Management and Marketing - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableA brighter vision of the potential of open science for benefiting practice: A ManyOrgs Proposal(Cambridge University Press, 2022-08-30)Guzzo et al. (2022), in their focal article express concerns that rewarding open science practices, particularly in scholarly publishing, may harm the practical relevance of our research. They go on to urge greater reliance on conceptual replication over direct or exact replication to verify claims in our field. Although we concur with the majority of their recommendations, their prescriptions nevertheless do not fully address the deeper issue of publication and outcome reporting bias traceable to insufficient resources. Other sciences have effectively addressed this resource problem via crowdsourcing, large-scale collaborations, and multi-site replication (both conceptual and direct). Such initiatives are a pragmatic, if challenging to implement, solution to problems that face many areas of science such as ours (e.g., ensuring sufficient statistical power, assessing the generalizability and replicability of effects, spurring the uptake of open science practices, promoting diversity and inclusivity). Here, we propose that IO psychologists create such an initiative that primarily services practice. We tentatively call this initiative ‘ManyOrgs’. We also clarify how this open science initiative complements Guzzo et al.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableA brighter vision of the potential of open science for benefiting practice: A ManyOrgs Proposal(Cambridge University Press, 2022)Guzzo et al. (2022), in their focal article express concerns that rewarding open science practices, particularly in scholarly publishing, may harm the practical relevance of our research. They go on to urge greater reliance on conceptual replication over direct or exact replication to verify claims in our field. Although we concur with the majority of their recommendations, their prescriptions nevertheless do not fully address the deeper issue of publication and outcome reporting bias traceable to insufficient resources. Other sciences have effectively addressed this resource problem via crowdsourcing, large scale collaborations, and multi-site replication (both conceptual and direct). Such initiatives are a pragmatic, if challenging to implement, solution to problems that face many areas of science such as ours (e.g., ensuring sufficient statistical power, assessing the generalizability and replicability of effects, spurring the uptake of open science practices, promoting diversity and inclusivity). Here, we propose that IO psychologists create such an initiative that primarily services practice. We tentatively call this initiative ‘ManyOrgs’. We also clarify how this open science initiative complements Guzzo et al.
-
ItemQualitative methods for studying age and work(SIOP Organizational Frontier Series, 2022)In this chapter, we describe and discuss innovative ways for employing qualitative methods in the field of age and work. Our aim is to inspire researchers to explore how qualitative methods may allow them to address research questions that they have so far been unable to examine using quantitative methods alone. We provide an introduction to qualitative research methods by outlining core characteristics of these methods, opportunities they afford, challenges researchers need to manage, and giving recommendations for their application. We also introduce a taxonomy that connects key dimensions of aging research with core aims of qualitative research, develop research questions that emerge from this taxonomy, and illustrate how qualitative methods can advance the research domain of age and work.
-
ItemSituation strength as a basis for interactions in psychological models(American Psychological Association, 2021)One of the most important methods that psychological scientists use to understand behavior and cognition is theorizing. Increasingly, theorizing is used to support not only additive hypotheses, but also multiplicative ones. And yet, authors often struggle to provide adequate theoretical justifications for multiplicative hypotheses. In the late1960’s and early 1970’s, W. Mischel averred that, in “strong” situations, behavior is relatively uniform regardless of one’s personality characteristics. In “weak” situations,that is, those that lack clear behavioral expectations, behavior is not constrained by the situation and is free to covary with personality. This is the situational strength interaction, and although this reasoning has been applied to personality-behavior models, we show that it can be used to justify many interaction models in psychology more generally. In some cases, such reasoning may serve to bolster the more traditional interaction arguments. In other cases, it shows that the traditional interaction arguments must be incorrect. In this tutorial, we describe a generalized situation strength phenomenon, called the restricted variance interaction , that can be used to pinpoint the nature, direction, and even the magnitude of many interaction hypotheses in the psychological sciences. We illustrate the value and application of restricted variance reasoning using examples from the workplace mistreatment literature and then extrapolate to several other areas of psychology.
-
ItemPrestige Does not Equal Quality: Lack of Research Quality in High-Prestige Journals(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2020)Publishing in high-prestige journals is a top priority on most researchers’ to do list, especially if they are early in their career or want to get or keep a job, get tenure, get promoted, or build a reputation in their field. This seems to be a sound strategy, as one might say that selection, promotion, and tenure committees always count, but they don’t always read (e.g., Aguinis et al.,2019). That is, the criteria by which a researcher’s output and quality of work is assessed is by the journals in which they have published and by the impact factors that these journals have accrued at the time of the author’s publication rather than by the actual content of the work (e.g., Addo, 2017). Publishing in “top” journals is further encouraged (financially or in other ways) by department chairs and deans, as some university rankings depend heavily on how often faculty members publish in them (UTD, 2020).
-
Item
-
ItemUsing Scripts to Address Cultural and Institutional Challenges of Global Project Coordination(Palgrave Macmillan (part of Springer Nature), 2021)Complex project work often is carried out by groups spanning national and cultural boundaries. This work is vulnerable to poorly understood coordination breakdowns that can lead to project delay and failure. We conceptualize coordination breakdowns to be driven by differences in cognitive and behavioral scripts for coordination of the task. We propose that script differences emerge from cultural and institutional influences on role structures, temporal structures, and cues. This conceptualization integrates theory concerning cultural differences and institutions to understand coordination breakdowns. We also propose that coordination scripts draw on overarching sociocultural templates for coordination, and we provide examples from four cultures. The concepts of coordination scripts and cultural coordination templates open new avenues of research and benefit global project coordination and mitigation of risk.
-
ItemSupporting Robust, Rigorous, and Reliable Reviewing as the Cornerstone of Our Profession: Introducing a Competency Framework for Peer Review(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2020-03-01)Peer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.
-
ItemPlay It Again, Sam! An Analysis of Constructive Replication in the Organizational Sciences(SAGE Publications, 2021-02-01)Replication is an essential part of any science, confirming or adjusting our understanding of the world through repeated exploration of a phenomenon of interest. While there has been an increased interest in the role of replication studies, there also exists skepticism regarding the need for more replication. Our empirical analysis of 406 recent studies that use the term “replication” suggests that this criticism stems from a lack of appreciation of the different forms that replication can take, the prevalence (or lack thereof) of many of these forms, and the objectives that are met by one of the least common forms, constructive replication. As such, the purposes of our paper are (1) to explore the different forms that constructive replication can take and the objectives at which each can be directed, (2) to distinguish these forms from other forms of replication with which they are often confused, (3) to determine how common each form of replication is in our field, and (4) to provide concrete examples of different forms of constructiveness from published studies in order to pave the way towards more (and more useful) replications in the future.
-
ItemHow you see me, how you don’t: ethnic identity self-verification in interactions between local subsidiary employees and ethnically similar expatriates(Taylor & Francis (Routledge), 2020)Multinational corporations often assign expatriates who share an ethnicity with host country employees (termed ethnically similar expatriates) to work on international assignments. Although sharing an ethnicity with local employees can be an advantage, it also creates a unique identity challenge. In this article, we develop the argument that ethnic similarity might in fact threaten expatriate-local employee interactions if the two parties hold divergent views towards the importance of expatriates’ ethnic identity in their interactions. Drawing on self-verification theory, we explain why people desire to achieve congruence between how they view their own identity and how others view this identity. Subsequently, we identify key cultural and personal constraints affecting expatriates’ efforts to achieve ethnic identity self-verification. We also illustrate how unfulfilled ethnic identity self-verification affects ethnically similar expatriates, local employees and their interactions. Our study, thus, introduces a new angle to understand expatriate-local employee interactions and advances self-verification research by demonstrating the challenges in achieving ethnic identity self-verification when two social parties share an ethnicity.