The author examined the predictive validity of goal orientation in teams on both team process and outcome variables. Results indicate that when mean goal orientation scores were used as a way of describing team members' inputs, learning orientation was related to backing up behavior, efficacy, and commitment. The relationships between performance orientation and efficacy and commitment, however, were more complex and were clarified when task performance was also taken into account. Performance orientation had a negative effect on efficacy when task performance was low and a positive effect on commitment when task performance was high. The implications of these findings for theory and research on goal orientation in teams and team staffing are discussed.

This study tested whether teams working on a command and control simulation adapted to structural change in the manner implied by contingency theories. Teams shifting from a functional to a divisional structure showed better performance than teams making a divisional-to-functional shift. Team levels of coordination mediated this difference, and team levels of cognitive ability moderated it. We argue that the static logic behind many contingency theories should be complemented with a dynamic logic challenging the assumption of symmetrical adaptation.

One aspect of attracting new employees that has historically been ignored by recruitment researchers is salary negotiations. In this study, we used a hypothetical scenario design to depict salary negotiation experiences in which we varied the levels of salary offer, the behavior of a company and its representative, and the deadlines for receiving a signing bonus. MBA students served as study participants who read the scenarios and responded to questions about perceived organizational attractiveness and job acceptance decisions-two important recruitment outcomes. As hypothesized, our results indicated that salaries, a company's responsiveness to candidate questions, and a company representative's expression of derogatory comments all impact recruitment outcomes. However, exploding signing bonuses had no significant effects, calling into question the negative connotation practitioners have of exploding compensation schemes. Our justice framework revealed that many of the effects that we found for our manipulations on participants' judgments regarding our recruitment outcomes were mediated by perceptions of organizational justice. Finally, we found some evidence of the frustration effect, as procedures that were considered fair worsened rather than mitigated the negative effects of unfair outcomes on job acceptance decisions.

Prior work on resource allocation has generally considered only a small number of allocation rules, usually reflecting equity or equality. We use a scenario study to examine the effect of eight different allocation rules (past performance, future performance, rank, random draw, chance meetings, business need, personal need, and political reasons) on recipient reactions to the gain or loss of three different kinds of resources in an organizational setting. We find evidence that allocations based on past performance and random draw rules lead to the highest fairness perceptions and the lowest expectations that the decisions made will lead to intragroup conflict. However, fairness judgments are also influenced by a variety of other factors, such as the type of resource being allocated and whether the recipient is advantaged or disadvantaged relative to others in the workgroup (what we term the “egocentric interaction”). We discuss how our results might influence managers’ allocation decisions.

This article tests the degree to which personal and situational variables impact the acquisition of knowledge and skill within interactive project teams. On the basis of the literature regarding attentional capacity, constructive controversy, and truth-supported wins, the authors examined the effects of cognitive ability, workload distribution, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and structure on team learning. Results from 109 four-person project teams working on an interdependent command and control simulator indicated that teams learned more when composed of individuals who were high in cognitive ability and when the workload was distributed evenly. Conversely, team learning was negatively affected when teams were composed of individuals who were high in Agreeableness. Finally, teams using a paired structure learned more than teams structured either functionally or divisionally. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as well as possible limitations and directions for future research.

The authors examined employee development and its relationship with Conscientiousness and person-environment fit (in terms of needs and supplies of autonomy). They hypothesized that Conscientiousness would be positively associated with development but only when employees felt that the autonomy supplied by the organization did not fit their needs. In other words, whereas Conscientiousness could supply the dispositional resources for development, misfit was needed to create the need for development. The results supported the authors' predictions. Conscientiousness was positively related to development but only when employees were misfits with respect to autonomy. Employee involvement in development activities was then linked to subsequent fit.

In this article, the authors developed several hypotheses regarding both the main and interactive effects of 2 types of team inputs on backing up behaviors in teams: (a) team composition characteristics in terms of the personality of the members of the team and (b) team task characteristics in terms of the extent to which the nature of the task is one that legitimately calls for some members of the team to back up other members of the team. Results from a study of 71 4-person teams performing a computerized tactical decision-making task suggest that the legitimacy of the need for back up has an important main effect on the extent to which team members provide assistance to and receive assistance from each other. In addition, the legitimacy of the need for back up also has important interactive effects with both the personality of the back up recipient and the personality of the back up providers on backing up behaviors in teams.

This article develops and tests a structurally based, integrated theory of person-team fit. The theory developed is an extension of structural contingency theory and considers issues of external fit simultaneously with its examination of internal fit at the team level. Results from 80 teams working on an interdependent team task indicate that divisional structures demand high levels of cognitive ability on the part of teammembers. However, the advantages of high cognitive ability in divisional structures are neutralized when there is poor external fit between the structure and the environment. Instead, emotional stability becomes a critical factor among teammembers when a divisional structure is out of alignment with its environment. Individual differences seem to play little or no role in functional structures, regardless of the degree of external fit.

The field of organizational justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizational justice.