Understanding knowledge hiding in organizations

In our introduction to this special issue on understanding knowledge hiding in organizations, we provide some context to how and why this phenomenon should be studied. We then describe the five articles that comprise the special issue, and we note some common themes and divergences in this collection. Our introduction concludes with some suggestions for future research on knowledge hiding in organizations.     

The effects of managerial and employee attributions for corporate social responsibility initiatives

Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) can affect employees, we know little about how it affects them. Employees' interpretation of CSR is important because of the paradoxical nature of CSR. When firms operate in ways that seem counter to their nature (i.e., pursuit of social good rather than profit), the causal attributions of affected employees are crucial to understanding their work‐related behavior, as is the role of contextual factors such as leadership processes in shaping these attributions. Drawing from attribution and social learning theories, we develop a multilevel social influence theory of how CSR affects employees. We integrate managers as second observers in the baseline actor (i.e., firm)—observer (i.e., employee) dyad, whereas most attribution theory research has focused on single actor–observer dyads. Multisource field data collected from 427 employees and 45 managers were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling. Managers' genuine (self‐serving) CSR attributions are positively related to employees' genuine (self‐serving) CSR attributions; and the strength of the relationship between managers' and employees' genuine CSR attributions depends on managers' organizational tenure. Employees' genuine CSR attributions also are positively related to employee advocacy, whereas—interestingly—employees' self‐serving CSR attributions do not appear to harm employee advocacy. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Information,beliefs, and motivation: The antecedents to human resource attributions

Despite significant interest in the attributions employees make about their organization's human resource (HR) practices, there is little understanding of the antecedents of HR attributions. Drawing on attribution theory, we suggest that HR attributions are influenced by information (perceptions of distributive and procedural fairness), beliefs (organizational cynicism), and motivation (perceived relevance). We test a model through a two‐wave survey of 347 academic faculty in the United Kingdom, examining their attributions of the purpose of their institution's workload management framework. After two preliminary studies (an interview study and a cross‐sectional survey) to establish contextually relevant attributions, we find that fairness and cynicism are important for the formation of internal attributions of commitment but less so for cost‐saving or exploitation attributions. Fairness and cynicism also interact such that distributive fairness buffers the negative attributional effect of cynicism, and individuals are more likely to attribute fair procedures to external forces if they are cynical about their organization. This study furthers the application of attribution theory to the organizational domain while making significant contributions to our understanding of the HR‐performance process.     

From being diverse to becoming diverse: A dynamic team diversity theory

On the basis of the literature of open systems and team diversity, we present a new dynamic team diversity theory that explains the effect of change in team diversity on team functioning and performance in the context of dynamic team composition. Building upon the conceptualization of teams as open systems, we describe the enlargement and decline of team variety, separation, and disparity through member addition, subtraction, and substitution. Then, focusing on diversity enlargement, we theorize the contemporaneous and lasting effects of team diversity change on team performance change and on team processes and states leading to them. Dynamic team diversity theory expands the focus of team diversity research from teams' being more diverse than others to teams' becoming more diverse than before. It aims to advance team diversity research to be better aligned with the organizational reality of dynamic team composition. We also discuss methodological considerations in subsequent empirical testing of the theory and highlight how the theory and future research may help to guide organizational practice in recomposing work teams.     

The missing link? Implications of internal,external, and relational attribution combinations for leader–member exchange,relationship work,self‐work,and conflict

Attributions are causal explanations made by individuals in response to important, novel, and/or unexpected events. Numerous attribution theories have examined how people use information to make attributions and how attributions impact an individual's subsequent emotions and outcomes. However, this research has only recently considered the implications of dyadic‐level attributions (i.e., relational attributions), particularly in the context of leader–follower relationships in organizations. Therefore, the purpose of this theoretical paper is threefold. First, we integrate research on attributional biases into the research on relational attributions. Second, we integrate and extend attribution theory to consider the implications of convergent and divergent internal, external‐person, external‐situational, and relational attributions for leader–member exchange (LMX) quality, relationship work, self‐work, and conflict. Third, we make the implicit ranking of attribution combinations and the resultant levels of relationship work explicit. In doing so, we contribute to attribution theory and research by proposing how attribution combinations produce positive and negative outcomes that are both intrapersonal and interpersonal. Further, we contribute to the LMX literature by explicating how leader–follower attribution combinations influence relationship quality.     

A critique on neuroscientific methodologies in organizational behavior and management studies

Organizational neuroscience continues to flourish in organizational behavior and management studies as indicated by the growing number of publications. However, with a few exceptions, substantive critiques of organizational neuroscience are conspicuous by their absence. In this point–counterpoint article, we aim to redress this imbalance. We do so by asking two significant yet neglected questions: (i) how strong is the science behind this domain, and (ii) why are we doing this type of research (the so what? question)? Our analysis shows that the science behind organizational neuroscience is far less rigorous than currently advocated (due to low statistical power of some neuroimaging studies plus an inability to locate mental phenomena precisely in the brain). In terms of the so what? question, we encourage researchers to move away from general statements and become more specific about the phenomena they research. We contend that the practical implications of this research, as well as inferences of the link to behavioral changes, are currently overstated. We also underscore the importance for these studies to become contextually sensitive in order for the researchers to capture important events in the workplace. Finally, we offer some suggestions for future research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The problem with [in] management theory

Theory is essential to everything that we do as people studying and practicing industrial/organizational psychology and organizational behavior. But, I think that our field has lost its way recently and become enamored by shiny objects and interesting puzzles. Advancing management theory seems to have become an end state in and of itself. We seemed to be far more concerned with the entertainment value of theories than we are with their scientific rigor or real‐world value. Top journals in our field are mandating that all articles must make a theoretical contribution, and theoretical contributions are being gauged primarily in terms of how innovative, counter‐intuitive, surprising, and interesting they may be. I advocate for a more balanced approach, and in particular, for greater use of abductive inference. I argue that if you start with a real‐world challenge and draw from existing theory, and then develop new theory to understand and change things, you are also making a theoretical contribution. Whether or not we are guided by theory is not really at issue—at issue is how well developed are our theories, how accurate are they, and do they help us to improve organizational life for everyone involved?     

Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction with work–family balance: A moderating role of perceived insider status

This study developed a moderated mediation model to investigate how family‐supportive paid leave and supervision affect employees' satisfaction with work–family balance and in turn their affective organizational commitment and supervisor‐directed organizational citizenship behavior depending on their perceived insider status in the organization. Our analysis of data collected from 118 employee–supervisor dyads in Korean organizations revealed that satisfaction with work–family balance mediated the linkages from family‐supportive supervision to affective organizational commitment and supervisor‐directed organizational citizenship behavior, and the linkage from family‐supportive paid leave to affective organizational commitment. Results further showed that the entire mediational process for family‐supportive supervision was more pronounced for those who perceived themselves to be an insider of their organizations, while the same pattern was not found for the meditational process related to family‐supportive paid leave. Our findings provide theoretical implications for work–family balance research and offer practical suggestions to make employees satisfied with work–family balance.     

External relational attributions: Attributing cause to others' relationships

I present an attributional approach to understanding how people perceive and respond to the effects of others' relationships in the workplace by suggesting that people perceive others' relationships to be causal sources of workplace outcomes. Specifically, I suggest that individuals' responses to negative outcomes at work can be better understood by differentiating between two types of external attributional explanations: external relational attributions and external nonrelational attributions. This research focuses on the conceptual development of external relational attributions, which are defined as those attributional explanations made for outcomes or behaviors experienced or observed by a focal individual that locate the cause of an outcome within the relationship between two others (people, groups, organizations, or any combination), not including the focal individual. Further, I propose situational antecedents and behavioral outcomes of external relational attributions, with an emphasis on individuals' behaviors toward others' relationships. Lastly, I highlight the advantages of considering the role of others' relationships when applying attribution theory to a variety of organizational phenomena and present directions for future research.     

Consequential cognition: Exploring how attribution theory sheds new light on the firm‐level consequences of product recalls

It is unclear why some firms suffer greater negative consequences than others following a product recall. To shed light on this question, we extend attribution theory to the firm level to explore how consumers engage in an attributional process following product recalls that shapes their responses to firms. Integrating attribution theory and the demand side theoretical perspective, we assert that consumer judgments of responsibility toward manufacturers are shaped by causal data regarding the locus of causality (i.e., manufacturer or supplier) and controllability (i.e., prior knowledge or awareness) of a recalled product's potential for harm. We then examine the impact of product recall characteristics on judgments of responsibility and firm‐level outcomes using an experimental test involving responses from 320 subjects. Our findings suggest that judgments of responsibility are attributed to the manufacturing firm more when consumers are given causal information indicating that the firm is the source of, or is aware of, a product's defects. The results also indicate that judgments of responsibility can have costly firm‐level consequences in the form of reputational damage, diminished consumer purchase intentions, and increased legal damage recommendations. We discuss theoretical contributions, practical implications, and opportunities for further research.     

The industry settings of leading organizational research: the role of economic and non‐economic factors

Despite calls for attention to the role of context in organizational research, there have been no assessments of the distribution of industry contexts in organizational research. This paper explores that distribution in relation to the industry composition of the U.S. economy. Our analysis of 914 empirical field studies published in four leading journals from 1988 to 2002 reveals striking, persistent, and growing discrepancies between the industries that are economically important and the industries that have served as settings for organizational research. For example, education and manufacturing are oversampled in relation to their economic importance, while real estate, construction, wholesale, and retail are undersampled. We also develop and test a series of hypotheses predicting which industries serve as the contexts for leading research. Using negative binomial regression, we show that the percentage of recent MBA graduates in an industry and the percentage of employees with doctoral degrees in an industry predict the number of articles set in that industry, with the total number of employees and average establishment size in an industry enhancing the power of the model. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for advancing organizational theory and research methods. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Neuroscience and organizational behavior: Avoiding both neuro‐euphoria and neuro‐phobia

Organizational neuroscience has great promise for advancing organizational research and practice. The field, however, is developing rapidly and has also become the subject of technological and methodological challenges that must be considered when conducting or interpreting neuroscience research as applied to organizational behavior. We explore four issues we deem to be important in understanding the role of neuroscience in organizational behavior research: (i) neuroscientific research and reductionism; (ii) the need to address methodological and technological challenges in conducting this type of research; (iii) how neuroscientific research is meaningful in organizations (the “So what?” issue); and (iv) neuroscience as just another management fad. In addressing these issues, we hope to set out a roadmap that will enable organizational scholars to avoid past mistakes and thus serve to advance multidisciplinary research in organizational behavior using neuroscientific approaches. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Organizational neuroscience: The promise and prospects of an emerging discipline

We review and discuss an Organizational Neuroscience perspective on management science research. Reviewing recent findings in the brain sciences, we provide concrete examples of how an organizational neuroscience perspective can advance organizational behavior research. We conclude that this new paradigm offers powerful insights and tools that complement traditional organizational research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

General and specific measures in organizational behavior research: Considerations,examples, and recommendations for researchers

Deliberation over and relative preference for general or specific (broad or narrow) constructs has long been an important issue in organizational behavior research. In this article, we provide a review of this general issue and some specific recommendations for researchers. We begin by discussing whether the general versus specific issue is an important debate and by discussing other underlying issues (the role of researcher preferences, distinction between reflective and formative indicators, and distinction between constructs and measures of constructs). Building on Chen's (this issue) analysis of core self‐evaluations, we first discuss how the general–specific debate has progressed in core self‐evaluations research. We then discuss three other important areas in which this debate has played out: intelligence, five‐factor model of personality, and job attitudes. Finally, we offer a framework to help guide decisions about whether to utilize general measures, specific measures, or both and conclude by providing recommendations for the use of general and specific measures in organizational behavior research. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Subjective time in organizations: Conceptual clarification,integration, and implications for future research

Despite the rapid growth of organizational research on subjective time, the extant literature is fragmented due to a lack of conceptual clarification and integration of temporal constructs. To address this fragmentation, we synthesize temporal research from both organizational behavior and adjacent disciplines (i.e., strategy, entrepreneurship, and organizational theory) and introduce a framework that allocates temporal constructs according to their basic conceptual nature (trait–state) and level of analysis (individual–collective). We employed the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count text analysis to determine the trait–state property of the constructs and a coding method to determine their level of analysis. This framework categorizes four generic types of subjective time: individual temporal disposition, individual temporal state, collective temporal state, and collective temporal disposition. We clarify the conceptualizations of the temporal constructs belonging to each of the four archetypes of subjective time and review their key findings in the organizational literature. Based on this integrative framework, we identify critical knowledge gaps in the current state of research and chart a future agenda with specific suggestions.     

Transformational leadership,psychological empowerment,and the moderating role of mechanistic–organic contexts

The current study examines the empowering effects of transformational leaders and the extent to which these effects differ across mechanistic–organic organizational contexts. Psychological empowerment is hypothesized to provide a comprehensive motivational mechanism explaining the relationships between transformational leadership and employee job‐related behaviors. In addition, the relationships between transformational leadership, employee psychological empowerment, and job‐related behaviors are hypothesized to be stronger in organizations with more organic as opposed to mechanistic structures. Results based on a cross‐organizational sample of employees and their immediate supervisors provide support for the hypothesized relationships. Psychological empowerment mediated relationships between transformational leadership and employee task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. The mediating role of psychological empowerment was then found to be conditional upon mechanistic–organic contexts. More specifically, organic structures enhanced, whereas mechanistic structures constrained, the empowering influence of transformational leaders. In highly mechanistic contexts, the indirect effects were no longer statistically significant. Implications for theory, research, and organizational management are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Abusive according to whom? Manager and subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision and supervisors' performance

Recognizing that supervisor–subordinate dyads exist within a broader organizational hierarchy, we examine how the individual's role within the organizational hierarchy influences perceptions of abusive supervision. Specifically, we examine how supervisors' abusive behaviors are perceived by abusive supervisors' managers as well as abusive supervisors' subordinates. Drawing on role theory, we propose that these perceptions will differ. Further, we suggest that these differences will be reflected in different relationships between manager-rated abusive supervision and subordinate-rated abusive supervision and managers' evaluations of supervisor performance. Results from manager–supervisor–subordinate triads indicate differences between managers' and subordinates' view of abusive supervision. Further, managers' perceptions of abuse were related to supervisors' in-role performance, whereas subordinates' perceptions of abuse were related to workgroup performance. In Study 2, we replicate these findings and expand our investigation to an examination of supervisors' contextual performance. Additionally, we examine another contextual characteristic—aggressive climate—and demonstrate it influences how abusive supervision relates to managerial evaluations of supervisor performance. Future research and managerial implications are discussed.     

Why we need theory in the organization sciences

To make the case that theory is a necessary part of research in the organization sciences, I develop three lines of argument. In the first, drawing upon Staw and Sutton's (1995, “What theory is not” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–384) classic piece, I outline the boundaries of theory and, using a recently published empirical article as an example, demonstrate how research based on literature references and line‐and‐box diagrams instead of explanatory theory can make only a limited contribution to the literature. I next discuss more generally the pitfalls of conducting research without first developing theory, citing the example of malaria. In the final section of the article, I defend the role of theory‐review articles, such as those published in the Academy of Management Review, and illustrate (again by reference to an example) how such articles are critical to advancing organizational research. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The emergence of team helping norms: Foundations within members' attributes and behavior

This research examined the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior helping norms in teams, specifically with regard to how members' personality, values, beliefs, and helping behavior predict the emergence of helping norms in newly formed project teams. We drew from theory on emergent phenomena and team composition research to propose and test a compilation model of how helping norms are influenced by having at least one member with particularly low (minimum) or high (maximum) levels of attributes that may influence helping‐norm development (i.e., conscientiousness, agreeableness, other‐oriented values, personal helping beliefs). We further examined the extent to which members' helping behaviors, as rated by peers, predicted helping norms and whether these behaviors mediated the relationship between individual attributes and helping norms. The results of a longitudinal study of 47 student project teams revealed that teams' minimums on agreeableness, other‐oriented values, and personal helping beliefs had direct relationships with helping‐norm emergence, and the effects of agreeableness were mediated through mean helping behavior. By contrast, teams' maximums on these attributes showed no relationships with helping norms, and only a team maximum on agreeableness was associated with teams' mean helping behavior. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.