200 word Summary on the attached article Annotated Bibliography

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

Terence R. MitchellA nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of Organizational Behavior Terence R. Mitchell Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018. 5:1–19

First published as a Review in Advance on September 13, 2017

The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is online at orgpsych.annualreviews.org

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- 032117-104425

Copyright c© 2018 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

Keywords

organizational behavior, structural change, affect, diversity, ethics, positive organizational scholarship, leadership, methods

Abstract

This article reflects my observations about major changes in organizational behavior (OB) during my 50 years working in the field. I begin with a brief description of my personal journey as foundational for my perspective. I then discuss how the field has changed structurally and focus on the contributions of the Academy of Management (AoM) and the increasing diversity of our members, especially the increasing number of women, minorities, and peo- ple from countries other than the United States. The next section covers major research content changes in the field including positive scholarship, leadership, affective constructs, ethics, and the general well-being of those who toil in the organizational trenches. Additionally, there is a section on how the utilization of new statistical procedures and research methods has greatly expanded our ability to investigate and test complex theories and hy- potheses about behavior in organizations. The discussion section highlights both the positive aspects of these developments along with some concerns about the future.

1

Click here to view this article's online features:

• Download figures as PPT slides • Navigate linked references • Download citations • Explore related articles • Search keywords

ANNUAL REVIEWS Further

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

1. INTRODUCTION

I want to thank Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (AROPOB) Editor Fred Morgeson and Associate Editor Sue Ashford for asking me to write this perspectives review. I’ve been retired since October 2014 and have reflected some on my career and changes in the field. However, I have never thought deeply and systematically about the latter issue, how the field of organizational behavior (OB) has changed over those 50 years. (I started graduate school in 1965.) It took me months to decide on the structure and content I would use, and it pushed me to read or reread a lot of material. And the perspectives reviews by those who preceded me shaped my thinking as well. I have enjoyed the experience and appreciate the opportunity to present my perspective.

Before I launch into the body of the article, I want to provide some background about what I cover and how I do that. Three points are important: (a) Although this article obviously presents a personal view, I do not want it to be all about me and my work. I recite some stories and cite or mention a few papers I have completed that are relevant; however, except for Section 2, which is a description of what I observed during my development and evolution through the years, I am in the background. (b) I do not want this article to be a reference dump. With that in mind, I highlight the people who have had an impact on the field in the areas I cover, but I do not present references except where a specific work is mentioned. I focus on topics and ideas. (c) Finally, although the narrative unfolds progressively throughout, it is not tightly linear. Some things happened at a different pace and independently of other things; as such, my goal is a loosely structured view of the evolution of OB from 20,000 feet.

As I mentioned, the first part of the article describes my personal journey and observations along the way. Section 3 discusses how the field has changed structurally with some interpretative conjectures about the consequences of these changes. Section 4 addresses changes in content and the ways in which OB has expanded and shifted perspective. I don’t try to cover everything but I do highlight what is most important. Section 5 discusses method. The analytic tools and research designs employed in today’s research have changed dramatically over the years, and this change has had an effect on both theory and practice.

2. MY PERSONAL JOURNEY

I did my graduate work from 1964 to 1969 in the Psychology Department of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Fred Fiedler was the chair of my PhD committee, my dissertation was on the topic of leadership, and my degree was in social psychology. I went to the University of Washington (UW) in 1969 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management and Organization. Although I also had a full joint appointment in the Department of Psychology, my main appointment was in what is now the Foster School of Business. (They paid my salary; I started at $12,500 for nine months’ pay.) The transition from a psychology department to a business school provides the backdrop for many of my early experiences.

In these early years, business schools were trying to change the composition of their fac- ulties, their educational missions, and their images. Numerous reviews of business schools had been very critical, suggesting that (a) most of what was taught was based on personal experience; (b) professional writing consisted of cases and textbooks; and (c) the research qualifications to be hired, to teach, and to be promoted were not very high. The response by many schools was to hire people such as myself, people with extensive research training from disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and economics (see the perspectives review by Porter & Schneider 2014).

For the first few years my main task was to adjust to the Business School culture and values. I had gone straight through school so I had had minimal full-time organizational work experience.

2 Mitchell

Watch an interview with the author online. A

nn u.

R ev

. O rg

an . P

sy ch

ol . O

rg an

. B eh

av . 2

01 8.

5: 1-

19 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

14 0.

31 .2

13 .2

o n

03 /2

8/ 18

. F or

p er

so na

l us

e on

ly .

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

The Business School faculty emphasized our practice mission, to conduct research that would have an impact and to teach students how to lead and manage people on the job. I remember showing up in September 1969 and the department chairman giving me a management textbook and placing me in the MBA core course: I was petrified the whole quarter. Thus, many of my initial struggles in the classroom and in my research were centered on being practical, relevant, and useful. People dressed more formally, they read the Wall Street Journal, and they wanted to know what “worked” or added value to organizations. I used to describe myself as a psychologist in business school clothing.

Three factors helped me survive and prosper. First, there were some key faculty members who served as mentors. Fred Fiedler had decided to come to UW from Illinois. He was recruited and made the decision after I had accepted the job in the Business School, and I initially had mixed feelings about his decision. On the one hand, having your mentor nearby can provide an instant mechanism of support and advice. On the other hand, I knew that professionally, being separated from one’s chair was a major developmental stage one had to endure and embrace. Fred set up the Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory and had his own separate building and a busy group of faculty and PhD students involved in his research mission. I had an office in that building, had the immediate opportunity to be involved in various research projects, and had the sympathetic ear and the wise counsel of faculty and students.

Another person who helped my adjustment significantly was William Scott. Bill was the author of a textbook about organization theory, and he wanted to upgrade his book in the direction the field was going by introducing the latest OB research results to his readers. He asked me to be a coauthor. Through our frequent conversations and my efforts to integrate organizational psychology with the material focusing on organizational theory and behavior, I learned a lot about the substantive content and the underlying values of my field translated to the business context. Bill and I frequently retired to his cabin on Lake Wenatchee to talk, drink, and fish.

A second experience helped me educate myself and ease my transition: I sat in on various classes taught by my Business School colleagues. Perhaps the best example was a 10-week course on organizational development (OD) taught by Cecil Bell. OD was a hot topic, and French & Bell’s (1973) Organization Development was the gold standard textbook. I was lucky to have both Wendell French and Cecil Bell on our faculty and to draw on their accumulated knowledge.

The third factor, which was much more helpful than I had imagined, was having a joint appoint- ment in the Psychology Department at UW. For the first decade, I was there; I taught introductory social psychology a few times plus an occasional doctoral seminar. I worked with several outstand- ing students (e.g., Del Nebeker, Steve Green, Jim Larson) and had the opportunity to collaborate with faculty members other than Fred Fiedler. Two relationships emerged that resulted in both research collaboration and long-standing friendships. Gary Latham arrived in the early 1970s, and we did some field research together (Gary does extraordinarily clever field experiments) at Weyerhaeuser and while he was in the Psychology Department and the Business School. He was like minded with respect to training and the importance of doing high-quality work. Lee Beach and I worked closely together for more than a decade (starting in the late 1970s) and published numerous articles together. (Lee was the driving force for our work on image theory and my subsequent use of these ideas in my turnover research with Tom Lee.) We got grants, started our group weekly meetings with our doctoral students (which have continued in my decades of collaboration with Tom Lee), and worked hard to integrate decision theory ideas with a practical perspective on real decisions. The joint appointment made all of that possible.

For the first 20 years of my career, it seemed like the mission of OB was to bring social and organizational psychology to the world of business. Business schools did not have enough and the type of faculty to train outstanding researchers and that was what was cited as needed in early

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 3

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

summaries and reviews of business schools. As I mentioned, they took people from social science— psychologists, economists, and sociologists. These people brought their research skills but also their attitudes about what were and should be important topics. And, at least for many social scientists, these jobs were appealing. They paid more and provided more support of research activities. Also, industrial psychology programs were not really flourishing or prospering. For example, after I was here a decade, the Psychology Department at UW voted to place itself in the biological sciences, not the social sciences. And Fred Fiedler, who was the closest person to being an organizational psychologist, was the only one they hired with that orientation, and his training was really as a clinical psychologist at the University of Chicago.

The use of social psychological theory that was infused in OB content is easily demonstrated. Psychological decision theory was foundational for the early research in motivation using ex- pectancy theory (Martin Evans and Vic Vroom were well known contributors to these ideas). Attributional ideas from Bernard Weiner found their way into OB research (see Mark Martinko’s decades of research). Goal setting was dominated by two well-known psychologists, Ed Locke and Gary Latham. Al Bandura brought his ideas on self-efficacy. And expectancy theory and goal setting were used to develop an early and well-cited area of leadership: Bob House’s path goal theory. The early work on justice emerged from Stacey Adams equity theory. Initially the OB research was on distributive justice and people feeling they were treated fairly using a balance- type equation of inputs and outcomes (see Karl Weick’s early work). The major theory of job design was advanced by Richard Hackman (a psychologist from Illinois) and Greg Oldham (an organizational behavior psychologist from Yale).

One must recognize the values underlying the transfer of these theories to OB. Given the more applied and practical perspective of business schools, the focus was on how to get people to work harder, through the use of goals, rewards, leadership, or job design. Psychology provided the human dimension. The initial emphasis was on understanding why people did what they did, so that workers would be more motivated, productive, efficient, and effective—so that they would perform better. I was part of that orientation, publishing papers on expectancy theory, goal setting, as well as path-goal and job design with dependent variables such as effort and performance.

Although these themes and values still persist in OB today, the next 25 years also saw sup- plementary work in areas that were seen as equally important. Business schools were producing their own scholars, and they were developing their own theories and methods. Some research shifted from a mostly instrumental focus to an understanding of what was the “quality” of the work experience. Positive feelings such as job satisfaction became crucial dependent variables (see Art Brief ’s 1998 Attitudes in and Around Organizations). The values underlying much of this work appeared to be concerns for the “better good” or a positive work life. Equally important was an emphasis on what was believed to be the “right” thing for organizations to do with respect to their treatment of employees. There was also a much more thorough analysis of the negative behaviors and experiences in the workplace, things that needed to be addressed or removed. Parts of the field shifted to focus on feelings, attitudes, and emotional states that facilitated or hindered not only performance but also well-being.

For me personally, and many other scholars of the same generation, this transformation was accompanied by our commitment to the field of OB in terms of teaching and research and working in business schools with business school students and faculty. I became immersed in the field. In the late 1970s, I became a member of the Society for Organizational Behavior (SOB), a group of OB scholars selected on the basis of their research contributions to the field. In 1979 I was asked to write the first review of OB in the Annual Review of Psychology. In the 1980s and 1990s, I served on numerous AoM committees and OB journal review boards. I became familiar with the actors, literature, and culture. From the late 1990s to 2003, I was on the Executive Committee of the OB

4 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

Division. Starting in 2006, for the next seven years I was the Director of the Foster School’s PhD program. All of these activities helped me to better understand the field of OB as it evolved in business schools.

My career has also included multiple changes in status—I went from being a new young assistant professor with a psychology degree working in a business school (as with many of my cohorts, I had never taken any business school courses except economics and never actually worked for any length of time for a profit-making business) to a full professor immersed in the field of OB. Although I had driven many of my research projects in my early years (I had grants for 20 years), the last half of my career was more about collaboration and working with students and other faculty on topics that were their passion (except for turnover, on which I have worked with Tom Lee and had an abiding interest for 25 years). As changes occurred in the orientation of the field, they were reflected in my interests and activities as well. It’s been a long but very exciting and stimulating trip.

3. STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Lots of things have changed over 50 years in our profession and our special area of interest, OB. I do not want this to sound like the “I used to walk to school through the snow with no shoes” lament; however, what has happened is truly amazing. Much of this change has been documented in the earlier AROPOB perspectives articles (e.g., Porter & Schneider 2014, Staw 2016) and after writing down two pages of a list of possible topics, I want to emphasize three major areas: changes in structure, content, and methods.

Two further preliminary comments are warranted. First, I have placed this structural section prior to the content and methods changes because these structural changes have influenced the subsequent topics. Second, I summarize these structural influences at the end of this section as a set up for the material that follows.

3.1. Professional Changes

Probably the biggest evolutionary process has been the development of business professional as- sociations. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is one example. Over time, the AACSB has become an integral and in many ways a regulatory organization. They are in charge of business school accreditation (I can find no historical mandate from universities granting this power), which both raises and enforces standards for teaching, research, and other professional activities. This accreditation process now occurs every five years and requires huge amounts of effort by faculty and administrators to comply. With OB members being a major com- ponent of the field of business study, AACSB influences what we do with respect to record keeping and evaluation of our activities. Equally, and I think more important, has been the evolution of the AoM, with its goals of facilitating what we do and marketing management to the outside world. It has had a significant influence on how we behave. For example, we have a code of ethics partly drafted and enforced by the AoM, and our best A-level journals are the Academy of Management Journal and the Academy of Management Review. OB is constantly one of the largest divisions in the AoM. The annual meeting is where OB students find jobs and management departments find OB professors. The AoM meeting has developmental opportunities for all ranks of OB members in the form of workshops and colloquia. Most of these processes and procedures were simply not available for people interested in OB 50 years ago.

Not surprisingly, the AoM and our division have grown dramatically. There were ∼50–100 OB scholars at early meetings. Now we have more than 6,000 OB members. The field of management

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 5

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

has also split and diversified with 25 divisions and interest groups. Many OB scholars belong to more than one of these groups, promoting both the cross-fertilization of ideas and the identification of colleagues with similar interests. But the OB Division is one of the biggest in the AoM. In addition, the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) is a special professional association that is part of the American Psychological Association division structure, and many OB members find like-minded people within the fields of management and psychology who are members of SIOP.

The growth and recognition of OB have made it a major component of most business schools. OB is a recognized and powerful subgroup within management departments and is also recognized by the Business Press. It is a field of study with dedicated courses and a recognized specialty for which jobs are available. The first 10 years I was at UW there were almost no OB courses just for PhDs. Doctoral students sat in on MBA courses on topics such as motivation, leadership, and teams. Now most management and OB departments have separate PhD courses on each of these topics.

These professional and structural changes have had major impacts on how OB scholars do their jobs and accomplish their goals. We have a greater number and more varied professional resources available to us. We can move into new areas of research with journals and colleagues easy to identify. OB makes a substantial contribution, compared to other areas, to the field of management’s “big tent” journals. We have a huge portion of presentation time allocated to OB topics at the AoM meetings based on our submission numbers. Our regional meetings such as the Western Academy of Management are vibrant and active venues for younger faculty and new ideas, and SIOP provides outlets and meetings for OB scholars with a more psychological orientation. In short, OB has grown and, for the most part, prospered.

3.2. Demographic and Interpersonal Changes

The growth and inclusiveness of the OB Division has been dramatic, and associated with this expansion has been the diversity of our membership. OB is an accepted, recognized, and sought- after professional career across the world. The training of OB PhDs and researchers in and outside the United States is far better than it used to be. Just look at the names and affiliations of the authors in our best journals. The OB membership includes scholars from 65 countries. Cross-cultural research appears in many good journals and far more often than it used to. None of my PhD students during my first 25 years in the field were from other countries. In the past seven years, I have worked closely with students from China, Germany, Holland, and Singapore.

But perhaps the MOST dramatic change in our field has been the increase in the number and percentage of female OB scholars. It is not possible to overemphasize this change. All the various disciplines, including OB, in business schools were dominated by men. Documenting this change is easy in so many ways. And this change is gradually being reflected in every aspect of the profession. When I came to UW in 1969 we had one female faculty member in the department and classes were almost 100% men. The tenure track faculty size of the department has stayed at 15–20 over the years, and now we have 6 female colleagues. Our best senior and principal lecturers are women. I remember when I came back from a sabbatical in the early 1990s and taught a PhD class for the first time in a few years. I walked in the room that day and saw that half of my students were women. “This is different,” I said to myself. The OB classes at undergraduate and graduate levels are almost all equally comprised of men and women. When I joined SOB in the mid-1970s there were 3 women out of 45 members (Pat Smith, Karlene Roberts, Jeanne Brett). Now there is ∼33%. The current and past Chair of the OB Division were women and last year’s program chair as well. Five of seven Representatives-at-Large are women. Currently, the percentage of women in OB is ∼48% (of those that identify their gender).

6 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

However, not surprisingly, the major awards for lifetime scholarly achievement are still domi- nated by old white men. The SIOP Lifetime Achievement Award started in 1983, and two females (Pat Smith, Ruth Kanfer) have received it as of 2016. One (Denise Rousseau) of the first 10 OB award winners (starting in 2005) has been female. Note that the first five people writing perspec- tives articles for this journal are older white males. But change is happening; of the more than 200 fellows of the AoM, approximately 40 are women (mostly OB). As the field continues to mature, we will see women sharing equally in these awards and other forms of recognition.

I believe this change has been hugely beneficial for numerous reasons. But the most important in terms of the content of our discipline has been the addition of a feminine perspective to the whole aspect of working in and with organizations. I provide a more salient observation in Section 4, where I discuss content changes.

Interpersonal relationships have changed as well, mostly as a matter of communication mech- anisms and opportunities. With email, everything can happen quickly. I can reach out to my OB colleagues in an instant. Academy and Division websites provide information previously unavail- able or hard to find. The OB website has a Making Connections committee and available strategies described. Current Division news is available on the website.

The ease with which I can interpersonally communicate is illustrated in two other ways. First, interinstitutional correspondence is just as easy as interactions with colleagues at our home insti- tutions. Friends and coauthors are easily reached. Second, it has made collaboration on research and other activities much more feasible. Contact and collaboration with ex-students has always been important. But now, they are just as accessible as are other OB faculty who are elsewhere. In the past 15 years I have worked on research with colleagues at Georgia Tech, Michigan State, University of Arizona, Arizona State, Florida State, University of Florida, and University of Ohio.

So, both diversity and the ease of communication have helped new ideas and research topics to flourish. Other people’s work is readily available. Collaboration is facilitated by communication. In fact, the number of authors on papers has increased to the point that it has become an issue of how or how much we recognize authorship contributions on major papers. But the result has been a richer and more nuanced field of OB.

3.3. Technology and Time

The use of communication technology has obviously changed our interpersonal interactions. But, it has also changed the way I do my job. In 1968, as a graduate student at Illinois, I submitted my research analyses to our main frame computer using punched cards. I often had to write my own programs. SPSS (a set of statistical computer programs for social scientists) was just starting to be of help early in my career. An analysis was put in a queue and might take 1–2 days to retrieve. While you waited, you got an orange card that indicated you had a program at the computer center. It was a badge of status (along with slide rules—a mechanical analog computer) to see someone with an orange card in their shirt pocket. Now, one can perform complex analyses on one’s own desktop in seconds.

Lots of research used paper questionnaires. One had to transfer data to spreadsheets and then to cards. Now, in most cases, people fill out questionnaires online (or use answer sheets that are readily read by computers), which simplifies this process dramatically. I would have secretaries type my papers, and I would submit them using US mail (now called, affectionately, snail mail). Now, this submission process is done online. Feedback came in the form of a letter, and corrections were done by hand and then made on the manuscript, which had to be retyped. I recall at the turn of the century, when I was on the OB Executive Committee, I spent one year as the Program Chair. It was the final year in which all submissions were sent in by mail. I walked into my office

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 7

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

in January to find hundreds of 9 × 12 envelopes stacked on the floor in the corner. They were, in turn, sent by mail to reviewers, who sent back feedback that went back to the authors. Now, all these steps are accomplished electronically.

The speed and the ease with which we can conduct our research and communication activities are significant. And the use of the computer in the teaching forum has also aided our efforts. Mostly, we do things better, faster, and with fewer errors. It’s been an amazing transformation of how we get things done.

4. CHANGES IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR CONTENT

In Section 2, I briefly mentioned the shift I had seen in the content of the research in OB. My observations are that the field had really shifted in two major ways. First, the emphasis moved from what I would call a managerial focus—how can managers (a) select the right people (mostly personality and individual attributes research), (b) motivate employees to work hard (use of rewards, goals), and (c) be effective leaders (an analysis of traits and behaviors) to an employee perspective (e.g., understanding how the experience of employees can be significantly different from what managers expect, want, and try to install in their organizations)? Second, this shift in many cases entailed an analysis of more emotional or affective experiences. [Ed Locke’s call to look at job satisfaction in the 1970s in addition to Howie Weiss and Russ Cropanzano’s article on affective events theory in the 1990s (Weiss & Cropanzano 1996) were good indicators of the change, and numerous articles separately and together by Art Brief and Sigal Barsade with Howie Weiss highlight this shift.] These authors describe the shift during 2000–2003 as an affective revolution where moods, emotions, and feelings, as well as their contagion in dyads, teams, and the whole organization, had become part of the research discourse. I don’t want to suggest that the managerial focus is no longer with us; it is still alive and well as it should be. But we have a far richer, balanced, and more nuanced understanding of what goes on at work and how it is experienced by people at all levels. And although I cannot demonstrate causality, I strongly believe that having more women and a feminine perspective has been a major factor related to the proliferation of topics associated with experience, affect and positive and negative feelings and behaviors in the workplace.

Section 4 is divided in into two sections. Initially, there is a relatively superficial review of some topics that demonstrate this shift. I mention names associated with the particular areas discussed but still try to avoid references. Information is so easily available on the Internet that anyone interested in pursuing a topic in more depth can look up the constructs or the names I mention.

One final point is necessary about Section 4. The areas I mention are, for the most part, not areas where I have done research or have an in-depth knowledge. With that in mind, I apologize up front for anyone I omit that should be mentioned. So much has now been written on most of these topics that it is impossible to include everyone. Section 4.2. reviews five specific areas of research that reflect major changes.

4.1. Superficial Content Review

There are two areas of research that have been with us a long time but morphed somewhat into the more affective and interpersonal direction over time. I already mentioned the justice literature that started with the equity ideas of Stacey Adams highlighting distributive justice. Over the years, we started to analyze the procedural and interpersonal dimensions emphasizing respectful treatment and even affective dimensions of justice ( Jerry Greenberg, Rob Folger, and Jason Colquitt, among many others, being major contributors). The other area that has been with us a while and shifted somewhat was the research on the health of employees and the effects of stress.

8 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

From early approaches looking at lost work days and sick days we now have a substantial literature on wellness, work-life balance, and resilience, which emphasize the causes and consequences of positive emotional experiences at work (Lois Tetrick, Nancy Rothbard, and Fred Luthans making major contributions to the topic).

Besides these two areas, the literature is simply overflowing with specific examples of the more affective and employee-oriented constructs that have emerged over the past few decades. I’ve chosen three rather broad categories to use as examples.

4.1.1. Going beyond or falling short. Dennis Organ, in the late 1980s introduced the idea of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Rather than emphasizing actions expected and specifically called for by management, he argued that in many cases employees went beyond what was expected of them. These were behaviors that were not part of the job description and in that sense were discretionary. Employees choose to engage in these positive actions, which were seen as helpful for organizational effectiveness.

Although there was, and still is, some controversy about exactly what constitutes or mea- sures OCBs, the construct is one of the most familiar terms in OB, and related constructs such as prosocial behaviors and extra-role behaviors have also been examined (with Art Brief, Sue Ashford, Jeff LePine, and Lynn Van Dyne contributing to this literature). Over the next 20 years there were numerous studies examining the opposite side of the coin: counterproductive work be- haviors (CWBs). These were actions intended to be harmful for reaching organizational objectives such as theft, sabotage, absenteeism, taking unscheduled or long work breaks, etc. Researchers such as Art Brief, Jennifer George, Stephen Motowidlo, and Sandra Robinson explored this ter- rain, resulting in multiple dimensions of behavioral deviance. These were clearly behaviors on the part of employees that were counter to managerial expectation and positive norms. In addition, Denise Rousseau described and analyzed situations where management failed to meet employee expectations in the form of psychological contract violations. These deviances from expectations constructs have been repeatedly shown as having both significant affective and behavioral conse- quences related to employee adjustment as well as organizational outcomes.

4.1.2. Negative emotional tone. This presentation and analysis of negative behaviors and ex- periences such as CWBs became part of a larger perspective reflecting the affective tone within an organization and other specific behaviors that demonstrate this negativity. The goal, of course is to reduce these feelings and the behavioral antecedents. A good example of behaviors we would like to eliminate is highlighted by the work on incivility and rudeness, which describes behavior that violates norms of treating people with respect. Such actions cause inattentiveness, less satisfaction and commitment, and rumination, and also disrupt one’s focus (with Christine Porath and Amir Erez contributing important research in this area).

Bullying behavior is even more aggressive direct verbal and physical abuse. More subtle strate- gies such as humiliation and ostracism also take a toll. Falsely accusing someone, giving them the silent treatment, and criticizing or intimidating a coworker are good examples. These behaviors are often learned early in life as interpersonal strategies to achieve one’s goals and they can have disastrous effects on the target in terms of affect; psychological functioning; and organizational outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, and turnover. Kipling Williams’ (2001) Ostracism: The Power of Silence, as well as the substantial contributions over the years by Sandra Robinson and her colleagues on ostracism (Robinson et al. 2014), describes both the behaviors and consequences in more detail.

Finally, there are behaviors that happen in a group context that can disrupt and derail group efforts to accomplish a task. In many cases a group will have a member who withholds effort, violates

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 9

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

norms, or expresses negative behaviors such as those mentioned above. They are often described as a “bad apple” and have a negative impact on teammates. Their reactions, the group’s social interactions, dynamics such as cooperation and creativity, and ethical actions are at risk. Research by Jeff LePine, Lynn Van Dyne, Will Felps, Murray Barrick, and Linda Trevino discusses several ways in which an individual team member can be disruptive with negative interpersonal and performance consequences.

4.1.3. Some positive behaviors. Not surprisingly, there has also been substantial work on the positive emotional side examining ways that people feel better, more in control, and efficacious in the organizational context. This includes the phenomenon of social support where people are included in social networks, give and receive favors, feel cared for, and have valuable assistance from coworkers, friends, family, and the organization. Having a mentor helps (see Belle Ragins’ contributions over the years) as does compassion, forgiveness, and caring from others. Such pro- cesses have been researched by many people including Sigal Barsade, Michelle Gelfand, Sarah Rynes, Jenifer George, and Jean Bartunek. Such support can be emotional as well as tangible (e.g., financial), informational, or companionship and can have significant impact on adjustment, physical and mental health, and reactions to setbacks and adversity. Also important are positive actions or feelings that bolster motivation and efficacy. Gretchen Spreitzer’s work over the years on empowerment focuses on this type of positive functioning.

4.2. More Detailed Coverage of Five Topics

The second section on content changes examines five more encompassing changes in theory and research in OB. At many institutions these topics are foundational for whole courses in graduate curriculum. They constitute a major portion of the OB literature and, to some extent, reflect the underlying theme of this article, a shift in the field of OB from a highly rational orientation and performance-oriented outcomes to an examination of affective and emotional experiences of workers and structural mechanisms that organizations can encourage and enact (or limit and restrain for negative actions) that makes them a better place to reside for individuals and to make more positive contributions to society as a whole.

4.2.1. Positive organizational scholarship. In response to what was viewed as organizational climates and cultures based on too much greed and selfishness combined with instrumental and unethical behaviors, a group of scholars at Michigan suggested a more positive and different vision for our academic and practitioner-oriented endeavors: positive organizational scholarship (POS). Kim Cameron, Jane Dutton, and Robert Quinn collaborated with other scholars at Michigan and elsewhere (e.g., Sue Ashford, Karl Weick, Blake Ashforth, Gretchen Spritzer, Fred Luthans, Mary Ann Glynn) to show that OB could engage in a more positive direction of scholarship. They suggested we focus more on the attributes and processes involved that enhance personal well- being in organizations such as compassion, forgiveness, respect, resilience, and trust (Cameron et al. 2003).

A “big tent” and broad undertaking, POS emphasized the integration of other existing streams of research such as positive psychology, organizational development, social responsibility, and some areas mentioned above, such as OCBs, social support, and prosocial behavior. Also included were activities reflected by behavioral virtues such as humility, courage, and honesty. Dutton & Glynn (2007) present a nice summary of this work. They highlight the research on organiza- tional processes such as engagement, creativity, and positive meaning making along with positive outcomes such as well-being, thriving, resilience, and psychological capital.

10 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

Although some of the research topics included in POS were already underway, the label stuck and has provided an overarching orientation for much of the research examining the affective and personal experience of organizational actors. Not only was POS foundational for research on unexplored topics, it also helped to refocus more traditional areas such as individual differences, leadership, job attitudes, and group processes.

4.2.2. Looking down: leadership. The field of leadership is vast. I know from my time on the OB Executive Committee that it is always in the top few OB topics for papers submitted to the AoM journals and meetings. It is hard to do justice to this literature in a few pages, especially trying to reflect on the changes that have emerged in the past 25 years. But, here we go.

The early history is fairly straightforward and covered in numerous articles and texts (see some of the review articles and books on the topic by Gary Yukl, e.g., Yukl 2013). Early approaches attempted to isolate traits and then behavioral styles that led to effective outcomes. It got more complex when researchers tried to develop contingency approaches and determine which traits or behaviors were effective in different situations. Expectancy and goal setting ideas were the basis for path goal approaches emphasized by Bob House, and to some extent exchange theory ideas evolved into approaches such as leader–member exchange (LMX). These theories were grounded in some fairly traditional ideas and approaches that were certainly insightful and have increased our understanding of leadership and management dramatically. There is still plenty of research being currently conducted on topics looking at personal attributes, contexts like leading in teams and across cultures and leadership–exchange processes and participative mechanisms. (Tim Judge, Bob Liden, Bob House, Joyce Bono, George Graen, Sandy Wayne, Fred Morgeson, and Ed Lawler have made continued and substantial contributions to these developments.)

An excellent example was the decades of empirical research and practical consultation con- ducted by Ed Lawler on high-involvement work strategies. Using expectancy theory as a basis for participation in decision making, Lawler studied how a comprehensive managerial system in- volving changes in leadership, rewards, communication, and personal development could increase satisfaction and performance and decrease resistance to change and turnover.

But what was transformational in the more narrow leadership area was the work on transfor- mational and charismatic leadership. Transformational leadership as presented by Bernie Bass was about change and how leaders could influence, inspire, and stimulate subordinates in positive ways while providing recognition and consideration of their individual identity. This new way of thinking about leadership as a way to enhance and transform subordinates opened the floodgates for new approaches since the turn of the twenty-first century. And most of these approaches dwell on ways that leadership can be more positive, or in some cases they describe and challenge those that are negative. Included in the former category are theories of authentic, servant, spiritual, and ethical leadership. [I discuss this last approach in Section 4.2.5, which is on ethics.]

Authentic leadership suggests that authenticity is a key element of successful leadership. It is more than sincerity, it requires that one knows oneself well, their followers, and their context. It includes optimism and confidence, a positive moral character, a high level of self-awareness, and the ability to serve as a model, providing clarity of expectations, resources, support, and opportunity. Bruce Avolio has contributed substantially to both the theory and empirical work on the topic and describes the development of such leaders.

Servant leadership emphasizes a desire to serve as well as lead with the goal of being of service to others. A moral component along with authenticity and humility and stewardship are key characteristics. Servant leadership goes beyond self-interest and emphasizes follower growth. Servant leaders empower others, are humble, and behave in ways that emphasize fairness and enhance trust. (Bob Liden, Morela Hernandez and Robert Greenleaf have all contributed to this

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 11

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

literature.) Spiritual leadership is the least researched of these new positive approaches and focuses more on concern for others, integrity in their actions, and help in areas of moral management. Spiritual leaders are outstanding models for others, and they emphasize hope and faith in their interpersonal exchanges with others. Louis Fry has published some work on this topic.

There is also a body of research that looks at more negative leader behaviors that we would want to minimize in organizations. Included are behaviors described as abusive or destructive. These leaders are hostile, self-absorbed, narcissistic, and unethical. Obviously, they exhibit many behav- iors and traits that are in opposition to the positive styles reviewed above. But it describes styles of leadership that many people recognize and say they have experienced. Identifying and reducing such negative behaviors is also a movement toward more positive organizational experiences and overall cultures. Some of the research on followership has focused on ways that employees can confront inappropriate leadership (see Mary Uhl-Bien’s reviews of the field and recent work by Dong Liu).

4.2.3. Looking up: dealing with flaws, abuse, and malfeasance. Participation, engagement, and the selection and development of positive leaders are managerial mechanisms that can and have actually helped to make organizations more positive and livable locations. But, as has been pointed out by many researchers, they require lower power participants to trust those above them. Working in teams and working together involves interdependence. Accurate and helpful information needs to flow in both directions for both employees and organizations to flourish. In private and public organizations there are power structures, and those in the low-power position must be willing to take risks such that they will be treated appropriately. They must have confidence in the honesty, fairness, competence, and benevolence of the other, more powerful, party. They can’t control and often cannot monitor the other’s actions. But some people are more trusting than others and some activities and processes such as self-directed teams, team building, empowerment, the feedback from employee surveys, and joint goals and rewards can help. (Roger Mayer, Sim Sitkin, and Ed Lawler have all focused some of their work on trust, how important it is, and the processes that can enhance and expand its development.)

The problem occurs when these processes and procedures don’t work. How can the vulnerable protect themselves when trust is broken, abuses occur, and in some cases they observe or are privy to bullying, or even more extreme, illegal actions? This question has received considerable atten- tion the last fifteen years. There are numerous constructs that have been examined that capture the process of communicating upward and sometimes externally about issues employees believe need attention. And these vary from somewhat benign attempts to clarify things or exchange information to full-blown complaints that can have substantial legal and reputational effects for individuals and organizations. Without going into detail on each one, there are multiple papers published on topics such as speaking up, feedback seeking, issue selling, proactivity, and taking charge. These are relatively nondisruptive or low in risk mechanisms to clarify ambiguities, ini- tiate change, and input creative ideas. More risky actions in response to what employees believe are more serious problems involve actions such as prosocial rule breaking, counter role behavior, constructive deviance, and principled organizational dissent. These latter behaviors usually are in response to what are called “threats,” “crises,” or “dangers” for individuals or the organiza- tion. Finally, there are actions that entail major risks involving courageous actions and perhaps whistleblowing.

It is beyond the purview of this article to go into detail on each of these constructs and their construct and predictive validity. But some general distinctions might be helpful. As men- tioned above, the behaviors vary on the amount of risk involved and that seems to be associated with the extent to which others, usually with more power, have violated expectations, norms, or

12 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

organizational rules and legal requirements governing actions. They also vary on the extent to which they are proactive versus reactive. Most of the actions are supposedly deployed with the intent to make things better, for the employee involved, their teams, or for the organization; that is, they emerge from the well of good intentions. However, the outcomes for both the individual and the organization are mixed. The riskier the action, the more likely the outcome will be negative for the individual. Deviance and dissent along with courageous actions and whistleblowing often end badly for the initiator. And unfortunately, organizations are often resistant to sanctioning lead- ers, changing rules, norms, their culture, or routinized actions. The list of people doing this work is huge, but the following are the names of some major contributors: Jill Graham’s (1986) article on whistleblowing was groundbreaking as was the paper on voice by Albert Hirshman (1970), and the work by Susan Ashford, Elizabeth Morrison, Gretchen Spritzer, Jeff LePine, Monica Worline, Marie Mitchell, Marcia Miceli, James Detert, Thomas Ng, Adam Grant, Jane Dutton, Lynn Van Dyne, and Amy Edmondson has been important. The recent papers by Schilpzand et al. (2014) and Vadera et al. (2013) provide reviews, similarities, and contrasts among these various constructs as well as attempts to integrate theory and document outcomes.

One final point about these risky attempts at change is important. In most cases, the hoped for positive intended outcome, although perhaps better for the initiator, should make the organiza- tional situation better. In that sense, this class of behaviors fits nicely with our general theme of attempts to improve the organizational culture and the environment for those who reside there.

4.2.4. Diversity. The subject of diversity has its own AoM division (Gender and Diversity), and although many are members of the OB Division, it has its own history, development, and concerns. But many of the issues relevant for covering the topic are areas such as selection, placement, rewards, recognition, and promotion, which have substantial overlap with HR and OB. Additionally, the work examining psychological processes underlying discrimination involves topics such as attributions, stereotypes, and decision biases, whereas the work on social support, mentoring, and positive role relationships describes helpful behavioral mechanisms.

I don’t review all that work here (see Art Brief ’s 2008 edited volume for the perspectives of many different contributors); however, any summary of this field would suggest we are doing better on this front than in the past. Legal rights and procedures are in place to rectify wrongs. Organizations pay attention to diversity in terms of number awareness, oversight of selection, and promotion decisions, and many firms have formal diversity training. Organizations are more receptive to diversity than ever before and it is one of the changes most noticeable during the 50 years of my career. For example, business schools now actively seek out competent women and minorities from all over the world at all education levels, from undergraduates to faculty.

But salaries, promotions to top-level positions, and recognition for women and minorities still lag behind those for white males. And we know from the work done by Tony Greenwald using the Implicit Association Test that many people still have negative attitudes about women and minorities at work even though they do not show such behaviors in obvious ways. There is evidence that discrimination has become more subtle but still can have devastating effects on progress, careers, and feelings of self-worth. For example, I was able to work with David Hekman a few years ago on a paper that demonstrated that customer performance ratings are often biased with respect to race and gender and that such biases can have effects on personal and organizational outcomes for those who are rated negatively (Hekman et al. 2010). And some of his more recent work has shown that female or minority leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior receive lower performance ratings. So, substantive and dramatic changes have occurred in the workplace, making organizations places of support and opportunity for everyone, but substantial progress still needs to me made.

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 13

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

4.2.5. Ethical behavior in the workplace. Both individual and institutional wrongdoing have been described as commonplace and epidemic, costing our economy and our society billions of dollars a year. In response, over the years, scholars have focused their attention on why this occurs and how to stop it (see Barry Staw’s 2016 discussion of this issue in his perspectives review). This emphasis on ethics has become more sophisticated and has expanded dramatically over the past 50 years (see Tenbrunsel & Smith-Crowe’s 2008 AoM Annals paper for documentation as well as Linda Trevino et al.’s 2006 review). Ethics courses are stand-alone parts of the management curriculum as are ethical topics in other OB subjects such as leadership, decision making, teams, and personal development.

Similar to diversity, there is an Academy division (Social Issues in Management) that attracts scholars interested in the topic of ethics. But also similar to the Gender and Diversity division, the topics covered in the research and the individuals involved overlap extensively with OB. Much of this work emerged from writings about moral philosophy and developmental psychology. My own colleagues at UW have written major papers on the topics of moral intensity, ethical justice, moral development and awareness, and moralized leadership (e.g., Tom Jones, Scott Reynolds, Elizabeth Umphress, Ryan Fehr, Bruce Avolio). Our most recent recipient of the OB Lifetime Achievement Award (Blake Ashforth) has written about the normalization of corruptness, how corruption becomes stable and repetitive and involves socialization processes that embed the mis- behavior (Ashforth & Anand 2003). Additionally, and as mentioned above, the work of Linda Trevino et al. (2006) on bad apples and ethical leadership highlights that subordinates are de- pendent on their leaders as models and to give guidance about ethical issues. The perception of how and why people perceive their leaders in this way is key. Being seen as both a moral person as well as a moral manager is important in many domains where ethical actions are needed (see her articles with Michael Brown). Thus, the field of OB has witnessed a dramatic increase in its emphasis on understanding and increasing ethical conduct in today’s organizations.

This completes my review of what I believe are the changes in the content of OB literature focused on making organizations more habitable by us humans. I’m sure I have missed some topics and some people, and for that I apologize. Moreover, I don’t evaluate or analyze these approaches in detail. Some constructs have had legs or will grow and stand on their own over the years; others will pass on. They do, however, reflect what I think is a genuine attempt to increase the positive feelings and decrease the negative experiences of those who do organizational work.

5. METHODS

Similar to the past two topics, research methods has its own body of literature and a division in AoM. They address issues of measurement, study design, statistics, and inferences and also examine ways we can answer our research questions appropriately and with confidence. Therefore, this section does not focus on which procedures to use, how they work, or the details involved in describing their mathematical foundations; I concentrate on how changes in methods have changed both the questions we ask in OB and the ways we go about answering them. Methods drive theory and theory drives methods and lots of things have changed over 50 years.

It may be interesting to provide you with a short description of what we did in 1965 when I started graduate school in organizational psychology at Illinois. The field was somewhat divided on the basis of what type of research you did. Experimentalists did laboratory studies and field experiments and tested hypotheses using t-tests and analysis of variance. Individual difference scholars and those using surveys and questionnaires depended on correlations and regression and exploratory factor analyses procedures. (I still remember spending days doing rank-order cor- relations for my supervisor Fred Fiedler.) The former experimental techniques usually focused

14 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

on causality, the latter on association. Qualitative work and theory building were mostly nonex- istent in our best journals. We used narrative reviews (e.g., simple counting of supportive and unsupportive studies) to summarize the research on a topic.

How have we evolved? We went from correlation and simple regression techniques to path analysis to structural equation modeling (SEM). Adding dependent variables to an experiment brought us Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), and complex interactions across time and levels can be analyzed with hierarchical linear modeling. We can use Logit and Probit as well as survival analysis models to look at and compare amounts of change for dichotomous variables. We have all sorts of statistics to examine how well whole theories fit with our data (e.g., SEM). We have imputation strategies for missing data, coevolution procedures for looking at bicausality, and various techniques for rooting out endogeneity and confounds. Meta-analyses have replaced nar- rative reviews. Grounded theory provided some very specific procedures for qualitative work such as selective and open coding, theoretical sampling, constant iterative comparisons, and strategies for category formation. In the past five years I’ve done research involving many different analysis techniques including trajectories, cross-level effects, coevolution, logistic regression, survival anal- ysis, profile analysis, meta-analysis, and grounded theory. Thank goodness for smart colleagues and students.

The changes in the sophistication of our theory and methods are dramatic. We have multiple steps necessary for introducing and measuring a new construct. How we assess measurement reliability and validity is partly based on whether it is a formative or reflective construct. Our theories often include multiple mediators and moderators. Individuals are nested in groups and organizations requiring an understanding of level effects. Moreover, change can be theorized and tested across these levels and by examining trajectories over time. We can have dichotomous and continuous independent and dependent variables. We can test and compare complex causal models involving linear and nonlinear relationships.

Along with the data analyses, many methods have also evolved. Lately, I’ve been privileged to work with Tom Lee and many colleagues on the construct of job embeddedness; Fred Morgeson and Dong Liu on event systems; Brad Owens and Mike Johnson on humility; Pauline Schilpzand and David Hekman on courage; Marion Eberly, Erica Holley, and Mike Johnson on relational attributions; and Larry James on conditional reasoning. This work not only required extensive discussions about our theories and new constructs, it also demanded many different methods. We did panel studies over time, laboratory experiments, field experiments, surveys, and qualitative interviews. Most of the empirical papers had a minimum of two studies, and our most recent paper on relational attributions (Eberly et al. 2017) in the Journal of Applied Psychology has five samples used to develop the construct measure and two to test its predictive validity. Although my own theoretical and empirical activities have evolved, it is easy to look at other OB areas such as leadership, job satisfaction, and personality to show similar changes.

Developing theory and conducting research are simply more demanding than they used to be. I elaborate on this issue in the Discussions section. But before we move on, I want to point out two further issues about method. First, because of the sophistication required and the com- plex nature of the methods, many people make mistakes (mostly unintentional) in presenting and testing their work. We have missing data, confounds, confusion over levels of measurement, nonlinearity, outliers, restriction of range, small samples, insufficient power, correlated errors, suppressor variables, and numerous other potential problems. The demands for correctly speci- fying our theoretical models and our measurement models are very high and it is very hard to do. There are excellent books on various procedures [e.g., Tim Brown 2006 on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Heck et al. 2014 on hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), Schumacker & Lomax 2016 on SEM, the October 2015 issue of the Organizational Research Management (ORM) journal

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 15

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

on grounded theory (multiple articles), and the outstanding edited volumes and articles by Chuck Lance and Robert Vandenberg on statistical myths and urban legends (e.g., Lance & Vandenberg 2008)]. There are outstanding sources available to help you get it right.

Second, although the pressure to develop new and sophisticated theory is intense, the desire to prune the theoretical landscape lags far behind. I was particularly proud to join Keith Leavitt and Jeff Peterson in 2010 on an ORM paper (Leavitt et al. 2010) that describes ways to competitively test theories. One must be able to have both comparable theories that are compatible for such tests. But by using CFA, SEM, and HLM as well as meta-analyses and other procedures, we can begin to reduce rather than continuously augment the OB theoretical canon.

In closing, I mention some methodologists (many of whom do their work on OB topics) who have greatly enhanced our ability to develop and test our theories (Larry James, Jeff Edwards, Larry Williams, Barney Glaser, Tom Lee, Herman Aguinis, Jose Cortina, David Kenny, Joe McGrath, Bob Vandenberg, Eugene Stone-Romero, James LeBreton, Frank Schmitt, Jeanne Brett, Donald Campbell, and many others). We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

6. DISCUSSION

I want to zoom back up to 20,000 feet for this summary. The field of OB has changed substantially over 50 years, mostly in good ways. We are a huge international association of scholars. We have a professional organization that has journals, meetings, and workshops along with professional resources and oversight. We are inclusive and welcome learning from our diversity. Our demo- graphics have shifted to include almost 50% women and a large percentage of people from other countries. And the changes in our cadre of scholars and the structure of the AoM are associated with changes in what we study.

Our traditional topics have evolved and expanded. Theory and research on leadership, motiva- tion, and decision making continue to produce important insights and make significant contribu- tions. The research on personality has brought better measures and theory about how personality interacts with its context and changes over time (see the work of Tim Judge, Greg Stewart, Murray Barrick, Joyce and Robert Hogan, Howie Weiss, and Jennifer George). A new area that has evolved in the past 25 years focuses on the idea of how people fit with their jobs, organization, and careers and is now a major subarea of OB (see the work of Amy Kristof Brown, Jenifer Chatman, Tim Judge, Cheri Ostroff, Ben Schneider, Dan Cable, and Jeff Edwards). Although in his perspective article Edgar Schein already discussed some of the work on group dynamics, it is obvious that the focus on teams, their development, and their processes, has emerged as a major OB topic of interest. (Fred Morgeson, Ed Lawler, Susan Jackson, Dan Ilgen, Connie Gersick, Ed Salas, Clay Aldefer, Richard Hackman, Sigal Barsade, Kathy Eisenhart, Steve Kozlowski, John Hollenbeck, and Linda Argote have all made major contributions.) Peter Hom, Tom Lee, Rodger Griffeth, Mike Campion, and Carl Maertz have helped to transform a dry and relatively uninteresting topic such as turnover into an engaging, dynamic area of inquiry.

But, as I’ve tried to document, many scholars have focused on a more emotional, affective, and personal experience view of what it is like to work in today’s organizations. Their research elaborates on ways that organizations can be both better places for people to work as well as more effective. They investigate how people are treated; how organizational processes designed to manage, lead, and motivate can be more caring and inclusive; and how behavior can be ethical, with organizations contributing to the growth, health, and humanity of their employees. Jeff Pfeffer’s work over his long and distinguished career has also had such an emphasis. And, I think the future is bright. New areas of research continue to emerge. Not only are there new ideas about established as well as more affective topics, there are also new forms of organizing, regulations,

16 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

restraints, and products. The international nature of our discipline has brought thousands of like- minded scholars into the fold with new ideas and different perspectives on the substantive nature of OB. It is an exciting and dynamic field and I have felt highly privileged to have been part of it for 50 years.

Are there “problems in paradise” in our profession? I believe the biggest challenge facing everyone and new scholars in particular is the difficulty of being successful. The bar is being raised on the criteria for success (promotion, recognition) in three major ways. First, the competition is intense. The salaries for new OB professors (and eventual full professors) are enormous. Most full professors at major business schools make 12-month salaries of $150,000 to $200,000 and well- known, chaired full professors significantly more. All over the world the training of new scholars has gotten better as has the sheer number of people joining our ranks. Just pick up a copy of the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) or the Journal of Applied Psychology from the early years and compare it to today with respect to where the authors are from. We are truly an international discipline with numerous very talented people trying to succeed.

Second, it really is currently more difficult to move a field or make a contribution that is novel, insightful, and meaningful. You have to recognize that we know much more than we did 50 years ago. Numerous intelligent people have thought and opined about these issues. Meta-analyses exist for just about every topic and most relationships we care about. At the end of every topic area I talk about in my ten-week leadership or motivation courses I would always have a slide showing what we know from meta-analyses. Low-hanging fruit is harder to find.

Third, and not surprisingly, it is harder and harder to publish papers in our A-level journals. This is partly because of the competition and because most OB departments at top-level schools list only 4–6 journals classified as top tier. These journals all reject more than 90% of their submissions. With dramatic increases in the number of submissions, more people are having papers rejected. The theory and method bars have been raised substantially. Replications don’t make it. If you have a theory paper in AMR it is very hard to publish a test of that theory (without major new theory) in AMJ. In many cases there are requests from reviewers and editors for multiple studies.

And all of these forces can have negative effects on individuals and OB. The anxiety about getting promoted, getting tenure, and making it to full professor is palpable and makes many people, I’m sure, behave in ways that hurt them and the field. They discount their teaching. They do “safe” research. They take shortcuts. In terms of the field itself, it appears that many people burn out and move onto other endeavors. And, of course, there is a lot of good work that is never seen in published form. Substantial effort and insight by very smart people get lost. Debates are ongoing about how to resolve some of these problems, and hopefully we will find more outlets and publication strategies that allow this good work to be seen. But it is tough slogging for now.

7. CONCLUSION

There has been for years, a critique of business schools in general and management or OB in particular that we are the “servants of power” (see Art Brief ’s 2000 provocative paper on the topic) or, more crudely, the running dogs of the financial elite. The argument has been that our major focus is how to make people work harder, make organizations more productive, and make owners richer while many employees feel underappreciated, powerless, taken advantage of, and physically and mentally abused. But I truly believe that things are better than they were when I started my career and that some of that improvement is attributable to the concerted efforts of OB scholars and practitioners. I think we are making a positive difference.

One final shout-out is necessary. One huge positive aspect of my career has been all the people I have been lucky enough to work with—a wonderful group of friends and colleagues. Included

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 17

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

are many faculty here at UW: Gary Latham, Bruce Avolio, Fred Fiedler, Leigh Thompson, Lee Beach, Bill Scott, Marilyn Gist, Mike Johnson, Elizabeth Umphress, Xiaoping Chen, and my close friend and collaborator the past two decades, Tom Lee. I’ve been fortunate to have worked with some great students as well: Bob Wood, Jay Szalanski, Steve Green, Cindy Stevens, Bill Silver, Jim Larson, Bob Liden, Amy Mickel, Ken Smith, Stan Weed, Mimi Rothman, Jim Fredrickson, Karen Brown, Ken Doerr, Brooks Holtom, Denise Daniels, James Burton, Jane George-Falvy, Chris Sablynski, Pauline Schilpzand, Keith Leavitt, Erica Holley, Marion Eberly, and more recently Brad Owens, David Hekman, Dustin Bluhm, Dong Liu, Tyler Burch, Alex Rubinstein, and Jason Li. Last, but certainly not least, are colleagues at other schools: Jerry Ferris, Larry James, Miriam Erez, Peter Hom, Amir Erez, and Fred Morgeson. Thanks and heart-felt appreciation for being part of my life.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Tom Lee, Jeff Edwards, Marion Eberly, and Jason Li for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

LITERATURE CITED

Ashforth BE, Anand V. 2003. The normalization of corruption in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 25:1–52 Brief AP. 1998. Attitudes in and Around Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Brief AP. 2000. Still servants of power. J. Manag. Inq. 9:342–51 Brief AP. 2008. Diversity at Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Brown TA. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE. 2003. Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Dutton JE, Glynn MA. 2007. Positive organizational scholarship. In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, ed.

C Cooper, J Barling, pp. 693–711. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Eberly M, Holley E, Johnson M, Mitchell T. 2017. It’s not me, it’s not you, it’s us: an empirical examination

of relational attributions. J. Appl. Psychol. 102(5):711–31 French WL, Bell CH Jr. 1973. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization

Improvement. Upper-Saddle, NJ: Prentice-Hall Graham JW. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: a theoretical essay. Res. Organ. Behav. 8:1–52 Heck RH, Thomas SL, Tabata LN. 2014. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling with IBM SPSS. New York:

Routledge Hekman D, Aquino K, Owens B, Mitchell TR, Schilpzand P. 2010. An examination of whether and how racial

and gender biases influence customer satisfaction ratings. Acad. Manag. J. 2:338–64 Hirshman A. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press Lance CE, Vandenberg RJ. 2008. Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends. New York: Routledge Leavitt K, Mitchell TR, Peterson J. 2010. Theory pruning: strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape.

Organ. Res. Methods 13:644–67 Porter LW, Schneider B. 2014. What was, what is, and what may be in OP/OB. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol.

Organ Behav. 1:1–21 Robinson SL, Kiewitz C, Wang W. 2014. Coworkers behaving badly: the impact of coworker deviant behavior

upon individual employees. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:123–43 Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. 2016. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Routledge

18 Mitchell

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05CH01-Mitchell ARI 7 December 2017 11:21

Schilpzand P, Hekman DR, Mitchell TR. 2014. An inductively generated typology and process model of workplace courage. Organ. Sci. 26(1):52–77

Staw B. 2016. Stumbling toward a social psychology of organizations: an autobiographical look at the direction of organizational research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3:1–19

Tenbrunsel AE, Smith-Crowe K. 2008. Ethical decision making. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2:545–607 Trevino LK, Weaver GR, Reynolds SJ. 2006. Behavioral ethics in organizations: a review. J. Manag. 32:951–90 Vadera AK, Pratt MG, Mishra P. 2013. Constructive deviance in organizations: integrating and moving

forward. J. Manag. 39:1221–76 Williams KD. 2001. Ostracism: The Power of Silence. New York: Guilford Press Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, cause and

consequences of affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 18:1–74 Yukl GA. 2013. Leadership in Organizations. Albany, NY: Pearson

www.annualreviews.org • A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of OB 19

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05_TOC ARI 21 December 2017 19:11

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 5, 2018

Contents

A Dynamic, Inclusive, and Affective Evolutionary View of Organizational Behavior Terence R. Mitchell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Advances in the Treatment of Context in Organizational Research Gary Johns � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �21

Diversity and Inequality in Management Teams: A Review and Integration of Research on Vertical and Horizontal Member Differences J. Stuart Bunderson and Gerben S. Van der Vegt � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �47

Person–Environment Fit: A Review of Its Basic Tenets Annelies E.M. van Vianen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �75

Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences Stevan E. Hobfoll, Jonathon Halbesleben, Jean-Pierre Neveu,

and Mina Westman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 103

Protean Careers at Work: Self-Direction and Values Orientation in Psychological Success Douglas T. (Tim) Hall, Jeffrey Yip, and Kathryn Doiron � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 129

The Legal Context of the Management of Human Resources Kevin R. Murphy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 157

Status Dynamics Corinne Bendersky and Jieun Pai � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 183

Transfer of Training: The Known and the Unknown J. Kevin Ford, Timothy T. Baldwin, and Joshua Prasad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 201

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

OP05_TOC ARI 21 December 2017 19:11

Women and Leadership in the United States: Are We Closing the Gender Gap? Karen S. Lyness and Angela R. Grotto � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 227

Physiological Measurement in the Organizational Sciences: A Review and Recommendations for Future Use Daniel C. Ganster, Tori L. Crain, and Rebecca M. Brossoit � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 267

Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Recent Trends and Developments Dennis W. Organ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 295

Cross-Cultural Interaction: What We Know and What We Need to Know Nancy J. Adler and Zeynep Aycan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 307

Job Insecurity and the Changing Workplace: Recent Developments and the Future Trends in Job Insecurity Research Cynthia Lee, Guo-Hua Huang, and Susan J. Ashford � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 335

A Structural-Emergence Model of Diversity in Teams Aparna Joshi and Brett H. Neely � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 361

The Dark Triad and Workplace Behavior James M. LeBreton, Levi K. Shiverdecker, and Elizabeth M. Grimaldi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 387

More Than Words? Computer-Aided Text Analysis in Organizational Behavior and Psychology Research Jeremy C. Short, Aaron F. McKenny, and Shane W. Reid � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 415

Emotional Dynamics in Conflict and Negotiation: Individual, Dyadic, and Group Processes Gerben A. van Kleef and Stéphane Côté � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 437

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/ orgpsych

A nn

u. R

ev . O

rg an

. P sy

ch ol

. O rg

an . B

eh av

. 2 01

8. 5:

1- 19

. D ow

nl oa

de d

fr om

w w

w .a

nn ua

lr ev

ie w

s. or

g A

cc es

s pr

ov id

ed b

y 14

0. 31

.2 13

.2 o

n 03

/2 8/

18 . F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.