (pp. 167– 214). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press Inc. Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Miller, K. I. & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727–753. Money, R. B. & Graham, J. L. (1999). Salesperson performance, pay, and job satisfaction: Test of a model using data collected in the United States and Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 149–172. Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, 16, 127–142. Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475– 480. Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In R. Dillon & J. Pellingrino (eds), Testing applied and theoretical perspectives, (pp. 218–247). New York: Praeger. Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (eds), International Review


263

of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14, (pp. 337–368). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R. & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating the dollar value of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 34–40. Oyserman, D. & Markus, H. R. (1993). The sociocultural self. In J. Suls (ed.), The self in social perspective (pp. 187–220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Paine, J. B. & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 45–59. Ployhart, R. E. Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J.M. & Rogg, K. (2003). The cross-cultural equivalence of job performance ratings. Human Performance, 16(1), 49–79. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A. & McKenna, J. F. (1987). Referent selection in determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavior and attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 40, 113–124. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Katitcibasi, S. Choi & G. Yoon (eds), Individualism collectivism: Theory, method and application (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 453–463. Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F. & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47 nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 188–208. Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F. & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30(3), 377–400. Steers, R. M. & Sanchez-Runde, C. J. (2002). Culture, motivation, and work behavior. In M. J. Gannon & K. L. Newman (eds), Handbook of Cross-cultural Management (pp. 190–216). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Triandis, H. C. (2002). Generic individualism and collectivism. In M. Gannon and K. Newman (eds), The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management, (pp. 16–45). Oxford: Blackwell Business Publishing. Triandis, H. C. (1998). Vertical and horizontal collectivism: Theory and research implications for international comparative management. Advances in International Comparative Management, 12, 7–35. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Triandis, H. C. (1994a). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Triandis, H. C. (1994b). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In: H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (2nd ed.), Vol. 4 (pp. 103–172). Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L. & Parks, M. J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Dyne, L. & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 109–119. Van Scotter, J. R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 79–95.

264 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2007 Van Scotter, J. R. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J. & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 526–535. Wagner, J. A. (1994). Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312–330.

Chapter 7 CONDUCTING MEANINGFUL RESEARCH IN A FAST-PACED AND VOLATILE WORLD OF WORK: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Ann Marie Ryan Michigan State University, USA

and Elaine D. Pulakos Personnel Decisions Research Institutes Arlington, Virginia, USA It is not atypical for textbooks and chapters on applied research methods to lament the challenges of doing applied research, including time and cost constraints and a less controllable context. Robson (2002) noted that “Real world research has tended to be viewed as a methodologically flawed version of ‘proper’ research” (p. 539). Hedrick, Bickman and Rog (1993) commented that applied research settings challenge the skills of researchers because the environment differs substantially from that of basic research. Schaufeli (2004) reflected that “It is generally acknowledged that the complexities and constraints inherent in organisational intervention studies are daunting” (p. 512). Given the many ways in which the applied context in which research is taking place is changing (Cascio, 1995; Patterson, 2001), these challenges are likely changing as well. Our aim in this chapter is to review what we know about the process of conducting applied psychology research in organizations, with a particular focus on how it has and how it should be changing. Our goal is not to review research designs, statistical methods, and the like but to discuss the recurring challenges for those who attempt to conduct research in organizational settings given the changing nature of work and how our current methods and approaches can be modified or enhanced to meet those challenges. By applied research, we mean psychological research conducted in organizational settings whether the goal


266 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 of the research is to contribute to the academic literature or solely to the benefit of the organization. We begin with a discussion of how the changing nature of work over the last several decades has or has not resulted in a changing approach to applied research. Our focus here is not on the topics researched, which indeed do reflect changing interests (e.g., rise in publications related to teams, telecommuting, diversity) but on how the research is approached, conducted, and disseminated. This is followed by a discussion of key recurring challenges for researchers in terms of relevance, dissemination, and utilization of research, and suggested prescriptions for organizing infrastructure and training students to meet these challenges. While models contrasting research in “real world” settings versus laboratory settings do exist (e.g., Boehm, 1980; Locke, 1986; Robson, 2002), our goal in this chapter is not to reiterate those distinctions but to focus specifically on the applied context and changes in research approaches within that context over the past twenty years. We do pull one theme from those comparative pieces: the need to revise the model of inquiry. Boehm (1980) noted that when faced with the realities of the organizational research environment, individuals attempt to modify the environment to fit traditional scientific inquiry methods, often going through great effort to achieve experimental ideals, to measure or control for influences. Her major conclusion was that rather than trying to alter the environment to fit the model, we should alter the model to fit the environment. One of the key conclusions of this chapter is that researchers may have neglected to sufficiently alter the models used in conducting research in applied settings to accommodate recent workplace change. A quarter of a century ago prognosticators predicted a number of workplace changes, many of which have borne out (Bell, 1976; Naisbitt, 1982; Toffler, 1981). Table 7.1 outlines some of the most commonly mentioned changes in the workplace, such as technological advances, changed work structures, and globalization. In the next section, we discuss the implications of these changes for conducting applied research and how research approaches have and have not changed to meet the changed environment.

CHANGING APPROACH TO RESEARCH Applied psychological researchers have adapted to workplace change in many ways. For example, methods and analytical tools reflect the increased complexity of work (Patterson, 2001), with the advent of meta-analytic techniques, structural equation modeling (SEM) and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in the last 25 years. Our data collection and information dissemination methods reflect the technological changes that have occurred, including the use of methods such as web surveys (Thompson, Surface, Martin & Sanders, 2003), online assessment tools (Anderson, 2003; Tippins, Beaty, Drasgow, Gibson,

C ON D U C T IN G M EAN IN G FU L R ESEARC H Table 7.1

IN A

F AST-PAC ED AN D V OLAT ILE W ORK W ORLD 267

Changes to work and the workplace

Change

Leveraging Change

Technological advancements in computers and communication

• • • • • • • •

Faster data collection Faster data analysis Increased ease of reporting Increased ease of obtaining more representative samples Increased sharing of research ideas Increased ease of research dissemination Availability of data already collected for business needs Ability to piggyback on regular data collections

Changed work structures (team-based, virtual, flexible, flattened hierarchies)

• Greater consideration of context in determining generalizability • Increase in team and decrease in sole-author publications • Levels of analysis considerations built into design, data collection and data analysis • Challenges to accessing individuals face-to-face

Globalization

• Multicountry samples • Increased representation of researchers from different countries • Increased mention of cultural context in research reporting • Less parochial views of approaches to research

Increase in smaller organizations

• Fewer studies on large organizations • More multi-organizational samples to meet the sample size challenge

Increase in self-employment

• Greater numbers of self-employed in research • Greater attention to generalizability to the self-employed

Growth in knowledge workers and service sector

• Less research in manufacturing environments • More research in service sector • Increased inclusion of knowledge workers

Increased workforce diversity

• Increased diversity of samples • Greater attention to how findings generalize across diverse groups

Less sequenced careers, outmoding of retirement

• Influences on sample representativeness may need to be considered (e.g., tenure not as meaningful)

Faster cycle times

• Faster time from conception to reporting of research

VUCA world1 (increased volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity)

• More dynamic approaches to research • Greater complexity in research approaches • Less control over research context

1

Acronym coined by the US Army War College (SHRM Foundation, 2005) Sources for changes: Cascio (1995), Howard (1995) and Patterson (2001).

268 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 Pearlman, Segall & Shepherd, 2006), and palm pilots (Spain, Phipps, Rogers & Chaparro, 2001) for data collection, and electronic data bases, web pages, listservs, and webcasts for dissemination. We also see change in the level of collaborative research, with increases in the number of authors on a publication and decline in sole authored publications. Adding collaborators occurs because of increased need for specialized expertise in order to conduct largescale research in a rigorous fashion (Katsikeas, Robson & Hulbert, 2004), and is also reflective of the general move in the workplace toward greater team based structures. However, in many ways applied research reported in the journals is not reflecting workplace change in ways it should. Beyer and Trice (1982) noted “the more the future differs from the past, the more misleading specifically targeted applied research from the past can be” (p. 605). With the changes in workforce composition and work context, accelerated speed of change in the workplace and the uncertain work environment, research can be dismissed as irrelevant on assumptions about how the present or future differs from the context of the research. In the next sections, we explore how three specific workplace changes are creating such challenges for applied psychology researchers. Changed Workforce Composition and Context There are many changes to work contexts and to the workforce that have been duly noted by researchers in the literature, such as more global organizations, shifts from manufacturing to service and knowledge work, smaller numbers of individuals working for large organizations and more working in small settings or self-employed, and greater ability to work remotely. One concern is whether researchers are adequately reflecting this changing work context in who is being studied. For example, despite globalization trends, Gelfand (2000) noted that over 90% of studies in applied psychology are based on U.S. or Western European data. However, Kirkman and Law (2005) noted that while only 14% of publications in the Academy of Management Journal over a 30 year period could be characterized as international research (i.e., either a having a non North American author, non North American sample, or dealing with a crosscultural topic), since 2000 that has increased to 46%. At Personnel Psychology, where one of us currently serves as the editor, change has also occurred, with over 30% of current submissions coming from outside North America. Despite these indicators that in the past few years research may be reflecting a flattened world, the recognition of a global workforce is not omnipresent in research output or evaluation. For example, as an editor, one of us finds that reviewers almost always ask an author with a sample not from the U.S., U.K., Australia or Canada to provide some discussion of how cultural context may have influenced results. Yet, for the hundreds of manuscripts set in those English speaking countries, never once has a reviewer asked to discuss how the cultural context influenced findings. (One can attribute this to the

C ON D U C T IN G M EAN IN G FU L R ESEARC H

IN A


nationalities of journal reviewers, but let’s not digress.) The challenge today is whether researchers should be discussing cultural context in every submission, or whether issues of culture’s influence are research questions to be explored in their own right and need not become the norm in reporting. Either way, the current practice of asking some researchers to discuss context and not others is not acceptable. Another example of where context is not given due consideration is with regard to work setting. Patterson (2001) notes that “a great deal of the research literature reported in journals is derived from the private sector ‘blue-chip’ corporations” and that this may lead to some distortion in conclusions. While adequate sample size is an important consideration in any research study, we should see evidence of incorporating workers at smaller organizations and the self-employed so as to better ascertain the generalizability of relationships to what are the more common settings now. For example, telecommuting or flextime policy effects on productivity may be quite different for larger than smaller organizations; without any inclusion of employees from small organizations in our studies of this topic, recommendations regarding practice may be misguided for large segments of the working population. As Ketchen, Thomas and McDaniel (1996) summarized, organizational size has long been seen as a critical contextual influence on organizational activities because it affects ability to shape environments and structural complexity. The challenges for applied researchers are in addressing whether findings are appropriately couched as to the segments of the workforce they pertain to and whether typical work settings are being studied. For example, Hausknecht, Day and Thomas (2004), in their meta-analysis of applicant reactions, concluded that entire segments of the workforce (e.g., executives, professionals, part-time workers) were unrepresented in the existing literature base. Further, current journal article practices do not provide enough information on context so that future meta-analyses can consider factors such as setting, industry, organizational size, etc. as moderators. As another example of this lack of adequate reporting, we attempted to quantitatively compare sample ethnic and racial diversity in applied studies in recent publications to those of 20 years ago, but found this impossible to accurately judge. That is, not only are articles from 20 years ago fairly devoid of information on sample ethnicity, so are the majority of papers in top journals today. Whether it is because demographic information is not collected or because it is not reported due to perceived irrelevance to the research question, it is difficult to judge the representativeness of research samples vis-à-vis more diverse societies. This lack of contextual information permeates reporting of research, making it difficult to determine whether our samples reflect other changes; for example, are participants less likely to be in manufacturing firms and more likely to be knowledge and service workers? Johns (2006) provides an eloquent discussion on how context’s “influence is often unrecognized and underappreciated” (p. 389). He provides numerous illustrations of how context can restrict

270 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 variable range; affect base rates; lead to changes in causal direction, signs of relationships, and curvilinear effects; and threaten validity. Context consideration will affect our choices in application; for example, Morgeson, Johnson, Campion, Medsker and Mumford (2006) demonstrated that decisions regarding the appropriate use of various team designs should be contingent on a consideration of context. We also note that authors often are advised by reviewers and editors to cut the information on context in efforts to make manuscripts shorter and hence there is a tradeoff in providing contextual information. However, we can point to examples in our roles as reviewers and editors where the most basic of information was not provided by authors (e.g., study of work/family conflict without information on family demographics, study of job seekers without information on current employment status or local unemployment rates). Thus, there is a challenge in determining how much context information is needed to allow a reader to appropriately interpret the relevance of findings and the potential for limits on generalizability; our contention is that the current mode for reporting is insufficient. Johns (2006) suggests that researchers report on the “omnibus context” of a study in terms of who (e.g, demographics), where (e.g., culture, industry), when (e.g., time), and why (rationale for conducting the research). If methods sections all contained a similarly formatted paragraph, information would be consistently available for interpretation for meta-analyses. (An example of a study with a more detailed context description is Maurer & Solamon (2006); see also John’s (2001) analysis of articles that do a good job of describing context.) Further, as Johns (2006) notes, appropriate speculation regarding contextual impact should be included in discussion sections. Table 7.2 outlines some ways we think that these changes to the workforce and work context can be better reflected in our research approaches. One can certainly argue whether any of these context changes create boundaries on generalizability of research findings (i.e., those in smaller organizations may behave quite similar to those in larger ones in response to a given intervention) or whether our research is more compromised when we do not control for the influences of organization type and culture in a given study. (However, see Johns, 2006 for a discussion of the problems with controlling for context.) Our point here is not at all to suggest this lack of reflection of work context indicates current research is inherently flawed; it serves to illustrate that as researchers we need to engage in more explicit reporting and discussion of who we are studying, given the changes that have occurred. Faster Cycle Time In our own research, we experience the demand for and challenges associated with delivering research products faster. Once organizational decision-makers decide to proceed with, for example, implementation of a new selection process, they do not want to wait six months to a year for a measure to be developed and

C ON D U C T IN G M EAN IN G FU L R ESEARC H Table 7.2

IN A


Context considerations

• Report the contextual dimensions of who, where, when and why (Johns, 2006). • Seek samples that reflect the workforce rather than samples of convenience. • Develop collaborative relationships with multiple researchers to facilitate data collection that reflects context (e.g., multi-country, multi-sector). • Collect data from multiple small firms in ways that allow for appropriate consideration of organization differences. • Collect data via trade and professional groups, listservs, and public settings to include the self-employed, those in small businesses, and those who work remotely. • Explicitly recognize contextual issues in discussing study generalizability (e.g., organization type, culture). • Conduct research that directly addresses context effects on a phenomenon or relationship.

validated. Instead, they want it implemented within weeks. This has led to the recent appearance of many companies that are poised to leverage and implement human resources systems very rapidly, such as those that provide on-line testing or on-line survey products and services. The availability of such rapidly implemented products, systems, and services has fed the expectation that research should be conducted quickly and products delivered expeditiously. Because of these pressures, researchers are often rightly concerned about how the emphasis on a faster time frame leads to sacrifice in rigor, such as inadequate sampling for representativeness, insufficient sample sizes, skipping piloting of materials, or just not enough time to think through the design. For example, Anderson et al. (2001) noted that the pressure for rapid results precludes the use of longitudinal designs and increases the inappropriate inference of causality from cross-sectional designs. Given that we cannot control the pace of the environment, how can applied researchers speed up the process of research while still maintaining high quality standards? Table 7.3 provides suggestions from our experience to help in achieving as rapid a process as possible. Some of these require putting structures and people in place to enable research to happen rapidly; however, we feel that investment in one’s personal research infrastructure is much better than forsaking attempts at rigor in an effort to meet a nonnegotiable tight timetable. What does a more rapid design entail? First, because the time for reviewing the literature and developing research questions is limited, there is a need for researchers to be skilled in rapid synthesis of information and quick distillation of what are the key research needs. Electronic databases have clearly made the access to information immediate and omnipresent, but researchers need to be skilled in rapidly evaluating all the available information. Often we are asked to put together project proposals in very short time periods–a matter of days–or to provide a quick, bullet-point summary of the state of the research on a topic for a meeting with little notice. One challenge with regard to rapid literature review and integration is in training new researchers: students need to do these quick integrations of the literature in addition to the more thoughtful and thorough

272 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 Table 7.3

Elements of rapid design

Element

Challenge

Implication

Literature reviews on demand.

Time for thorough synthesis is not there.

• Faster access via electronic databases. • Greater demand for recent review/ conceptual pieces and white papers. • Greater demand for those with skill in quick distillation of key issues from large amounts of research reports.

Designs thought through fast.

Time for considering elements of a sampling plan, for debating pros and cons of including various “extras” in terms of quasi-experimental design elements is not there.

• May overlook key elements of planning for sample representativeness. • May neglect to collect additional data to rule out alternative explanations for findings. • Develop systematic checklists/ procedural loops for rapid review of a proposed design (e.g., a question list to audit one’s plan). • Design based on what you are allowed to collect, rather than being driven by what you want to study. • Take advantage of data collection opportunities that present themselves with “Ideas at the ready”. • Be knowledgeable about legacy data that might be useful. • Keep two purposes in mind– contribution to the applied problem and contribution to the literature.

Psychometrically sound measures and products in an instant.

Time for systematic development, pilot testing, and collection of supporting evidence is not there.

• Need to better leverage already developed materials and approaches rather than starting from scratch. • Use of rapid prototyping to quickly obtain feedback on products and hone in on requirements. • Potential over reliance on developed measures that aren’t appropriate. • Greater focus on sound measure development as a separate activity from “need driven” research projects.

Technology driven and flexible data collection and analysis are key.

The mode that is fastest will trump other forms most times.

• Access to technology will influence researcher success (e.g., who has a web survey programmer, who has 100 palm pilots on hand). • Outsourcing of data collection and analysis (e.g., use a vendor survey site rather than design your own). • Data collection that allows participants to choose when they will participate.

Quickly generated yet not formulaic reports.

Delivering results fast is necessary to be seen as adding value.

• Planning for delivering in chunks is key (e.g., not just trickle out results but have fountain bursts). • Dissemination plans should be integral to project plan, not an afterthought.


IN A


ones that are the current focus in training. Ensuring that neophyte researchers know how to match the pace of the business world as well as to do what sound research requires is an increasing challenge. Second, researchers need to be able to think through the pros and cons of various aspects of a research design rapidly. Being able to quickly determine the viability of various research strategies and tactics is an essential skill. One challenge is training students in how to do rapid situational assessments while at the same time training them to think through likely confounds, key sampling concerns, etc. A related issue is having a full understanding of the implications of making decisions to cut corners for the sake of expediency–that is, knowing when an expedient approach is likely to have minimal or significant impact on key outcomes and assessing the risks associated with proceeding in less than ideal conditions. The amount of research literature on a topic or measure and the researcher’s own experience should also weigh into these deliberations. For instance, if there is extensive research literature on how a measure is likely to behave and the researcher has extensive experience developing such a measure, cutting corners during development (e.g., less than thorough pilot testing, less data collection than is desirable to establish reliability and validity) is likely to pose less risk than if a measure is entirely new and the researcher is inexperienced with it. Another challenge is training students to exercise good judgment about what is minimally required to proceed with a research study versus what is optimal. Oftentimes, when research design is taught, the focus is on what sample sizes and other design features are ideal for a study to proceed. Particularly in the area of organizational research, there should be equal attention paid to what is, in fact, minimally acceptable and how to make informed decisions about this. Faster business cycle times lead to designing studies based on what you can collect; the challenge is in recognizing whether this is what is truly important to study and whether minimal conditions exist such that research can add value to the organization or the research literature. A third element is the development and deployment of measures in short time periods. In our own experience, there is often insufficient time available in an organization’s timeline for pilot testing, gathering of basic psychometric data, and for revision. The implications are that researchers need to be better at leveraging existing materials without concurrent overreliance on alreadydeveloped yet inappropriate tools, at finding ways to accomplish measure development work on an ongoing basis, and at rapidly prototyping and obtaining feedback on measures and products. Experience conducting organizational research over time often leads to the development of many tools and instruments that can be used as starting points for other instruments, thereby mitigating the need for development from scratch and minimizing development time. As tools and instruments are developed, it important to organize and store this information for easy assess, for example, in searchable databases. Once again, the challenge is to train research students on how to leverage prior work and

274 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 do the rapid development of measures when needed while still understanding the need for complete and thorough processes of validation. As noted, one area of rapid design where researchers have made advances is in leveraging technology for data collection. While researchers have known for many years the value of “outsourcing” the mundane aspects of the research process to graduate and undergraduate students, the pressures of faster business cycles push for even greater outsourcing. Decisions have evolved from “should I design a web survey process” to “which survey vendor site should I use for my survey” to outsourcing the entire data collection process, including identification of potential participants and their recruitment. Finally, as Table 7.3 indicates, the rapid pace of the business world affects the speed at which research must be reported and disseminated. Another way to approach the challenge of a rapid pace is to change the time horizon as to when research results are needed. In speaking about educational research, Start (1975) noted that because decisions need to be made before the research evidence is gathered, research often does not play the policysetting role it should. Start’s suggestion was to stop devoting research energy to immediate problems and to focus more on problems likely to be occurring five years out, so that the relevance of the research will increase because the data will be available before decisions regarding policies and solutions need to be made. Forecasting the future with any accuracy is no small challenge, but certain important issues can be anticipated. For example, in the US projected changes in workforce diversity and skills shortages were discussed for many years before they occurred. Researchers quick to engage in research on the implications of these projections (Cox, 1993) may have been more influential in terms of organizational policy setting than that of those who waited till the projections came to fruition to start to study implications. Echoing this notion, Anderson (1998) noted that organizational behavior research is “following after changing events in the workplace, not generating novel perspectives to drive innovative practice” (p. 325). From his perspective, the “excessive conformity to predominant paradigms” and the “gratuitous complexity” in conceptualizing and reporting research are reasons for a lack of relevance for the field. Anderson suggests that the anticipation of future change does not occur because of the focus on the status quo in research conceptualization and design. We would add that the pace of the workplace has left many researchers struggling to simply get things done, let alone be anticipatory. In our experience, executing research as quickly as possible may be externally driven but there are other reasons for speeding up your research cycle time. Leadership can change or priorities can shift within organizations (see next section) and a research project can be killed in such a shift; a swift execution reduces the likelihood of such an outcome. Applied researchers face the challenge of picking up the pace of conducting research to meet the pace of the workplace, but doing so in ways that do not sacrifice standards of quality.


IN A


Consideration of research cycle time is not just about becoming more efficient. Hamm (2006) noted that the time it takes to bring a product to market has been cut in half in just the past few years, making speed “the ultimate competitive weapon” (p. 68). He points out that attention to efficiency in execution is not enough, but organizations must innovate faster in order to thrive. Applied researchers have always known that one can be beaten to publication with an idea or to market with a product; however, the faster pace of the applied world makes an even stronger argument that those that lag will lose. Still, applied researchers can take a cue from the business world where the distinctions and advantages of being a “first mover” vs. a “fast follower” have shown themselves to be illusory (Hamel, 2001). The key, as Hamel notes, is that “If you try to run a 100-yard sprint like a marathon, you’ll be left behind. If you try to run a marathon like a 100-yard sprint, you’ll keel over from exhaustion” (p. 191). For applied researchers, there certainly appear to be more sprints taking place, but deciding to go all out in pursuit of a potential research opportunity can lead to poorly executed and non-valuable research and a failure to tackle the larger questions. As Huff and Huff (2006) noted, there is a need to “commit to longevity and reflection as well as speed” (p. 51). Managing the Unexpected In conducting workshops, giving talks, and leading seminars on applied research, we emphasize the need for flexibility on the part of a researcher to meet the challenges associated with working in an organizational setting that is increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous or “VUCA, ” which is an acronym from the US Army (see Table 7.1). In thinking about how research might shed light on how we as a field can improve our capacity in this area, we turned to research on high reliability organizations (HROs) and dealing with the unexpected. Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) noted that “good management of the unexpected is mindful management of the unexpected” (p. 3) and describe research on high reliability organizations that supports their view. In their work, they note that HROs act mindfully because they organize themselves to notice the unexpected, halt its development if possible, contain it if they can’t halt it, and when it can’t be contained, focus on swift restoration. How does this connect to the applied researcher in today’s workplace? We would argue that today’s applied researcher needs much more mindful management of the unexpected if he or she is to have a successful research outcome in a VUCA world. Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) provided characteristics of high reliability organizations that make up mindfulness, and some of these suggest a needed skill set for today’s applied researchers. Table 7.4 summarizes those suggestions. First, in HROs there is a preoccupation with failure, where lapses are seen as symptoms of a need to improve the system. One could argue that learning from failure is a hallmark of research, and is how knowledge is advanced. However,


Mindful management of the unexpected in research

• Conduct thorough analysis of failures. • Engage in critical discussion of study limitations. • Initiate profession-wide efforts to reduce continued points of research failure (e.g., low response rates). • Demonstrate reluctance to simplify research questions. • Give greater consideration to contextual influences on research questions. • Produce more multi-study publications. • Track anomalies in data gathering. • Make midstream adjustments in data collection. • Train researchers to think of what can go wrong. • Apply change management techniques in conducting applied research. • Simulate worst case scenarios in data collection. • Outline mitigation strategies prior to project commencement. • Develop a mindset of mitigation. • Build conceptual slack into the research team. • Think through scenarios of changed contextual variables (industry, organizational size) and how, if at all, they might affect findings. • Defer to the client on research design issues when appropriate.

we think that this preoccupation might be extended further. Hence, the applied researcher who is able to convince 8 out of 10 managers to allow their units to participate in a project typically feels positive about his/her success rate. A mindful approach would include a thorough analysis of the two failures to enable learning about what approaches to entry might be changed. As a second example, mediocre response rates have become more of the norm in organizational research (Cycyota & Harrison, 2006), attributed to “survey fatigue” on the part of employees. A mindful approach would involve the research team considering a less than expected response rate as a failure that requires review and analysis rather than simply acceptance of this as the norm. When writing articles for publication, the limitations section is typically treated as a necessary but purposefully brief mention of what could be better. Journal space is not devoted to a critical after-event analysis (see Ellis & Davis, 2005). When the same limitations are mentioned in study after study, they have become acceptable failures rather than food for a collective effort to stop the practice. Examples of where this effort has occurred include not using single informants for reporting HR practices (Gehart, Wright, McMahon & Snell, 2000) and the inclusion of information to justify aggregation of data (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). The second characteristic of HROs noted by Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) is reluctance to simplify interpretations. They note that HROs know that the world is complex and unpredictable so they try to create more nuanced and complex pictures of what is going on. Arguing for developing the complex picture does not necessarily mean that any one research study ends up being complex. Instead it means that the research team will have good awareness of the contextual influences needed to bound theories, be controlled through


IN A


design or analysis, and/or ruled out as alternative explanations (Johns, 2006). It also suggests an increase in multi-study or multi-sample papers in order to explain phenomena in a complex world. Rather than the trend toward slicing up a study into multiple papers (Feldman, 2003), there needs to be a tendency to hold off the rush to publication until the opportunity to examine moderators, multiple operationalizations, or other factors likely to impinge on generalizability presents itself. Given the preceding discussion on faster cycle times for research, there is clearly a paradox here. A third characteristic is sensitivity to operations–HROs notice small interruptions in operations which mean beginnings of the unexpected (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). These get noticed and contained or corrected. In our applied research experience, we find many researchers attempting to track or catch anomalies and technology can aid in this regard (e.g., recording of times of completion). Sensitivity to operations implies that this tracking is not just for a post hoc analysis to remove suspect cases but that data collection is continually monitored, evaluated, and anomalies are acted upon. Applied researchers need to consider midstream adjustments to the research plan or data collection in positive lights, but there is much reluctance given our training in research design. The challenge is to train researchers to be sufficiently flexible, creative, and persuasive in negotiating for midstream adjustments in design or data collection that will not completely compromise the research effort, as well as to be sufficiently skilled in providing justification for those adjustments to clients and journal reviewers. We have also found that even the best planned studies can be derailed when for some reason organizational decision makers or members decide participation is not worthwhile. Even if organizational decision makers have decided a project has merit, it must also be sold to organizational members to gain good levels of participation. At the first signs of reluctance to cooperate in what seemed like something that would be highly attractive and garner good participation, there is a need to jump to action to determine how to contain and correct the trend toward resistance. Addressing resistance frequently involves implementing change management techniques, such as ensuring that leaders are willing to drive the effort, developing effective communications targeted appropriately for different audiences, making a persuasive case for the value of the research being undertaken, and so forth. Research methods courses have not typically focused on the development of skills in these areas, yet they are critical for being able to effectively execute research in today’s organizations. Fourth is a commitment to resilience, involving improvising workarounds for errors, simulating worst case conditions, and practicing fire drills (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). Training researchers to think through what can go wrong in a study has always been a part of research methods education; what has changed is that the more complex and volatile environment necessitates a greater vigilance. In fact, for the large applied research efforts conducted in the government and private industry, sponsors often require those bidding on contracts

278 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 to think through what can go wrong and develop mitigation strategies, which are then considered and judged in making contract award decisions. Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) note it is not about having procedures for every possible event, but to develop a mindset of mitigation rather than anticipation as you cannot anticipate everything. One way to develop this mindset is through increasing “conceptual slack” which is a willingness to question what is going on and a divergence in analytic perspectives on the research team. Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) describe this as a mindset of cure rather than of prevention. Developing research teams with conceptual slack requires a willingness to collaborate with those whose views do not align perfectly with our own, and to have team processes that allow for divergent views to surface and have influence. We note that journal reviewers do not currently favor mitigation but rather often note “you should have anticipated this problem.” Given the VUCA world, reviewers need to be more open to mitigation and respect that researchers often cannot anticipate; however, authors can not use the environment’s instability as an excuse for not performing adequate mitigation (e.g., collecting additional data to show that the attrition was random, showing that the layoffs in the middle of the project did not appear to affect the key dependent variable). Training students in mitigation strategies needs to become a larger component of research methods instruction. Finally, Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) note that high reliability organizations have deference to expertise. Applied researchers often mistakenly think this means that managers should defer to them. Weick and Sutcliffe state that who is important should be something that migrates depending on what is needed. Knowing when to let the internal team decide aspects of project design versus the experienced researcher deciding is an important skill, involving recognition that internal organizational members understand their own culture better than outside researchers and have important insights on what will and will not be received well within their workforces. Ensuring that research is designed to provide results that are of value to organizational members and that it is conducted in a manner that fits within the organizational culture is essential for success. In sum, the increased uncertainty and complexity of the workplace requires applied researchers to enhance their skills and alter their strategies in order to continue to achieve successful outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGE The changing nature of applied research, both what has occurred and what we have discussed as needing to occur, does affect those who consume our research–practicing psychologists and managers, academic readers of our journals, and the public at large. In this section we discuss the implications of these


IN A


changes on the relevance of the research, the dissemination of the research, the utilization of the research, and the training of researchers. Change and Relevance Much has been made of relevance gaps in management research (Anderson, Herriot & Hodgkinson, 2001; Beyer & Trice, 1982; Susman & Evered, 1978) and much has been written about how to increase relevance (Rynes & Shapiro, 2005). The assumed offset to the challenges posed by conducting research in applied contexts is the gain in relevance. However, this is often not a realized gain and it is also not atypical for those in organizations to bemoan the lack of applicability of research. Among the common criticisms are lack of direct applicability, indecipherable writing, and lack of attention to context and how to adapt across contexts (Anderson, 1998; Beyer & Trice, 1982; Brennan & Ankers, 2004; Grey, 2001; Hodgkinson, Herriot & Anderson, 2001; Starkey & Madan, 2001; Susman & Evered, 1978; Thomas & Tymon, 1982; Wilkerson, 1999; Wright & Wright, 2000). Vermeulen (2005) noted “Relevance is then found in the question, rigor in the method applied to provide the answer” (p. 979). However, our analysis of the changing nature of research suggests a more nuanced distinction. One could have an excellent question but the research may not be of much relevance if the sample (e.g., white male managers in a large manufacturing organization) does not seem representative of a changing workforce (in a world of diverse and global workforces of knowledge and service workers who are self-employed or work for small organizations) or if the results are not delivered until months after a new HR system roll-out or if the volatility of the environment quickly renders them void. Relevance is in the method, not just the question. By changing our approach to research in the ways mentioned in the tables, the relevance of our research to practicing managers and psychology practitioners can be enhanced. One framework that has been discussed as a way of thinking about relevance is the distinction between instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic knowledge use (Beyer & Trice, 1982; Ottesen & Gronhaug, 2004). Instrumental knowledge is for direct application to a problem, conceptual knowledge is for general gain but not immediate decision-making, and symbolic is for legitimizing past or proposed actions. Ottesen and Gronhaug (2004) note that “usefulness” is often associated with instrumental knowledge, although all types are useful to businesses. The challenge for applied researchers seeking to enhance relevance is that a strict focus on the instrumental nature or immediate applicability of knowledge only enhances relevance in the moment; relevance to the future occurs through emphasis on the conceptual and symbolic uses of research. Hence, it is important that in our desire to do research that is timely and captures contextual complexity, we do not end up focusing on instrumental knowledge that is of great relevance to only one organization at one point in time.

280 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 In a different framework, Thomas and Tymon (1982) have discussed five components that make research useful to practitioners. First, descriptive relevance refers to the accuracy in capturing phenomena encountered in the organizational setting. Goal relevance refers to whether the dependent variables are things the practitioner cares about and would like to influence. Hammaker (1996) noted that the greatest impact might not be from identifying the greatest unmet need but from identifying a need that is important to the broadest array of stakeholders. Operational validity has to do with whether there is something the practitioner can manipulate (see also Beyer & Trice, 1982; Start, 1975). The fourth component discussed by Thomas and Tymon is nonobviousness, or the degree to which the research goes beyond what a practitioner would see as common sense. Last, timeliness means that relevant research has to be available when you need it. Thomas and Tyman note that science is “slow-converging” and workplace phenomena are rapidly changing, and there have been suggestions on ways to speed up science’s convergence time or to supplement research with less rigorous methods of inquiry (Cummings, 1978; Mitroff and Pondy, 1978). In thinking about these components and the changes we have noted in this chapter, the fast paced VUCA world implies that meeting the criteria of descriptive relevance, goal relevance, and timeliness will continue to be challenges for researchers. One final often-discussed framework is the distinction between Mode 1 (mono-disciplinary, academic) and Mode 2 (multi-disciplinary, focused on complex applied problems) knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994; Huff, 2000; Van Aken, 2005). Within this discussion has been the acknowledgement that Mode 2 knowledge may be seen as more timely and relevant but may be context bound and less rigorous. While some have argued for adoption of a Mode 1.5 approach to try and overcome the limits of each (Huff, 2000; see also Anderson et al., 2001), many have argued that this is too simplistic a dichotomy to use to address issues of relevance (Pettigrew, 2001; Weick, 2001). In our view, applied researchers are constrained by what the organization will tolerate. Often permission to do research in the context of an applied project is granted only if it is something the client organization directly wants done and thus see high value in, or it is something that will cost nothing or very little more in terms of employee time. While it would be nice to be able to drive either a Mode 1.5 or 2 effort, the reality we have most often experienced is situations that we have to make the best of rather than being able to drive what we get. Arum and Salipante (2003) provide a review of contextualist approaches including action research, Mode 2 knowledge production, and interpretive perspectives that focus on academic-practitioner interactions. They conclude that researchers need to formulate inquiry in ways that connect contextual knowledge and general knowledge as the contextualist approaches alone will not achieve research relevance or utilization. Further, Pettigrew (2001) notes that seeing research as relevant requires not just contextual knowledge but the


IN A


existence of dense networks (i.e., regular contact and exchange via a variety of mechanisms) between a researcher and users so that the researcher can have influence (i.e., the research is seen as relevant). In sum, our earlier discussion of the need to better consider context should not be interpreted as meaning that attending to context in and of itself enhances relevance. Change and Dissemination There has been considerable study in fields as diverse as agriculture, public health, social work, marketing, medicine, and education on how knowledge is disseminated (e.g., Herie & Martin, 2002). Farkas, Jette, Tennstedt, Haley and Quinn (2003) noted a common problem related to dissemination: knowledge dissemination involves communicating new findings while knowledge utilization involves applying that knowledge, yet individuals often think they will accomplish the goals of utilization via dissemination. Farkas et al. (2003) note that dissemination approaches are derived from the agriculture extension model which assumes that people will use good ideas once they know about them, but there is ample research evidence that creating attitudinal and/or behavioral change requires a lot more than “getting the word out.” The work of Rynes, Colbert and Brown (2002) examining common beliefs of HR practitioners indicates that there are both “knowing” and “doing” gaps that contribute to why applied psychology research is not used. Researchers need to have greater cognizance of what contributes to “doing” gaps and to address that in both research design and presentation of information. For example, Ryan and Tippins (2004) wrote about the many reasons why an organization might choose not to implement a selection tool known to be valid predictor of performance given the administrative, cost and political hurdles that exist in organizations. Johns (1993) provides an analysis of failure to adopt scientifically supported practices in terms of the mechanisms in the innovation-diffusion literature. The challenge of how context might affect ability to effectively use research findings increases exponentially as the world of work becomes increasingly complex and fast-paced. For those training researchers, developing skill in distinguishing knowing and doing gaps is critical as is providing templates for dissemination that include more detailed expositions of implementation concerns. One such template comes from Farkas et al. (2003) who proposed a knowledge dissemination and utilization framework with four strategies, each of which has slightly different goals. Exposure strategies focus on increasing knowledge via traditional methods such as journals and conferences but also methods such as electronic media (e.g., web pages). These are the most typical strategies used by applied psychology researchers, but changes in the work world have led to these passive strategies being increasingly insufficient for dissemination. Experience strategies focus on increasing positive attitudes to the knowledge

282 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 along with the new knowledge, and include mentorship and role modeling. Enhancing forums for sharing of best practices would provide greater opportunities for these strategies to emerge. Expertise strategies are designed to increase the competence of end users of knowledge and would include manuals and training programs around the knowledge. Embedding strategies have the goal of increasing utilization over time and would include ongoing availability of experts, and ongoing support mechanisms for users. Without a research dissemination plan that is multi-strategy, findings may get lost in the fast-paced and changing business environment. Exposure strategies, and particularly more passive forms of exposure, are the most common strategies researchers engage in because of lower cost and effort and reward structures (Farkas et al., 2003; Kerner, Rimer, & Emmons, 2005). Training in research methods has focused on the mastery of exposure strategies as an end-goal of graduate education and even that goal is difficult to successfully achieve (Cronbach, 1992; Kadzin, Bem, Maxwell, Cole, Rosenthal & Oetting, 1998). We would argue that the changes discussed here, especially the geographically and organizationally dispersed workforce, the rapid pace of change and the VUCA environment necessitate that our model of applied research incorporate a dissemination, change management, and adoption plan that is multi-strategy or our research findings will get lost in the information overload. One issue often mentioned in discussions of research dissemination is the accessibility of academic writing (e.g., Starkey & Madan, 2001). In marketing, Crosier (2004) did a reading level analysis of journals and found considerable variability across them but that typical articles do demand substantial reading effort. Tapp (2004) notes that greater influence would be achieved via less use of neutral observational language and greater use of context-based insights or interpretive and particularistic communication. Many applied research firms have dedicated research translators in-house to produce materials for web pages and trade publications, and/or supply content to other groups and organizations who are adept at packaging for dissemination or have a wider reach. Such competency has become increasingly vital to the applied researcher. Kerner et al. (2005) note that dissemination research has focused on push (trying to get individuals to implement the innovation) and not on ways to increase pull, or demand or receptivity to innovation. Similarly, Beyer and Trice (1982) noted that in establishing links between researchers and users of research knowledge, there is a focus on what the researcher should do with less emphasis on users becoming more active and skilled in searching for research information. An example of where there has been increased pull is in medical research. Willinsky (2005) notes that medical research has become part of our public culture and the media and the web disseminate research findings widely and rapidly but that comparable entry into public culture has not been achieved for other research areas. The fast paced and uncertain business


IN A


environment seems like one where there is pull for applied psychology research; our challenge is in focusing on where the pull is, leveraging the pull to push other research findings, and creating sufficient channels for using multiple strategies of dissemination to appropriately feed where there is pull. As an example, there is pull from organizational recruiters wanting knowledge regarding applicant reactions to organizational selection processes; this pull can be leveraged by packaging information on reactions with information on other research, such as the validity and utility of selection tools. Other examples of areas prime for leveraging pull would be work on work-family conflict, team composition, and managerial coaching, all areas where there is demand for information. Change and Research Utilization The literature on innovation and the diffusion of technology (Fairweather, 1967; Fairweather & Davidson, 1986; Gray, Jakes, Emshoff & Blakely, 2003) provides guidance on how to move beyond dissemination to utilization. Ferlie, Fitzgerald, Wood and Hawkins (2005) suggested that the nonspread of innovation occurs because of the impermeability of the social and cognitive boundaries of professions. In particular, they highlighted how different research cultures regarding what is rigor and what is relevant serve to limit spread. For current applied research to increase in utilization, we need to consider what social and cognitive boundaries exist between I/O psychologists and those in organizations that inhibit adoption of innovation. In discussing transportability research, which examines how research can travel to “usual care settings,” Schoenwald and Hoagwood (2001) suggest that premature dissemination of research without intermediary studies of what modifications are required for typical practice settings can lead to rejection or skepticism about adaptation of interventions or failed adoption because contextual factors are not sufficiently considered. In applied research in psychology, many research findings may never be widely adopted if individuals are not provided with information on the role of context. For example, “pay for performance” was supported as a concept in research but was not widely implemented in practice until enough research accumulated to indicate key boundary and implementation factors. As a profession, providing tools so that end users can appropriately judge contextual influences is important (Johns, 2001). One intriguing suggestion for increased utilization is through the educational outreach technique of “academic detailing” that has been used in getting physicians to make more appropriate prescription decisions (Soumerai, 1998). The techniques of academic detailing include using concise graphic materials that highlight essential messages that are presented in contexts involving active learner participation, reinforcement and follow-up (Soumerai). Education


Professional support of enhancing relevance, dissemination, and utilization

• Recognize that relevance is in the method not just the question. • Promote the importance of conceptual and symbolic knowledge in addition to instrumental knowledge. • Connect contextual knowledge with general principles. • Create and maintain dense networks between researchers and users. • Identify whether a gap between research and practice is a knowing or a doing gap • Provide models of multi-strategy dissemination plans for applied psychology • Utilize experience strategies to increase positive attitudes toward applied psychology knowledge (e.g., profiling case studies of successful use of research findings; creating forums for sharing best practices) • Use change management processes as part of dissemination efforts • Engage professional organizations in considering ways to foster “pull” for applied psychology research knowledge • Identify areas of pull and leverage those to push other research findings. • Identify adoption inhibitors • Conduct transportability research • Foster intermediary publications • Create training programs and materials aimed specifically at end users of knowledge • Provide tools to aid in contextual interpretation of research findings (e.g., audit lists to assess the usefulness or needed adaptations to research) • Create mechanisms for making experts available to users (e.g., directories linked to user outlets and WebPages rather than ones that must be “discovered”) • Provide research translation services • Create graphic materials highlighting essential research messages • Provide ROI models

outreach efforts in applied psychology exist (e.g., SIOP’s visibility committee) but systematic approaches such as these are generally not undertaken by researchers. “Intermediary” publications for “reflective practitioners and applied academics” (p. 518; Brennan & Ankers, 2004) are present in some fields for this aim. There is a voluminous literature on demonstrating ROI or other methods of showing that the benefits of change outweigh the costs (e.g., utility analysis; see Boudreau & Ramstad, 2003, for a review). Relating the potential cost savings from research findings is a compelling way to foster utilization. While most researchers recognize this, gathering information to support such an analysis is not always part of the research design effort, but rather an after the fact proposition when the realization dawns that no one is paying attention. Building in an ROI analysis as part of the research plan seems like an increasing necessity in a business environment where ideas come and go quickly, although clearly there are challenges in presenting such information in ways that foster receptivity (see Jayne & Rauschenberger, 2000 for a review). Table 7.5 summarizes some suggestions for how professional societies and research organizations might create infrastructure and resources to facilitate faster and better dissemination and utilization of research findings.


IN A


Implications for Training Researchers What are the implications of the changes in the world of work for how we train researchers? Certainly there has been change and increase in skill requirements in terms of the knowledge base of the discipline expanding, the technology skills required to interface effectively changing (e.g., do you know how to design a web survey), and the methodological skills required (knowledge of more advanced statistical techniques, multiple software programs, etc.). Beyond these, we suggest the changing nature of applied research requires increased skill in situational assessment, adaptation, translation, and change management. In a workshop we presented in 2004, we noted that the ability to quickly assess what the organization can and will do is a critical skill. Rapid situational assessments can involve early coverage of critical questions, such as: What is the likely N? How difficult will it be to get participation? What’s the climate for research? Rapid situational assessment skills are necessary given the pace, volatility, and complexity of the applied research environment. As we have noted throughout this chapter, researchers need to increasingly be willing to adapt approaches to what the situation requires. Research methods, texts, classes, research assistantships, advising relationships, and internships may need to focus more on adaptability as a research skill. The essence of adaptability in this context is being able to design the most effective research approach possible within the time, funding, and employee participation constraints that realistically exist in organizations. It is also about knowing when one should adjust the research or data collection plan mid-stream to address unexpected results or shifts in priorities. It is important to note that training for adaptability requires approaches different than those typically employed in research methods courses. Training research on adaptability has indicated the need for discovery learning approaches with active exploration and experimentation and an emphasis on self-regulation (Smith, Ford & Kozlowski, 1997). Translation skills are of increasing importance–research concepts need to be made understandable and accessible (Dutton, 2005). In some ways, this is the most challenging skill for those training applied researchers to convey– first, the student must learn to grasp the complicated concepts and then he/she must learn how to distill them in a manner that is not only straightforward but clearly conveys the value of one’s research for addressing critical problems and needs faced by a layperson audience (for a similar commentary see Hodgkinson et al., 2001). While some individuals excel at this, there is still much discussion in professional outlets regarding our inability to effectively make our research visible (Gasser, Butler, Anderson, Whitsett & Tan, 2000; Gasser, Butler, Anderson, Whitsett & Tan, 2001; Gasser, Whitsett, Mosley, Sullivan, Rogers & Tan, 1998). Finally, change management skills have value as part of research methods courses. Zaccaro and Banks (2004) suggest that the development of

286 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 change management skills involves formal instruction but also “stamping-in assignments” that allow practice of the new skills followed by “stretch assignments” that motivate expansion of skills. For applied psychology students, there is a need to increase exposure to assignments that allow for change management skills practice and skills expansion, rather than advising students to choose projects that are “safe” in terms of obtaining data and probability of completion. As research mentors we may struggle with where to draw the line on encouraging stretching and in making certain students can accomplish degree requirements; however, the environment future researchers will face necessitates an effort in this direction.

CONCLUSION Schneider (1999) in discussing change and the adaptability of professionals in our field noted “the sky is not falling at all–it is opening up” (p. 354). We want to emphasize that in no way do we see applied research as an endangered activity; indeed, we see quite the opposite occurring as organizations continue to have increasing recognition of the value of research findings in applied psychology. Instead, we wish to promote continued critical reflection on how we plan, conduct, and disseminate our research so that our impact can only be enhanced. In writing about the flattened world, Friedman (2005) noted “the great challenge for our time will be to absorb these changes in ways that do not overwhelm people but also do not leave them behind” (p. 46). Such is the challenge for applied psychology researchers.

AUTHORS NOTE Portions of this chapter were presented by the first author in an address to the Canadian Psychology Association, Calgary, June 2006.

REFERENCES Anderson, N. (1998). The people make the paradigm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 323–328. Anderson, N. (2003). Applicant and recruiter reactions to new technology in selection: A critical review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 121–136. Anderson, N., Herriot, P. & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2001). The practitioner-researcher divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now, and where do we go from here? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 391–411. Aram, J. D. & Salilpante, P. F. (2003). Bridging scholarship in management: epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management, 14, 189–205.


IN A


Bell, D. (1976). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books. Beyer, J. M. & Trice, H. M. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 591–622. Boehm, V. R. (1980). Research in the “real world”–a conceptual model. Personnel Psychology, 33, 495–503. Boudreau, J. W. & Ramstad, P. M. (2003). Strategic industrial and organizational psychology and the role of utility analysis models. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 193–221). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Brennan, R. & Ankers, P. (2004). In search of relevance: Is there an academicpractitioner divide in business-to-business marketing? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22, 511–519. Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928–939. Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler. Cronbach, L. J. (1992). Four Psychological Bulletin articles in perspective. PsychologicaBulletin, 112, 389–392. Crosier, K. (2004). How effectively do marketing journals transfer useful learning from scholars to practitioners? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22, 540–556. Cummings, L. L. (1978). Toward organizational behavior, Academy of Management Review, 3, 90–99. Cycyota, C. S. & Harrison, D. A. (2006). What (Not) to Expect When Surveying Executives: A Meta-Analysis of Top Manager Response Rates and Techniques Over Time. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 133–160. Dutton, J. E. (2005). Bridging the gap between management-organizational research and public policy. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 956–957. Ellis, S. & David, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857–871. Fairweather, G. W. (1967). Methods for experimental social innovation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fairweather, G. W. & Davidson, W. S. (1986). An introduction to community experimentation: Theory, methods and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Farkas, M., Jette, A. M., Tennstedt, S., Haley, S. M. & Quinn, V. (2003). Knowledge dissemination and utilization in gerontology: An organizing framework. The Gerontologist, 43, 47–56. Feldman, D. (2003). When is a new submission “new?” Journal of Management, 29, 139–140. Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M. & Hawkins, C. (2005). The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role of professionals. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 117–134. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gasser, M., Butler, A., Anderson, K., Whitsett, D. & Tan, R. (2000). Advertisement strategies of industrial-organizational psychologists. The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 37, 39–43. Gasser, M., Butler, A., Anderson, K., Whitsett, D. & Tan, R. (2001). Advertising industrial-organizational psychology. The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 38, 20–25. Gasser, M., Whitsett, D., Mosley, N., Sullivan, K., Rogers, T. & Tan, R. (1998). I/O psychology: What’s your line? The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, 35, 120–126.

288 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 Gelfand, M. J. (2000). Cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 29–31. Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C. & Snell, S. A. (2000). Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates? Personnel Psychology, 53, 803–834. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Gray, D. O., Jakes, S. S., Emshoff, J. & Blakely, C. (2003). ESID, dissemination, and community psychology: A case of partial implementation? American-Journalof-Community-Psychology, 32(3–4), 359–370. Grey, C. (2001). Re-imagining relevance: a response to Starkey and Madan. British Journal of Management, 12, S27–S32. Hamm, S. (2006). Speed demons. Business Week, 3977, March 27, p. 68. Hammaker, R. (1996). A multi-perspective survey of mental health consumer needs. Administration-and-Policy-in-Mental-Health, 23(3), 261–269. Hammel, G. (2001). Smart mover, dumb mover. Fortune, 144, 191–194. Hausenknecht, J. P., Day, D. V. & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 57, 639–684. Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L. & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herie, M. & Martin, G. W. (2002). Knowledge diffusion in social work: A new approach to bridging the gap. Social Work, 47, 85. Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P. & Anderson, N. (2001). Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology. British Journal of Management, 12, S41–S48. Howard, A. (ed.). (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Huff, A. S. (2000). Presidential address: Changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 25, 288–293. Huff, A. S. & Huff, J. O. (2001). Re-focusing the business school agenda. British Journal of Management, 12, S49–S54. Jayne, M. E. A. & Rauschenberger, J. M. (2000). Demonstrating the value of selection in organizations. In J. F. Kehoe (ed.), Managing selection in changing organizations (pp. 123–157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Johns, G. (1993). Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: lessons from organizational innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46, 569–592. Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 31–42. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 396–408. Kazdin, A. E., Bem, D. J., Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., Rosenthal, R. & Oetting, E.-R. (1998). Publication and communication of research. In Kadzin, A. E. (ed.), Methodological issues & strategies in clinical research (2nd ed., pp. 715–799). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Katsikeas, C. S., Robson, M. J. & Hulbert, J. M. (2004). In search of relevance and rigour for research in marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22, 568–578. Kerner, J., Rimer, B. & Emmons, K. (2005). Dissemination research and research dissemination: How can we close the gap? Health Psychology, 24, 443–446. Ketchen, D. J., Thomas, J. B. & McDaniel, R. R. (1996). Process, content and context: synergistic effects on organizational performance. Journal of Management, 22, 231– 257. Kirkman, B. & Law, K. (2005). International management research in AMJ: Our past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 377–386.


IN A


Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (eds). (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Locke, E. A. (ed.). (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings from industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Maurer, T. J. & Solamon, J. M. (2006). The science and practice of a structured employment interview coaching program. Personnel Psychology, 59, 433–455. Mitroff, I. I. & Pondy, L. R. (1978). On the organization of inquiry: a comparison of some radically different approaches to policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 34, 471. Morgeson, F. P., Johnson, M. D., Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. & Mumford, T. V. (2006). Understanding reactions to job redesign: a quasi-experimental investigation of the moderating effects of organizational context on perceptions of performance behavior. Personnel Psychology, 59, 333–364. Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books. Ottesen, G. G. & Gronhaug, K. (2004). Barriers to practical use of academic marketing knowledge. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22, 520–530. Patterson, F. (2001). Developments in work psychology: Emerging issues and future trends. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 381–390. Pettigrew, A. M. (2001). Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12, S61–S70. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Ryan, A. M. & Tippins, N. T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: What psychological research tells us. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 305–318. Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E. & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149. Rynes, S. L. & Shapiro, D. L. (2005). Public policy and the public interest: What if we mattered more? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 925–928. Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). The future of occupational health psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 502–517. Schneider, B. (1999). Is the sky really falling? A view of the future. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (eds), Evolving practices in human resource management: responses to a changing world of work (pp. 328–354). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schoenwald, S. K. & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What matters when? Psychiatric Services, 52, 1190– 1197. SHRM Foundation (2005). HR leadership for the next decade. New York: Bulls Eye Resources. Smith, E., Ford, J. K. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design. In M. A. Quinones ˜ & A. Ehrenstein (eds), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 89–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Soumerai, S. B. (1998). Principles and uses of academic detailing to improve the management of psychiatric disorders. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 28(1), 81–96. Spain, K. A., Phipps, C. A., Rogers, M. E. & Chaparro, B. S. (2001). Data collection in the palm of your hand: A case study. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 13(2), 231–243. Starkey, K. & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12, 3–12.

290 I N T ERN AT ION AL R EVIEW OF I N D U ST RIAL AN D O RG AN IZAT ION AL P SYC H OLOG Y 2007 Start, K. B. (1975). Reality for the researcher. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 323–336. Susman, G. I. & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603. Tapp, A. (2004). A call to arms for applied marketing academics. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22, 579–590. Thomas, K. W. & Tymon, W. G. (1982). Necessary properties of relevant research: Lessons form recent criticism of the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 7, 345–352. Thompson, L. F., Surface, E. A., Martin, D. L. & Sanders, M. G. (2003). From paper to pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 197–227. Tippins, N. T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O. & Shepherd, W. (2006). Unproctored internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 189–225. Toffler, A. (1981). The third wave. New York: Bantam Books. Van Aken, J. E. (2005). Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16, 19–36. Vermeulen, F. (2005). On rigor and relevance: fostering dialectic progress in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 975–982. Weick, K. E. (2001). Gapping the relevance bridge: fashions meet fundamentals in management research. British Journal of Management, 12, S71–S75. Weick, K. E. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilkerson, J. M. (1999). On research relevance, professors’ “real world” experience, and management development: Are we closing the gap? Journal of Management Development, 18, 598–613. Willinsky, J. (2005). Scientific research in a democratic culture: Or what’s a social science for? Teachers College Board, 107, 38–51. Wright, T. A. & Wright, V. P. (2000). How our ‘values’ influence the manner in which organizational research is framed and interpreted. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 603–607. Zaccaro, S. J. & Banks, D. (2004). Leader visioning and adaptability: Bridging the gap between research and practice on developing the ability to manage change. Human Resource Management, 43, 367–380.

INDEX 24/7 work pressures 131–2 absenteeism 78–81, 130 absorptive capacity, knowledge 207–8 academic detailing 283–4 academic writing see also research research dissemination 282–4 adaptability coping contrasts 145 research skills 285 adaptive performance see also performance issues concepts 126–7 adjustment see newcomer adjustment affect transfer 40 affective tactics, newcomer proactivity 23 after-action reviews, organizational learning 197–8 agents of socialization 7, 119 see also socialization aging workforce 114, 253 agreeableness 118 air traffic controller study 247–8 Aldwin, C.M. 145–7, 162–3, 169–70, 173–4, 178 allocentrism 248–9 see also collectivism American Legacy Foundation 87 analysis, synthesis 176–7, 179 anthropomorphization 40 anticipation stage, socialization 9–11 anticipatory coping, concepts 145–6 anxiety 127 applied research, changes 265–86 Argote, L. 193–234 Ashford, S.J. 22–3, 26 Ashforth, B.E. 1–70 Ashkanasy, N.M. 141, 157 Asian cultural studies 248–52, 257–8 ASSET tool, coping 149 attention, mindful processes 196–8 attitudes, employees 76–7, 89–93 Australia 247–8 autocratic participation 250 automatic processing 196–7

Bank One call center 82 Barling, J. 116 Batt, R. 73, 75 behavioral issues 40, 71–8, 144–6, 151–3, 237–40, 243–8 see also performance conceptual performance 247–8 HRM 71–8 job performance 237–40, 243–8 OCB 239–40, 243–7 sensemaking 40 task performance 247–8 Belcourt, M.L. 147 beliefs 90, 123–9, 257 see also cultural issues belonging 37–8 benefits/costs HR 71–102 training programs 93–7 wellness programs 85–9 Berry, D.C. 201 Bhagat, R.S. 235–64 Big-Five personality traits 151–3 Black, J.S. 22–3, 26 Boehm, V.R. 266 Bond, M.H. 240 Borgatti, S.P. 211 Boudreau, J.W. 97–9 boundary crossings, socialization 2–3, 119 Bourne, P.G. 8 Broadbent, D.E. 201 Brotheridge, C.M. 155–6 Burke, R.J. 141, 147, 149–50, 152, 157–9, 162–3, 177 burnout 127, 130–1 business losses 84 Campbell’s job performance model 236–40, 253–5, 258 contextual/task performance 240 eight factors 238 careers work-family conflict 122–3, 133 work-life programs 112 Cartwright, S. 152, 154, 181 Carver, C.S. 177

292

I NDEX

Cascio, W.F. 71–102 causal ambiguity, experience 215–16 cellular phones 131–2 Ceridian Corporation 85 changes in research 266–86 see also organizational change complexities 276–7 faster cycles 271–5 implications 278–86 work/workplaces 266–8 workforces 268–71 checklists, coping 147–9, 163–73 Chicago School of Sociology 5 China 244–6, 257 Choi, H. 251 Chow, C.W. 249–50 Citibank 88 Cleveland, J.N. 111–40 cognitive ability test 117–18 cognitive appraisals, coping 143–83 cognitive tactics, newcomer proactivity 23 Cohen, M. 223 collaborative research 168, 268 collective socialization tactics 13–14 collectivism 240–4, 246–7, 249, 251, 254, 259 commitment, employment 116–17, 121–2 communication, learning 21 competency traps, success experiences 216–17 competition 253 computers see also technology person-technology interfaces 131–3 conceptual knowledge 279 see also knowledge conceptual slack 278 Confucian work values 257 conscientiousness, personality tests 117 consciousness, coping 146–7 conservation of resources (COR) theory 153–4, 156–7 construal of self 255 consultative participation 250 context 31–5, 154–7, 161–3, 171–3, 195–9, 201–3, 204–8, 239–40, 247–8, 254–6, 269–71, 280–1, 283 coping 154–7, 161–3, 171–3 organizational learning 195–9, 201–3, 204–8 research 269–71, 280–1, 283 socialization 31–5

contextual performance 239–40, 247–8, 254–6 see also performance issues concepts 126–7 contextual-situational resources, coping 154–7 control 22–3, 43, 129–30, 147–9, 150–1, 152–7, 179–81 feedback 22–3, 215–16, 252 locus of control 150–1, 152–3 newcomers 22–3, 43 resource-based coping theory 153–5 control (proactive) strategies, coping 147–9, 155–7, 179–81 controlled/automatic processing 196–7 Cooper, C.L. 141–91 coping 122–3, 141–63 see also stress adaptation contrasts 145 analysis/synthesis contrasts 176–7, 179 anticipatory coping 145–6 appraisals 143–4, 153–7, 158–9, 161–2, 180 approaches 142–4 ASSET tool 149 checklists 147–9, 163–73 cognitive appraisals 143–83 concept of coping 142, 144–63 consciousness 146–7 context 154–7, 161–3, 171–3 control (proactive) strategies 147–9, 155–7, 179–81 defensive styles 142–3 definitions 144–5, 146 descriptive methods 177, 179 ecological momentary assessments 165–6 effectiveness 159–63 effort considerations 144–5 emotion-focused strategies 147–53, 157–8, 161–2, 177, 179–81 escape (avoidance) strategies 147–8, 151–2 factor analysis 173–7 future challenges 177–82 goodness of fit 159–63, 178 habitual/automated behaviors 144–6 hardiness 143–4, 150–1, 152–3 historical background 142–4 individual differences 150–3 insider approach 144–5 instructional coping-checklist approaches 166–8 interpretive issues 173–7 item generation 168–70, 173–7 management skills 144–6

I NDEX meaning-focused coping 149 measurement strategies 163–6 misfit issues 159–63, 178 occupational groups 157–9 Occupational Stress Indicator 149 options 153–7 organizational interventions 181–2 organizing concept 177–9 outcomes 159–63 outsider approach 145 personal coping resources 143–4 personal variables 150–3 personality traits 143, 150–3 positive psychology 179–81 primary appraisal 143–4, 156, 161–2 problem-focused strategies 147–59, 161–2 processes 143–4, 173–83 psychodynamic approach 142–3 refined checklists 166–73 religious coping 181 research 141–83 resources 153–7 scoring keys 170–1, 175–7 secondary appraisal 144, 153–7 self concepts 150–1 self-report coping questionnaires 147–9, 163–6 social supports 148, 154–6 strategy classifications 147–50, 162, 180–1 Stress and Coping Inventory 149 symptom-management strategies 147–8 theory 143, 169, 181–2 transactional approach 143–5, 153–4, 178–83 coping-oriented training programs 122–3, 154 COR see conservation of resources theory Costa, P.T. 145–6, 164, 179 costs/benefits 71–102 absenteeism 78–81 employee attitudes 89–93 employee turnover 83–5 HR 71–102 presenteeism 81–2 training programs 93–7 wellness programs 85–9 covert tactics, newcomer proactivity 24 Coyne, J.C. 141, 145–7, 162, 164–70, 175, 176, 182 creative tension 177–8 crises, work stressors 158 critical incident analysis, coping checklists 171–2

293

Cross, R. 211 Crossan, M.M. 194 cultural issues 24, 33, 53, 113, 123–9, 133, 196–9, 204–8, 213–14, 235–64, 269 see also organizational climate/culture breadth of research 258 collectivism 240–4, 246–7, 249, 251, 254, 259 concepts 235–64 construal of self 255 emic/etic dimensions 245, 255 ethnicity 269 Hofstede’s dimensions 239–40 individualism 240–4, 246–7, 249–51, 254–5, 259 job performance 235–64 masculinity versus femininity 241 multinational teams 259 national cultures 53, 236, 258 performance frameworks 254 power distance 241, 244 research context 269 self-efficacy 255–6 social loafing 241–2, 256, 258 socialization 24, 33, 53 studies 248–53 temporal orientation 241 theoretical rigor of studies 253–6 uncertainty avoidance 241 customer relationships 127–8 customs, organizational climate/culture 123–9 cyberloafing/slacking 132–3 daily diary recordings, coping measurement strategies 165–6 decision making 71, 129–30, 154–5, 248–9 latitude 129–30 resource-based coping theory 154–5 defensive styles, coping 142–3 DeLongis, A. 151–3 demand-control model of strain, concepts 129–30 demand-skill-support model 130 demographic factors, work-family conflict 117–18 Denison, D.R. 124 depression 127 descriptive methods, coping 177, 179 Dewe, Philip 141–91 direct experience see also experience concepts 203–8 Dirsmith, M.W. 34 discourse 21

294

I NDEX

dispositional affectivity 152–3 dissemination, knowledge 195–6, 199–201, 207–11, 221–2, 281–4 divergent thinking, organizational learning 204–8, 214–15 doing/knowing gaps 281 downsizing work stressor 157–8 dynamic interactionism 44 Earley, P.C. 242, 264 Earnings per Share (EPS) 90–2 ecological momentary assessments, coping measurement strategies 165–6 education 4, 274, 283–4 see also learning; training academic detailing 283–4 research 274 socialization 4 effectiveness 159–63, 237 effort, coping definitions 144–5 emails 131 embedded knowledge 199–201, 219, 282 see also knowledge emic cultural dimensions 245, 257 emotion-focused strategies, coping 147–53, 157–8, 161–2, 177, 179–81 employability 43 employer-sponsored programs, work-family conflict 111, 112–13, 122–3 employment see also human resources; job. . . ; work absenteeism 78–81, 130 attitudes 76–7, 89–93 commitment 116–17, 121–2 coping 122–3, 141–83 empowerment 154–5 leadership 113–14, 133 needs’ assessments 117 negotiation responsibilities 111, 112–13 performance issues 113, 121–2, 133, 235–64 placement 113–14, 133 recruitment 33, 113–14, 116–17, 133 retention rates 83–5, 116–17, 121, 219 selection techniques 97–102, 113–14, 115, 117–20, 133 supervision 113–14, 119, 120–2, 133 training 84, 93–7, 113, 122–3, 133 turnover 83–5, 116–17, 121, 219 work-family conflict 111–40 empowerment, resource-based coping theory 154–5 encounter stage, socialization 9–11, 28 EPS see Earnings per Share Erera-Weatherley, P.L. 172–3

Erez, M. 242–3 escape (avoidance) strategies, coping 147–8, 151–2 ethnicity 269 see also cultural issues ethnographic research 5–8 etic cultural dimensions 245, 255 experience see also organizational learning causal ambiguity 215–16 concepts 193–223, 281–2 dimensions 203–20 direct/indirect experience 203–8 future research 220–1 knowledge-creation matrix 197–8 novelty 212–14 observing benefits 206–7 relation-based experience 203, 208–9 spatial dimensions 203–4, 210–11 successes/failures 216–18 task-based experience 203, 208–9 temporal dimensions 218–20 work experience 41–2 expertise 207–11, 278, 282, 285–6 see also skills experts, knowledge transfers 207–11 exploitation/exploration, novelty of experience 212–13 exposure strategies 281–2 extraversion 117–18, 151–3 factor analysis, coping 173–7 Fahr, J. 245–6 failures/successes experiences HROs 276 organizational learning 216–18 socialization 2 families resource-based coping theory 154 socialization 4 work-family conflict 111–40 Farkas, M. 281 fast-paced/volatile work world, meaningful research 265–90 feedback 22–3, 215–16, 252 see also control femininity versus masculinity 241 financial issues see also costs HR 71–102 Fiol, C.M. 194 first-time workers 49–50 see also newcomer. . . Fisher, C.D. 2 Flett, G.L. 151

I NDEX flexibility 275 see also adaptability flu shots 82 Fogarty, T.J. 34 Folkman, S. 143, 145–6, 149–50, 163–6, 168–9, 171, 173–7, 180 formal/informal processes, socialization 118–20 future-based proactive coping 147–9, 155–7, 179–81 Gallup Organization 90 General Motors (GM) 85–6 Gibson, M.K. 51 global issues 52, 53, 236, 253, 258, 259, 267–9 HRM 259 job performance 253, 259 work/workplace changes 267 workforces 268–9 GM see General Motors goal orientation, learning 42 goodness of fit, coping effectiveness 159–63, 178 Gottlieb, B.H. 141, 145–7, 164, 167–70, 175, 182 Greve, H. 210–15 Griffin, M.A. 247–8 groups 194–6, 204–8, 214–15, 221–2, 241–2, 259 Guest, D. 74, 148–9, 170 habitual/automated behaviors, coping 144–6 Hall, D.T. 116 Hamm, S. 275 hardiness, coping 143–4, 150–1, 152–3 Hargadon, A.B. 205 Harrison, S.H. 1–70 Harter, J.K. 90 HC Bridge framework see Human Capital Bridge framework He, Z. 212 healthcare programs 85–9 heterogeneity benefits, organizational learning 204–8, 214–15 Hewitt, P.L. 151 high reliability organizations (HROs) 276–7 high-performance work practices 73, 92–3 high-stretch performance standards 250 Hill, R.P. 122 Hobfoll, S.E. 153–6, 181 Hodgkinson, G. 223 Hofstede, G. 239–40, 253 horizontals, performance 241, 246–7, 254

295

HR see human resources HRM see human resource management HROs see high reliability organizations Hubbard, B. 174–5 Human Capital (HC) Bridge framework 99–100 human resource management, integration needs 116–17 human resource management (HRM) 71–8 behavioral outcomes 71–8 breadth of variables 76 financial outcomes 71–8 future research 77–8 measurement issues 73–5 organizational outcomes 71–8 performance 73–4 productivity 74 quantitative surveys 72 research methodology 72–3 time effects 76–8 valid inferences 75–6 human resources (HR) 70–102 see also employment absenteeism 78–81, 130 attitudes 89–93 challenges 71 concepts 71–102 costs/benefits 71–102 HRM 71–8 IHRM 259 performance issues 113, 121–2, 133, 235–64 presenteeism 81–2 selection programs 97–102, 113–14, 115, 117–20, 133 training programs 84, 93–7, 113, 122–3, 133 turnover 83–5, 116–17, 121, 219 wellness programs 85–9 identity, socialization 33, 37–8 ideologies, socialization 5–6 idiocentrism 248–9 see also individualism IHRM see international human resources management imitation, learning processes 197–8 improvisation experiences, organizational learning 213–14 increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world 267, 275, 278, 280 independent construal of self 255 indirect experience 204–8 see also experience

296

I NDEX

individual differences 41–4, 113–14, 150–3, 255 coping 150–3 cultural variations 255 socialization 41–4 work-family conflict 113–14 individual job performance see job performance individual learning, organizational learning 194–5 individualism 240–4, 246–7, 249–51, 254–5, 259 individualized socialization 13, 27, 30 information processing, research 271, 273 information systems (IS) study 251 information-seeking, socialization 24–5, 29–30 initial stage models, socialization 10–13 innovation 25–7, 204–23 see also organizational learning insider approach, coping 144–5 insidership, socialization 12 institutionalized socialization 8, 13–15, 27, 29–31 see also socialization; total institutions integrative models 29–31 newcomers 27 tactics 13–15, 29–31 instructional approaches, coping checklists 166–8 instrumental research 279 integration needs, human resource management 116–17 integrative socialization models 10–13, 27–31 interactionism 44–6 interdependent construal of self 255 international human resources management (IHRM) 259 Internet 131–3 interorganizational relationships, learning 207–8 interpersonal harmony 245–6 interpersonal relations 122–3 interpretive issues, coping 173–7 investiture-divestiture tactic 13, 15–16 IS see information systems Ito, J.K. 155–6 Iwasaki, Y. 154 Jablin, F.M. 4, 22–4 Japan 251–2 job analysis, work-family conflict 113–16, 133 job design

resource-based coping theory 154–5 work-family conflict 113, 115–16, 129–31, 133 job insecurity 157–8 job performance 113, 121–2, 133, 235–64 see also human resources; performance Campbell’s model 236–40, 253–5, 258 concepts 235–64 contextual performance 239–40, 247–8, 254–6 cultural variations 235–64 future implications 258–9 individual performance 235–64 performance loss 242–3 rigor of studies 253–6 studies 248–59 study robustness 256–9 task performance 239–40, 247–8, 254–5 job redesign, work-family conflict 130–1 job satisfaction 76–7, 90–2, 116–17, 121–2 Johns, G. 270 Jones, G.R. 13 JP Morgan Chase 82 judgements 273 Kennedy-Moore, E. 168–9, 171, 173–4 kibbutz collectivism 242–3 Kinicki, A.J. 147–8 Kirkpatrick, D.L. 93–4 knowing/doing gaps 281 knowledge 36, 115–16, 193–201, 202–3, 204–11, 219–22, 279–84 see also newcomer learning; training absorptive capacity 207–8 acquisition 194–9, 202–3, 219–21 conceptual knowledge 279 depreciation factors 218–19 embedded knowledge 199–201, 219, 282 experts 207–8 measurement challenges 199–200 organizational learning 193–223 spillover 204–8 stock 195, 199–203, 211, 219, 221–2 tacit knowledge 199–201 transfers 195–6, 199–201, 207–11, 221–2, 281–4 knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAOs), worker-focused job analysis 115–16 Kraiger, K. 94 KSAOs see knowledge, skills and abilities Lam, S. 244–6 Lancaster, R. 202 large organizations 52–3 Latack, J. 147–9, 156, 182

I NDEX Lazarus, R. 142–6, 150, 153, 158–9, 162–6, 168–9, 173, 176–82 leader-member exchange (LMX) theory 121–2 leadership see also mentorship; supervision employment 113–14, 119, 120–2, 133 organizational climate/culture 125–6 style 243 learning 117, 118–20, 133, 193–223 see also newcomer learning; organizational learning causal ambiguity 215–16 curves 200–1, 219, 222 definitions 193–4 mindful processes 196–8 organizational change 193–6 organizational climate/culture 196–9, 204–8, 213–14 processes 195, 196–9, 201–3 types 196–9, 215 learning before doing, temporal dimension of experience 220 learning by doing, temporal dimension of experience 220 leisure, resource-based coping theory 154 Levitt, B. 194–6 Lichter, S.R. 4 Liddle, H.A. 178 life course socialization 4–5 LMX see leader-member exchange theory loafing 132–3, 241–2, 256, 258 localized socialization 35–41 belonging 37–8 identity 37–8 mentorship 39–41 support 38–9 uncertainty 38–9 Lockheed 219 locus of control, coping 150–1, 152–3 Long, B.C. 160 longitudinal studies 76–7, 90–1 loyalty factors, supervision 121 Lyles, M.A. 194 McCrae, R.R. 141, 143, 145, 146, 166, 173, 176, 177, 178, 182 Madsen, T. 223 Major, D.A. 111–40 management 96–7, 285–6 see also supervision change 285–6 coping skills 144–6 training programs 96–7 Mansell, R.C. 154

297

Manz, C.C. 24 March, J.G. 194–6 marital structure, work-family conflict 118 Marshall, J. 157–8 masculinity versus femininity 241 Mattson, B.W. 96–7 meaning meaning-focused coping 149 social constructs 1–2 measurement 17–19, 71, 73–5, 83, 95–100, 163–6, 273–4 coping 163–6 employee turnover costs 83 HR 71, 73–5 newcomer learning 17–19 research 273–4 utility analysis 95–100 mediation studies, newcomer learning 19–21 mentorship 12, 20, 34–5, 39–41 see also newcomers; supervisors local socialization 39–41 socialization 12, 20, 34–5 Merck & Company 85 meta-competencies 43 Meyer, H.H. 91 military institutions 7–8, 19 Miller, V.D 22–4 mindful processes, learning 196–8 Mirvis, P.H. 116 misfit issues, coping 159–63, 178 mitigation strategies, research 278 Modes 1 and 2 knowledge production 280 Money, R.B. 251–2 Morrison, R.F. 34 Morrow, C.C. 96 Moskowitz, J.T. 143, 149, 163–6, 168–9, 171, 173–7, 180 motivation, learning 41–3 Moustafa, K.S. 235–64 multi-factor productivity 74 multi-level learning 194–6, 221–2 multinational teams 259 multiple roles, stress 128–9 mutual trust, supervision 121, 132, 206–7 myths, institutional myths 34–5 national culture 52, 236, 258 needs’ assessments, employment 117 negative affectivity 117–18, 151–3 negotiation responsibilities, work-family conflict 111, 112–13 neuroticism 117–18, 151–3

298 newcomer adjustment 2, 9–10, 20, 30–1, 47–8 integrative models 30–1 learning 20 stability 47–8 stage models 9–10 newcomer learning 14–21, 27–8, 41–4 see also socialization; training antecedents/consequences 17, 19–21 capabilities 43–4 discourse 21 domains 17–20 individual differences 41–4 integrative models 27–8 measures 17–19 mediation studies 19–21 priorities 119 socialization 14–21, 27–8, 41–4, 117, 118–20, 133 time aspects 44–8 newcomer proactivity 5, 21–31 antecedents/consequences 24–5 integrative models 27–8 questioning 22 role innovation 25–7 socialization 5, 21–31 tactics 22–4, 29–31 typologies 22–3 uncertainty 21–2 newcomers 1–54 see also socialization adjustment 2, 9–10, 20, 30–1, 47–8 belonging 37–8 control 22–3, 43 identity 37–8 individual differences 41–4 learning 14–21, 27–8, 41–4 mentorship 12, 20, 34–5, 39–41 proactivity 5, 21–31 socialization 1–54 support 38–9 validation 38–9 noise, causal ambiguity 215–16 novelty of experience, organizational learning 212–14, 217 Oakland, S. 171–3 obesity 86 O’Brien, T.B. 151–3 observation coping 144–5 experience observing 206–7 socialization 118–19 OCB see organizational citizenship behaviors

I NDEX occupational groups, coping 157–9 Occupational Safety and Health 127–8 occupational socialization 5–7, 36 Occupational Stress Indicator 149 O’Driscoll, M.P. 151, 171–3 open-ended interviews, coping checklists 172 opportunity costs 80 optimism, coping 152 organizational change see also changes. . . learning 193–6 work stressors 157–9 organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) 239–40, 243–7 organizational climate/culture see also cultural issues concepts 123–4, 196–9, 213–14 leadership 125–6 learning 196–9, 204–8, 213–14 work-family conflict 113, 123–9, 133 organizational interventions, coping 181–2 organizational learning see also experience; learning after-action reviews 197–8 concepts 193–223 context 195–9, 201–3, 204–8 definitions 193–4 divergent thinking 204–8, 214–15 future research 220–1 heterogeneity benefits 204–8, 214–15 improvisation experiences 213–14 individual learning 194–5 interorganizational relationships 207–8 knowledge depreciation 218–19 knowledge stock 195, 199–203, 211, 219, 221–2 knowledge transfers 195–6, 199–201, 207–11, 221–2, 281–4 knowledge-creation matrix 197–8 learning processes 195–9, 201–3 major variables 194–6 multi-level learning 194–6, 221–2 novelty of experience 212–14, 217 performance issues 194, 200–1 recombinations 198 research 193–223 routines 194–6, 219–20 status factors 207–8 successes/failures experiences 216–18 theoretical framework 193–6 training 206–7 organizational outcomes, HRM 71–8 organizational socialization see socialization

I NDEX organizational-entry processes see also socialization work-family conflict 111, 117–20, 133–4 organizing concept, coping challenges 177–9 Ostell, A. 171–3 outcomes, coping effectiveness 159–63 outsider approach, coping 145 outsourcing 274 Ozminkowski, R.J. 88 pace dimension, experience 218–20 Papa, M.J. 51 participation 248–50 Pelletier, K.R. 89 People’s Republic of China (PRC) 244–6, 257 perceptions coping approaches 144–5 organizational climate/culture 123–9, 133 perfectionism 150–1 performance issues 73–4, 113, 121–2, 126–7, 133, 194, 200–1, 235–64 see also job performance concepts 126–7, 194, 200–1 cultural variations 235–64 employment 113, 121–2, 126–7, 133 HRM 73–4 organizational learning 194, 200–1 supervisor support 121–2 task performance 126 person-organization fit 15 person-technology interfaces, work-family conflict 131–3 personal coping resources see also coping concepts 143–4 personal variables, coping 150–3 personality traits coping 143, 150–3 tests 117–18 perspectives, HR 71 pharmaceutical costs 82 phenomenology of socialization 6 Phillips, J.J. 94–5 physical work environment, work-family conflict 129–31 Pied Piper Effect 84 Pisano, G.P. 220–1 placement, employment 113–14, 133 Ployhart, R.E. 257 policy setting 274 positive psychology, coping 179–81

299

power distance 241, 244 newcomers 26 practices, organizational learning 194–6 PRC (People’s Republic of China) 244–6 preemployment processes, work-family conflict 111, 113–17, 133–4 presenteeism 81–2 primary appraisal, coping approaches 143–4, 156, 161–2 problem-focused strategies, coping 147–59, 161–2 productivity 74, 81–2, 84 employee turnover 84 HRM 74 presenteeism 81–2 Protestant work ethic (PWE) 252 proximal/distal mechanisms 32, 35–41, 46 psychodynamic approach, coping 142–3 psychological contracts 112–13 Pulakos, E.D. 265–90 push/pull methods, research 282–3 PWE see Protestant work ethic qualitative analysis 142, 165–6, 222 quantitative analysis 72, 147–9, 163–6, 222–3 questioning 22 racial diversity 269 see also cultural issues Racioppo, M.W. 162, 165, 167, 176 Ramstad, P.M. 97–9 rapid design research table 272 Reagans, R. 201–3, 205, 207 recency dimension, experience 218–20 recruitment 33, 113–14, 116–17, 133 see also employment reduction, uncertainty 22 Reichers, A.E. 45 relation-based experience 203, 208–9 relevance and change components list 280 research 279–81, 284 religious coping 181 replacement costs 84 research 91–2, 141–83, 265–90 applied research 265–86 challenges 265–90 changes 266–86 concepts 265–90 context 269–71, 280–1, 283 coping 141–83 dissemination of knowledge 281–4 fast-paced/volatile work world 265–90

300

I NDEX

research (Continued) faster cycle time 271–5 HRM 72–3, 77–8 implications of change 278–86 opportunities 265–90 organizational learning 193–223 relevance 279–81, 284 socialization 31–49 stability of data 91–2 utilization 283–4 work-family conflict 113–34 work-related stress 113–34, 141–83 work/workplaces 266–71 Research and Development 199, 207, 213 resilience 277–8 resistance, research 277 resonance, coping 152 resource-based coping theory 153–5 resources coping 153–7 HR 71–102 strategy contrasts 156–7 retention rates, employment 83–5, 116–17, 121, 219 Return on Assets (ROA) 90–2 Return on Investment (ROI) 88–9, 92, 94–6, 284 employee attitudes 92 training programs 94–6 utilising research 284 wellness programs 88–9 reverse engineering 206 rites of passage 7 rituals, organizational climate/culture 123–9 ROA see Return on Assets ROI see Return on Investment role acquisition, socialization 4–5 role ambiguity 157 role conflict 157 role innovation, socialization 14, 25–7 role overload 127 Rollag, K. 48 routines mindfulness 196–7 organizational learning 194–6, 219–20 Ryan, A.M. 265–90 Saklofske, D. 160–3, 171, 175 Saks, A.M. 23 Salzinger, L. 1–2 satisfaction, jobs 76–7, 90–2, 116–17, 121–2 Schaufeli, W.B. 157–8 Schein, E.H. 13–16 Schneider, B. 76–7, 89–92

Schneider, M.W. 196–7 Schwartz, S.H. 254 Schwarzer, C. 164–5, 168–70, 181 Schwarzer, R. 164–5, 168–70, 181 scoring keys, coping checklists 170–1, 175–7 SDy parameter, HC Bridge framework 100 secondary appraisal, coping approaches 144, 153–7 selection techniques employment 97–102, 113–14, 115, 117–20, 133 tests 117–18 self-blame 151 self-care coping strategies 148 self-efficacy 43–4, 150–1, 152–3, 255–6 self-esteem, coping 150–1, 152–3 self-regulation 23, 25 self-report coping questionnaires 147–9, 163–6 semi-structured interviews, coping checklists 171–2 sense of coherence, coping 150–1, 152–3 sensemaking 40–4, 53 sensitivity to operations, research 277 separation costs 84 sequential socialization tactics 30 Shadish, W.R. 75 Shiffrin, R.M. 196–7 sick leave 130 see also absenteeism single parents 114, 120–1 size of organizations, socialization 52–3, 269 skills, training researchers 285–6 slack 132–3, 278 Sluss, D.M. 1–70 smoking 86–7 Snyder, C.R. 144–6, 162, 165, 167 social influence 40 social learning 198 social loafing 241–2, 256, 258 social supports, coping 148, 154–6 socialization 1–70, 117, 118–20, 133 see also newcomer. . .; organizational-entry processes agents 7, 119 boundary-crossing socialization 2–3, 119 complex versus simple processes 32–3 concepts 1–70, 117, 118–20, 133 content 16–21, 27–8 context 31–5 default assumptions 49–54 early roots 2–8 facilitating/inhibiting factors 33–4 formal/informal processes 118–20

I NDEX historical perspectives 3–31 individual differences 41–4 individualized socialization 13, 27, 30 institutionalized socialization 8, 13–15, 27, 29–30 integrative models 10–13, 27–31 learning 14–21, 27–8, 41–4 life courses 4–5 localized socialization 35–41 models 9–13, 27–31 myths 34–5 newcomers 1–54 observation 118–19 occupational socialization 5–7, 36 organizational change 118–19 proactivity 5, 29–31 research 31–49 role models 119–20 stage models 9–13, 27–9 supervision 119 support issues 38–9, 119–20 tactics 13–16, 22–4, 27–31, 37 technology 50 time aspects 44–9 total institutions 7–8, 16 training 118–19 tribal socialization 35, 38 work-family conflict 117, 118–20, 133 socially constructed meaning 1–2 socio-demographic resources, coping 153–7 SOEs see state-owned enterprises Somerfield, M.R. 141, 143, 145, 146, 166, 173, 176, 177, 178, 182 Sorensen, O. 202 spatial dimensions, experience 203–4, 210–11 specialized models, socialization 10–13 sport 4 stability, socialization 9–10, 47–8 stability of research data 91–2 stage models 9–13, 27–9 adjustment 9–10 anticipation 9–11 encounter 9–11, 28 initial models 10–13 integrative models 10–13 socialization 9–13, 27–9 specialized models 10–13 stabilization 9–10 Start, K.B. 274 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) 245–6 Stephens, D.L. 122 Stevenson, P.K. 235–64 Stone, A.A. 168–71, 173–4 strategy contrasts, resources 156–7

301

stress see also coping concepts 113–34, 141–83 future challenges 177–82 historical background 142–4 job analysis 115–16 multiple roles 128–9 organizational interventions 181–2 organizing concept 177–9 reduction programs 122–3, 141–83 research 141–83 stressor classifications 127, 129, 157–9 work-family conflict 111–34 Stress and Coping Inventory 149 studies, job performance 248–59 successes/failures experiences organizational learning 216–18 socialization 2 Suls, J. 150–1, 161, 168–9, 175 supervision 39–41, 113–14, 119, 120–2, 132, 133, 206–7, 252 see also leadership; management employment 113–14, 119, 120–2, 133 loyalty factors 121 mutual trust 121, 132, 206–7 socialization 119 support benefits 119–22, 154–5 teleworking 132 work-family conflict 113–14, 119, 120–2, 133 support issues coping 148, 154–6 social supports 148, 154–6 socialization 38–9, 119–20 supervisors 119–22, 154–5 work-family conflict 119–22 surveys, HRM 72 Sutton, R.I. 205 symbolic knowledge 279 symptom-management strategies, coping 147–8 synthesis, analysis 176–7, 179 SYSCO Corporation 77–8, 85 tacit knowledge 36, 199–201 see also knowledge tactics, socialization 13–16, 22–4, 27–31, 37 talentship 99–100 TAPB see Type A behavior task performance 239–40, 247–8, 254–5 see also performance issues task-based experience see also experience concepts 203, 208–9

302

I NDEX

task-focused job analysis 115–16 teams 194–6, 204–8, 214–15, 221–2, 241–2, 259 technology 50, 131–3, 205, 251, 253–4, 267–8, 271–2 see also computers brokering 205 faster research 271–2 IS study 251 person-technology interfaces 131–3 socialization 50 workplaces 253–4, 267–8 telecommuting 50 teleworking 132–3 temporal dimensions, experience 218–20 temporal orientation 48–9, 241 temporary workers 50–1 Tennen, H. 182 tenure 48–9 theoretical rigor, I/O studies 253–6 Thoits, P.A. 156, 173 Thomas, K.W. 280 Thompson, C.A. 124–5 threats, coping 122–3, 141–83 time 44–9, 76–8, 87, 91–2, 122, 218–20, 241, 271–5 employee attitudes 91–2 experience 218–20 HRM 76–8 lags 87, 91–2 management 122 research 271–5 socialization 44–9 temporal orientation 48–9, 241 wellness programs 87 Todorova, G. 193–234 total institutions 7–8, 16 traditional OB outcomes 52 traditional work styles 50–1 training 84, 93–7, 113, 118–19, 122–3, 133, 273, 285–6 see also education; learning employment 84, 93–7, 113, 122–3, 133 organizational learning 206–7 researchers 273, 285–6 socialization 118–19 work-family conflict 113, 118–19, 122–3, 133 traits, sensemaking 42 transactional approach, coping 143–5, 153–4, 178–83 translation skills, research 285 trial-and-error learning 197–8 Triandis, H.C. 241, 249, 253 tribal socialization 35, 38

turning points, socialization 6–7 turnover, employees 83–5, 116–17, 121, 219 Type A behavior (TAPB), coping 151–3 UK see United Kingdom uncertainty 21–2, 38–9, 241, 255 avoidance 241 individualism 255 local socialization 38–9 newcomer socialization 21–2 reduction methods 22 United Kingdom (UK), absenteeism statistics 78–9 United States (US) 78–9, 81, 83, 248–53 absenteeism statistics 78–9 cultural studies 248–53 employee turnover 83 presenteeism 81 University of Michigan 88–9 university newcomers 28–9 upending experiences 2 US see United States utility analysis 95–100 utilizing research 283–4 Uzzi, B. 202 validation, socialization 38–9 values see also beliefs; cultural issues Confucianism 257 Van Maanen, J. 8, 13–16 Van Scooter, J.R. 235–64 verticals, performance 241, 246–7, 254 veterans 1, 6, 49 vicarious learning 187–8 videoconferencing 131–2 VUCA (increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world 267, 275, 278, 280 Wanous, J.P. 9–11 Watson, D. 174–5 wellness programs 85–9 white-collar occupations 51–2 WLB see work-life balance programs Wong, P. 212 work 31–5, 41–2, 50–1, 73, 92–3, 111–40, 253–4, 257, 266–71 see also employment context 31–5, 269–71 experience 41–2 high performance practices 73, 92–3 traditional styles 50–1 values 257

I NDEX workforces 253, 268–71 workplaces 253–4, 266–8 work adjustment see newcomer adjustment work-family conflict 111–40 24/7 work pressures 131–2 career development 122–3, 133 concepts 111–34 coping-oriented training programs 122–3, 154 demand-control model of strain 129–30 demographic factors 117–18 employer-sponsored programs 111, 112–13, 122–3 existing strategies 111–13 I/O psychology 111, 113–34 individual differences 113–14 interference factors 111, 112 job analysis 113–16, 133 job design 113, 115–16, 129–31, 133 limitations in current approaches 111–13 marital structure 118 negative effects 111 negotiation responsibilities 111, 112–13 organizational climate/culture 113, 123–9, 133 organizational-entry processes 111, 117–20, 133–4 person-technology interfaces 131–3 physical work environment 129–31

303

preemployment processes 111, 113–17, 133–4 recruitment 113–14, 116–17, 133 reduction strategies 111–34 research 113–34 retention rates 116–17, 121 size of family 118 socialization 117, 118–20, 133 stressor classifications 127, 129 supervision 113–14, 119, 120–2, 133 support issues 119–22 training 113, 118–19, 122–3, 133 work-life programs 111, 112, 116, 119, 121 work-life-cycle processes 111, 116–17, 120–34 work-life balance (WLB) programs 112–13, 121 career repercussions 112 work-family conflict 111, 112, 116, 119, 121 work-life-cycle processes, work-family conflict 111, 116–17, 120–34 work-related stress see stress worker-focused job analysis 115–16 worksite wellness programs 85–9 writing, research dissemination 282 Zeidner, M. 160–3, 171, 175

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology CONTENTS OF PREVIOUS VOLUMES VOLUME 21—2006 1. A Walk on the Safe Side: The Implications of Learning Theory for Developing Effective Safety and Health Training Michael J. Burke, David Holman, and Kamaljit Birdi 2. Task Analysis John Annett and Neville Stanton 3. Uncovering Workplace Interpersonal Skills: A Review, Framework, and Research Agenda Cameron Klein, Renée E. DeRouin, and Eduardo Salas

1 45

79

4. Attribution Theory in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Review Mark J. Martinko, Scott C. Douglas, and Paul Harvey

127

5. International Management: Some Key Challenges for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Paul R. Sparrow

189

6. Women in Management: An Update on Their Progress and Persistent Challenges Karen S. Lyness and Jolie M.B. Terrazas

267

7. Advances in the Science of Performance Appraisal: Implications for Practice Gary P. Latham and Sara Mann

295

8. Qualitative Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology Catherine Cassell and Gillian Symon

339

306

C ONTENTS OF P REVIOUS V OLUMES VOLUME 20—2005

1. Mergers and Acquisitions: An Update and Appraisal Susan Cartwright

1

2. Social Identity in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Concepts, Controversies, and Contributions S. Alexander Haslam and Naomi Ellemers

39

3. Personality in Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Not Much More than Cheese Jose M. Cortina and Michael J. Ingerick

119

4. Organizational Justice across Human Resource Management Decisions Stephen W. Gilliland and Layne Paddock

149

5. Contributions of Industrial/Organizational Psychology to Safety in Commercial Aircraft Don Harris and Lauren Thomas

177

6. Emotion in Organizations: A Neglected Topic in I/O Psychology, but with a Bright Future Neal M. Ashkanasy and Claire E. Ashton-James

221

7. Burnout and Health Review: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions Arie Shirom, Samuel Melamed, Sharon Toker, Shlomo Berliner, and Itzhak Shapira

269

VOLUME 19—2004 1. Empowerment and Performance Toby D. Wall, Stephen J. Wood, and Desmond J. Leach 2. 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Organizations: Research Themes and Emerging Needs Eduardo Salas, Kevin C. Stagl, and C. Shawn Burke 3. Creating Healthy Workplaces: The Supervisor’s Role Brad Gilbreath 4. Work Experience: A Review and Research Agenda Miguel A. Quinones ˜

1

47 93 119

C ONTENTS OF P REVIOUS V OLUMES

307

5. Workplace Experiences of Lesbian and Gay Employees: A Review of Current Research Brian Welle and Scott B. Button

139

6. My Job is My Castle: Identification in Organizational Contexts Rolf van Dick

171

7. Virtual Teams: Collaborating across Distance Carolyn M. Axtell, Steven J. Fleck, and Nick Turner

205

8. Learning at Work: Training and Development Sabine Sonnentag, Cornelia Niessen, and Sandra Ohly

249

VOLUME 18—2003 1. Flexible Working Arrangements: Implementation, Outcomes, and Management Suzan Lewis 2. Economic Psychology Erich Kirchler and Erik Holzl ¨ 3. Sleepiness in the Workplace: Causes, Consequences, and Countermeasures Autumn D. Krauss, Peter Y. Chen, Sarah DeArmond, and Bill Moorcroft 4. Research on Internet Recruiting and Testing: Current Status and Future Directions Filip Lievens and Michael M. Harris 5. Workaholism: A Review of Theory, Research, and Future Directions Lynley H.W. McMillan, Michael P. O’Driscoll, and Ronald J. Burke 6. Ethnic Group Differences and Measuring Cognitive Ability Helen Baron, Tamsin Martin, Ashley Proud, Kirsty Weston, and Chris Elshaw 7. Implicit Knowledge and Experience in Work and Organizations André Bussing ¨ and Britta Herbig

1 29

81

131

167

191

239

308

C ONTENTS OF P REVIOUS V OLUMES VOLUME 17—2002

Coping with Job Loss: A Life-facet Perspective, Frances M. McKee-Ryan and Angelo J. Kinicki; The Older Worker in Organizational Context: Beyond the Individual, James L. Farr and Erika L. Ringseis; Employment Relationships from the Employer’s Perspective: Current Research and Future Directions, Anne Tsui and Duanxu Wang; Great Minds Don’t Think Alike? Person-level Predictors of Innovation at Work, Fiona Patterson; Past, Present and Future of Cross-cultural Studies in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Sharon Glazer; Executive Health: Building Self-reliance for Challenging Times, Jonathan D. Quick, Cary L. Cooper, Joanne H. Gavin, and James Campbell Quick; The Influence of Values in Organizations: Linking Values and Outcomes at Multiple Levels of Analysis, Naomi I. Maierhofer, Boris Kabanoff, and Mark A. Griffin; New Research Perspectives and Implicit Managerial Competency Modeling in China, Zhong-Ming Wang

VOLUME 16—2001 Age and Work Behaviour: Physical Attributes, Cognitive Abilities, Knowledge, Personality Traits and Motives, Warr; Organizational Attraction and Job Choice, Highouse and Hoffman; The Psychology of Strategic Management: Diversity and Cognition Revisited, Hodgkinson; Vacations and Other Respites: Studying Stress on and off the Job, Eden; Cross-cultural Industrial/Organisational Psychology, Smith, Fischer, and Sale; International Uses of Selection Methods, Newell and Tansley; Domestic and International Relocation for Work, Feldman; Understanding the Assessment Centre Process: Where Are We Now?, Lievens and Klimoski

VOLUME 15—2000 Psychological Contracts: Employee Relations for the Twenty-first Century?, Millward and Brewerton; Impacts of Telework on Individuals, Organizations and Families—A Critical Review, Kondradt, Schmook, and Mälecke; Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: A General Model and an Overview of Findings, Rauch and Frese; Conceptual and Empirical Gaps in Research on Individual Adaptation at Work, Chan; Understanding Acts of Betrayal: Implications for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Pearce and Henderson; Working Time, Health and Performance, Spurgeon and Cooper; Expertise at Work: Experience and Excellent Performance, Sonnentag; A Rich and Rigorous Examination of Applied Behavior Analysis Research in the World of Work, Komaki, Coombs, Redding, Jr, and Schepman


309

VOLUME 14—1999 Personnel Selection Methods, Salgado; System Safety—An Emerging Field for I/O Psychology, Fahlbruch and Wilpert; Work Control and Employee Well-being: A Decade Review, Terry and Jimmieson; Multi-source Feedback Systems: A Research Perspective, Fletcher and Baldry; Workplace Bullying, Hoel, Rayner, and Cooper; Work Performance: A Multiple Regulation Perspective, Roe; A New Kind of Performance for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Recent Contributions to the Study of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organ and Paine; Conflict and Performance in Groups and Organizations, de Dreu, Harinck, and van Vianen

VOLUME 13—1998 Team Effectiveness in Organizations, West, Borrill, and Unsworth; Turnover, Maertz and Campion; Learning Strategies and Occupational Training, Warr and Allan; Meta-analysis, Fried and Ager; General Cognitive Ability and Occupational Performance, Ree and Carretta; Consequences of Alternative Work Schedules, Daus, Sanders, and Campbell; Organizational Men: Masculinity and Its Discontents, Burke and Nelson; Women’s Careers and Occupational Stress, Langan-Fox; Computer-Aided Technology and Work: Moving the Field Forward, Majchrzak and Borys

VOLUME 12—1997 The Psychology of Careers in Organizations, Arnold; Managerial Career Advancement, Tharenou; Work Adjustment: Extension of the Theoretical Framework, Tziner and Meir; Contemporary Research on Absence from Work: Correlates, Causes and Consequences, Johns; Organizational Commitment, Meyer; The Explanation of Consumer Behaviour: From Social Cognition to Environmental Control, Foxall; Drug and Alcohol Programs in the Workplace: A Review of Recent Literature, Harris and Trusty; Progress in Organizational Justice: Tunneling through the Maze, Cropanzano and Greenberg; Genetic Influence on Mental Abilities, Personality, Vocational Interests and Work Attitudes, Bouchard

VOLUME 11—1996 Self-esteem and Work, Locke, McClear, and Knight; Job Design, Oldham; Fairness in the Assessment Centre, Baron and Janman; Subgroup Differences Associated with Different Measures of Some Common Job-relevant Constructs, Schmitt, Clause and Pulakos; Common Practices in Structural Equation

310


Modeling, Kelloway; Contextualism in Context, Payne; Employee Involvement, Cotton; Part-time Employment, Barling and Gallagher; The Interface between Job and Off-job Roles: Enhancement and Conflict, O’Driscoll

VOLUME 10—1995 The Application of Cognitive Constructs and Principles to the Instructional Systems Model of Training: Implications for Needs Assessment, Design, and Transfer, Ford and Kraiger; Determinants of Human Performance in Organizational Settings, Smith; Personality and Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Schneider and Hough; Managing Diversity: New Broom or Old Hat?, Kandola; Unemployment: Its Psychological Costs, Winefield; VDUs in the Workplace: Psychological Health Implications, Bramwell and Cooper; The Organizational Implications of Teleworking, Chapman, Sheehy, Heywood, Dooley, and Collins; The Nature and Effects of Method Variance in Organizational Research, Spector and Brannick; Developments in Eastern Europe and Work and Organizational Psychology, Roe

VOLUME 9—1994 Psychosocial Factors and the Physical Environment: Inter-relations in the Workplace, Evans, Johansson, and Carrere; Computer-based Assessment, Bartram; Applications of Meta-Analysis: 1987–1992, Tett, Meyer, and Roese; The Psychology of Strikes, Bluen; The Psychology of Strategic Management: Emerging Themes of Diversity and Cognition, Sparrow; Industrial and Organizational Psychology in Russia: The Concept of Human Functional States and Applied Stress Research, Leonova; The Prevention of Violence at Work: Application of a Cognitive Behavioural Theory, Cox and Leather; The Psychology of Mergers and Acquisitions, Hogan and Overmyer-Day; Recent Developments in Applied Creativity, Kabanoff and Rossiter

VOLUME 8—1993 Innovation in Organizations, Anderson and King; Management Development, Baldwin and Padgett; The Increasing Importance of Performance Appraisals to Employee Effectiveness in Organizational Settings in North America, Latham, Skarlicki, Irvine, and Siegel; Measurement Issues in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Hesketh; Medical and Physiological Aspects of Job Interventions, Theorell; Goal Orientation and Action Control Theory, Farr, Hofmann, and Ringenbach; Corporate Culture, Furnham and Gunter; Organizational Downsizing: Strategies, Interventions, and Research Implications,


311

Kozlowski, Chao, Smith, and Hedlund; Group Processes in Organizations, Argote and McGrath

VOLUME 7—1992 Work Motivation, Kanfer; Selection Methods, Smith and George; Research Design in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Schaubroeck and Kuehn; A Consideration of the Validity and Meaning of Self-report Measures of Job Conditions, Spector; Emotions in Work and Achievement, Pekrun and Frese; The Psychology of Industrial Relations, Hartley; Women in Management, Burke and McKeen; Use of Background Data in Organizational Decisions, Stokes and Reddy; Job Transfer, Brett, Stroh, and Reilly; Shopfloor Work Organization and Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Wall and Davids

VOLUME 6—1991 Recent Developments in Industrial and Organizational Psychology in People’s Republic of China, Wang; Mediated Communications and New Organizational Forms, Andriessen; Performance Measurement, Ilgen and Schneider; Ergonomics, Megaw; Ageing and Work, Davies, Matthews, and Wong; Methodological Issues in Personnel Selection Research, Schuler and Guldin; Mental Health Counseling in Industry, Swanson and Murphy; Person–Job Fit, Edwards; Job Satisfaction, Arvey, Carter, and Buerkley

VOLUME 5—1990 Laboratory vs. Field Research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dipboye; Managerial Delegation, Hackman and Dunphy; Cross-cultural Issues in Organizational Psychology, Bhagat, Kedia, Crawford, and Kaplan; Decision Making in Organizations, Koopman and Pool; Ethics in the Workplace, Freeman; Feedback Systems in Organizations, Algera; Linking Environmental and Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Ornstein; Cognitive Illusions and Personnel Management Decisions, Brodt; Vocational Guidance, Taylor and Giannantonio

VOLUME 4—1989 Selection Interviewing, Keenan; Burnout in Work Organizations, Shirom; Cognitive Processes in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Lord and Maher; Cognitive Style and Complexity, Streufert and Nogami; Coaching and Practice

312


Effects in Personnel Selection, Sackett, Burris, and Ryan; Retirement, Talaga and Beehr; Quality Circles, Van Fleet and Griffin; Control in the Workplace, Ganster and Fusilier; Job Analysis, Spector, Brannick, and Coovert; Japanese Management, Smith and Misumi; Casual Modelling in Organizational Research, James and James

VOLUME 3—1988 The Significance of Race and Ethnicity for Understanding Organizational Behavior, Alderfer and Thomas; Training and Development in Work Organizations, Goldstein and Gessner; Leadership Theory and Research, Fiedler and House; Theory Building in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Webster and Starbuck; The Construction of Climate in Organizational Research, Rousseau; Approaches to Managerial Selection, Robertson and Iles; Psychological Measurement, Murphy; Careers, Driver; Health Promotion at Work, Matteson and Ivancevich; Recent Developments in the Study of Personality and Organizational Behavior, Adler and Weiss

VOLUME 2—1987 Organization Theory, Bedeian; Behavioural Approaches to Organizations, Luthans and Martinko; Job and Work Design, Wall and Martin; Human Interfaces with Advanced Manufacturing Systems, Wilson and Rutherford; Human–Computer Interaction in the Office, Frese; Occupational Stress and Health, Mackay and Cooper; Industrial Accidents, Sheehy and Chapman; Interpersonal Conflicts in Organizations, Greenhalgh; Work and Family, Burke and Greenglass; Applications of Meta-analysis, Hunter and Rothstein Hirsh

VOLUME 1—1986 Work Motivation Theories, Locke and Henne; Personnel Selection Methods, Muchinsky; Personnel Selection and Equal Employment Opportunity, Schmit and Noe; Job Performance and Appraisal, Latham; Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, Griffin and Bateman; Quality of Worklife and Employee Involvement, Mohrman, Ledford, Lawler, and Mohrman; Women at Work, Gutek, Larwood, and Stromberg; Being Unemployed, Fryer and Payne; Organization Analysis and Praxis, Golembiewski; Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Stone

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2007 (International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology)

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2006 (International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology)

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology