Relationship-oriented human resource management (HRM) contributes to organizational functioning by promoting employee relationships, coordination, and cooperation. We propose unit-level positive affective climate as a motivational mechanism through which relationship-oriented HR systems can positively influence unit service quality and relationships with beneficiaries, and prevent individual emotional exhaustion. Moreover, we propose collective occupational calling serves as an alternative motivational source that can substitute for the positive effects of positive affective climate. In analyzing a sample composed of 742 nurses from 48 nursing units of two hospitals in China with data collection at three time points before and after the COVID-19 outbreak, our results supported the substituting effects of unit-level collective occupational calling on positive affective climate stemmed from relationship-oriented HR systems. Our study connects strategic HRM and motivation research by shedding light on an affective mechanism from relationship-oriented HR systems and the contingencies involving employees' various sources of motivation, such as occupational calling. We further discuss theoretical and practical implications of the research.

Decisions in organizations are often made by individuals acting as members or representatives of teams, and such decisions may be unduly influenced by the preferences of people outside their teams. In these instances of external conformity pressure, we argue that the familiarity of the decision maker's team provides social belonging and affiliation that alleviates this pressure. Whereas previous research has argued that social belonging from familiarity may drive within-group conformity when pressure comes from other team members (e.g., groupthink), we highlight that familiarity can instead help team members withstand pressure to conform when this pressure comes from outsiders. Moreover, we expect team familiarity to be especially important in high-stakes conditions, in which there are significant consequences associated with decisions. We examine our predictions in an archival sample of officiating crews making decisions about penalty calls during National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) American football games and in a laboratory experiment of team members making decisions about the quality of someone else's work product. Findings from these studies suggest that: (1) members of familiar teams are less likely to conform to the preferences of outsiders than those in unfamiliar teams; (2) team familiarity is particularly important when making high-stakes decisions; and (3) team familiarity gives team members a greater sense of belonging, which enables them to better withstand external conformity pressure.

Research in HR has devoted little attention to the practice of scheduling shift workers into times and places to conduct their work. Relying upon the growing literature related to relational HR, we propose a relational view of scheduling that focuses on how employees' social contexts-particularly their being co-scheduled with higher performers-relate to changes in performance over time. We apply resource dependence and social learning theories to describe how employees' performance over time depends upon their working alongside higher performers. Higher performers consume limited resources (thereby constraining peers' performance in the short term), yet also provide instructive role models for learning new skills (thereby elevating peers' performance over the longer term). We further hypothesize these effects are stronger for employees who are newer to the firm in contrast to those with more experience. We analyze scheduling and performance data from 7,893 retail sales representatives over a 1-year period. Results show co-scheduling with higher performers has an immediate negative effect on employee performance, but is positively related to employee performance over time. Unexpectedly, co-scheduling effects were present for all employees and not only for those new to the organization. Our study points to the need for HR research on employee scheduling to better understand how shift workers' schedules provide the relational context for their work. The research offers several theoretical contributions in understanding the peer effects of higher performers, and we offer practical implications for managers seeking to design employees' schedules to encourage organizationally advantageous relationships between coworkers.

A major problem in employee selection coalesces around convincing decision-makers (e.g., hiring managers) to use analytically derived models. Existing recommendations in the literature largely focus on convincing executives to adopt analytical models and then exert their top-down influence on lower-level hiring decisions. In contrast to these solutions, we explore end user modifiability (i.e., allowing decision-makers to modify a statistical model before use) as a bottom-up approach for increasing hiring managers' implementation of analytical recommendations. From a utility standpoint, we consider how incorporating end user modifiability into hiring decisions will result in a less statistically valid, but potentially more valuable, organizational selection process. We explore these ideas in two studies. In Study 1, we experimentally test whether model modification increases decision-maker reliance on a statistical model, as well as how much decision-makers need to modify a model in order to use it. In Study 2, we examine the extent that modifiability introduces implicit biases that might adversely affect marginalized groups. Results suggest that modifiability can increase decision-makers' perceived usefulness of a model and, importantly, that only a small amount of modifiability is needed to elicit this effect. Further, end user modifications were statistically insignificant predictors of hiring rates across race-based subgroups, though supplementary analyses suggest important cautionary nuance. Given that analytical models are rarely perfectly or wholly implemented, end user modifiability may offer a viable solution for organizations seeking to increase the implementation of algorithmic guidance in selection decisions, even if it deviates modestly from a statistical optimality.

This study examines the effect of team performance-prove goal orientation on team collaboration and team performance by identifying team conflict as a boundary condition. We propose that team conflict plays a moderating role such that high-PPGO team members will work collaboratively when they experience task conflict because they perceive other team members to be valuable for team performance. In contrast, high-PPGO teams will be less likely to work collaboratively when they experience relationship conflict since interpersonal differences will be salient, forcing social comparisons to which high-PPGO team members are predisposed. We test our hypotheses in a field sample of 485 working teams (2,940 individuals). The result shows that team PPGO was positively related to collaboration and team performance under conditions of high task conflict (and low relationship conflict). In contrast, team PPGO was negatively related to collaboration and team performance under conditions of high relationship (and low task) conflict. Team PPGO showed no relationship with collaboration when both task and relationship conflict were either high or low. These results extend knowledge of the multi-faceted effects of team PPGO and represent the first study showing the differential effect of PPGO on team collaborative processes. Implications for future research and practices are discussed.

Small talk-trivial communication not core to task completion-is normative and ubiquitous in organizations. Although small talk comprises up to one-third of adults' speech, its effects in the workplace have been largely discounted. Yet, research has suggested that small talk may have important consequences for employees. Integrating theories of interaction rituals and microrole transitions, we explore how and why seemingly inconsequential workday conversations meaningfully impact employees' experiences. In a sample of employed adults, we used an experience sampling method to capture within-individual variation in small talk over a three-week period. Given that we are the first to examine small talk as an episodic phenomenon, we also conducted a validation of our daily small talk measure with master's students and two samples of employed adults. Using multilevel path analysis, results show that small talk enhanced employees' daily positive social emotions at work, which heightened organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and enhanced well-being at the end of the workday; furthermore, small talk disrupted employees' ability to cognitively engage in their work, which compromised their OCB. Additionally, higher levels of trait-level self-monitoring mitigated negative effects of small talk on work engagement. Combined, results suggest that the polite, ritualistic, and formulaic nature of small talk is uplifting yet also distracting.

A rich history of research on job demands suggests that employees’ demands at work are related to their strain and engagement. This research often considers job demands to be fixed and stable over the course of workers’ experiences, despite the existing research showing that some employees experience high levels of job demands one day and low levels the next. We seek to extend research on job demands by introducing the idea that different employees experience different levels of job demand variability (i.e., variability in job demands over workers’ daily experiences). Relying on arousal theory, we posit that job demand variability moderates the between-person effects of overall job demand levels on employee strain and engagement. To test our theory, we conduct a meta-analytic path analysis of the existing experience sampling methodology research on challenge and hindrance job demands. Results show that the between-person effects of challenge (on strain and engagement) and hindrance demands (on engagement only) are stronger in studies where those demands have higher levels of daily within-person variability. Unexpectedly, the relationship between hindrance demands and strain was similarly strong across lower and higher degrees of variability. Our study suggests a need for more nuanced theory that explains how job demand variability plays a role in employee outcomes. Further, we conducted a simulation study to validate our methodology, offering utility to the broader management literature applying meta-analysis to study within-person variability. We discuss theoretical and practical implications as well as several directions for theory in this new line of reasoning.

This study examines the effect of team performance‐prove goal orientation on team collaboration and team performance by identifying team conflict as a boundary condition. We propose that team conflict plays a moderating role such that high‐PPGO team members will work collaboratively when they experience task conflict because they perceive other team members to be valuable for team performance. In contrast, high‐PPGO teams will be less likely to work collaboratively when they experience relationship conflict since interpersonal differences will be salient, forcing social comparisons to which high‐PPGO team members are predisposed. We test our hypotheses in a field sample of 485 working teams (2,940 individuals). The result shows that team PPGO was positively related to collaboration and team performance under conditions of high task conflict (and low relationship conflict). In contrast, team PPGO was negatively related to collaboration and team performance under conditions of high relationship (and low task) conflict. Team PPGO showed no relationship with collaboration when both task and relationship conflict were either high or low. These results extend knowledge of the multi‐faceted effects of team PPGO and represent the first study showing the differential effect of PPGO on team collaborative processes. Implications for future research and practices are discussed.Practitioner points Performance‐prove goal orientation (PPGO) improves team collaboration when task conflict is high and relationship conflict is low, while PPGO harms team collaboration when task conflict is low and relationship conflict is high. Organizations should stimulate task conflict, and reduce relationship conflict, in teams with a greater degree of high PPGO members to ensure collaboration and high performance. Otherwise, high PPGO teams will be unlikely to collaborate as members may view each other as rivals.

What are the effects of perceiving peers' higher performance? Social-cognitive theory emphasizes the positive influence that perceiving higher performers can have on observer task and job performance (because observational learning from role models enhances self-efficacy). Social comparison theory emphasizes the negative self-evaluations that accompany perceiving higher performers, which should under many circumstances reduce self-efficacy and subsequent task and job performance. To more fully understand the effects of perceiving higher performance, we argue the effects of perceived higher performers on observer task and job performance depend on individuals' disposition in how they cognitively process coworkers' performance. Drawing on goal orientation theory, we suggest individuals with higher levels of performance prove goal orientation (PPGO) primarily interpret perceived higher performers as comparative referents rather than as instructive role models, inhibiting social learning and reducing self-efficacy. Results from a 2 studies (a field study of 110 corporate employees as well as an experimental study with 107 undergraduate students) support these ideas: Individuals with higher levels of PPGO have decreased self-efficacy and performance when observing higher performing coworkers, and individuals with lower levels of PPGO have increased self-efficacy and performance when observing higher performing coworkers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

A multitude of studies in the management literature are focusing on within-person phenomena. The study of such phenomena offers great promise as within-person research facilitates the capacity to enhance temporal precision, show change over time, and reveal the kinds of novel insights that are not possible if relying solely on a traditional between-person perspective. Drawing on the features of within-person research that comprise its unique value proposition, we conduct a quantitative and narrative review of within-person studies to ascertain the degree to which these studies are maximizing the contribution and impact that they can make to the field of management. We pose three research questions that we present as a holistic framework for assessing the contributions of within-person research. To answer our questions, we synthesize across studies and analyze variability data, correlational data, and researchers' hypothesizing to show (a) the degree to which hypotheses in within-person studies incorporate temporality; (b) the differential within-person fluctuation and variability that exists based on construct, theoretical, and measurement-related factors; and (c) the degree to which within-person relationships are different from equivalent between-person relationships. While our data and conclusions offer insight into the contributions being made by the within-person literature at large, we also propose that our framework can be used at the individual study level of analysis to help optimize the contributions made in future within-person research.

Yu, Downes, Carter, and O'Boyle (2016) introduce a new technique to incorporate effect size heterogeneity into meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) labeled full information metaanalytical structural equation modeling (FIMASEM). Cheung's (2018) commentary raises concerns about the viability of FIMASEM and provides its initial validation. In this reply, we briefly respond to those concerns noting how they relate to Yu et al.'s original conclusions, general MASEM practices, and operational decisions within the FIMASEM procedure. We synthesize Cheung's criticisms and build on his findings to lay out a research agenda for the future of MASEM and the role that our technique might play in it. In doing so, we clarify the conceptual nature of FIMASEM, identity inferential mistakes that current MASEM studies are likely to make, and offer specific and actionable recommendations in terms of the types of research questions FIMASEM is best suited to address and how FIMASEM results can best be interpreted and reported.

The purpose of this study was to elaborate on two mechanisms of self-concordance theory (SCT; Sheldon and Elliot in Pers Soc Psychol 24(5):546, 1998)—goal-specific efficacy and perceived person–organization (PO) fit—as mediators of the relationships between autonomous and controlled goal motives and goal accomplishment and job satisfaction.

We propose a model of knowledge creation, transfer, and adoption based on theories of creativity and social networks. We test our hypotheses using a sample of 119 full professors in management departments at U.S. universities. We examine the effects that two research strategies, coauthoring and working in multiple research fields, have on the number of publications in each of three journal quality tiers during an 8-year period. In addition, we examined the influence that having strong ties and a dense network of professional colleagues each has on the total number of citations garnered by those publications. Results showed a heterogeneous pattern of coauthoring (distributing coauthoring activity evenly across a greater number of coauthors) is positively related to the number of publications in the highest-quality journals for the focal researcher. The heterogeneity of research fields in which a researcher works is also positively related to greater productivity, albeit in second- and third-tier publication outlets. In addition, we found that the number of strong ties in the focal author's professional support network positively related to his or her total citation count, independent of the number and quality of publications. Implications for the social network theory of creativity, organizational knowledge theory, and models of management scholars' productivity are explored.

Scholars increasingly recognize the potential of meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) as a way to build and test theory (Bergh et al., 2016). Yet, 1 of the greatest challenges facing MASEM researchers is how to incorporate and model meaningful effect size heterogeneity identified in the bivariate meta-analysis into MASEM. Unfortunately, common MASEM approaches in applied psychology (i.e., Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995) fail to account for effect size heterogeneity. This means that MASEM effect sizes, path estimates, and overall fit values may only generalize to a small segment of the population. In this research, we quantify this problem and introduce a set of techniques that retain both the true score relationships and the variability surrounding those relationships in estimating model parameters and fit indices. We report our findings from simulated data as well as from a reanalysis of published MASEM studies. Results demonstrate that both path estimates and overall model fit indices are less representative of the population than existing MASEM research would suggest. We suggest 2 extension MASEM techniques that can be conducted using online software or in R, to quantify the stability of model estimates across the population and allow researchers to better build and test theory. (PsycINFO Database Record

Scholars are increasingly recognizing the potential of meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) as a way to build and test theory (Bergh et al., 2014). Yet, as MASEM is currently applied, it disregards variability in estimates of true score correlations. Specifically, evidence of moderation identified when establishing the bivariate correlations in random effect meta-analysis is disregarded when later inputted into multivariate MASEM. This practice means that MASEM results may not be as stable or generalizable as MASEM scholars often conclude. We first examine the potential problems of existing point-estimate MASEM techniques in a simulation study. Then, we introduce a bootstrap MASEM technique that retains both the estimates of true score relationships and the variability surrounding those relationships. Through a simulation and re-analysis of published MASEM studies, we demonstrate how this procedure assists researchers in establishing overall model fit and path estimates as well as establishing the stability of the estimates across the population of true scores. Our technique offers a new way to view MASEM results and extends our ability to test and build theory.