Search results

Although existing research on cohesion provides a robust understanding of the emergent phenomenon in small groups and teams, our comprehension of cohesion at the multisystem (MTS) level is quite limited. The simultaneous within- and between-team functioning inherent in MTSs produces more intricate dynamics than those observed at the team level. This added layer of complexity requires that many familiar team constructs, including cohesion, be systematically re-conceptualized and empirically examined through the lens of MTS theory (DeChurch & Zaccaro, 2010; Hackman, 2003). The present research addresses this gap by extending the conceptualization of team cohesion to the interteam level, and empirically investigating how cohesion functions across levels in a collective network of teams. Results from preliminary research suggest that intrateam and interteam cohesion share a curvilinear relationship with one another, while simultaneously interacting to affect overall system-level outcomes. This research not only illuminates the complexities associated with emergent phenomena in MTSs, but also serves as a starting point for continued, systematic research of the multilevel cohesive bonds that characterize MTS functioning.

How can studying the case of the modern business school potentially give us a better understanding of the phenomenon of complex collaborations? (Gregoire & Prigogine, 1989; Peak & Frame, 1994; Stacey, 1995). Why does a business school need to enter into complex collaborations? (Lorange, 2000, 2002c, 2003). As a starting position, we should recognize that the activities of the classic business school are generally rather mature. There is fierce competition among business schools, the supply is abundant, and there are only a few established, elite business schools that can be seen as being truly different from the large agglomeration of schools. As such, we can see the business school arena as relatively mature, even atomistic.

Organizational behavior scholars have long recognized the importance of a variety of emotion-related phenomena in everyday work life. Indeed, after three decades, the span of research on emotions in the workplace encompasses a wide variety of affective variables such as emotional climate, emotional labor, emotion regulation, positive and negative affect, empathy, and more recently, specific emotions. Emotions operate in complex ways across multiple levels of analysis (i.e., within-person, between-person, interpersonal, group, and organizational) to exert influence on work behavior and outcomes, but their linkages to human resource management (HRM) policies and practices have not always been explicit or well understood. This chapter offers a review and integration of the bourgeoning research on discrete positive and negative emotions, offering insights about why these emotions are relevant to HRM policies and practices. We review some of the dominant theories that have emerged out of functionalist perspectives on emotions, connecting these to a strategic HRM framework. We then define and describe four discrete positive and negative emotions (fear, pride, guilt, and interest) highlighting how they relate to five HRM practices: (1) selection, (2) training/learning, (3) performance management, (4) incentives/rewards, and (5) employee voice. Following this, we discuss the emotion perception and regulation implications of these and other discrete emotions for leaders and HRM managers. We conclude with some challenges associated with understanding discrete emotions in organizations as well as some opportunities and future directions for improving our appreciation and understanding of the role of discrete emotional experiences in HRM.

We develop a multilevel model of emotional processes grounded in social identity theory to explore the role of emotion in transformational leadership.

This work is conceptual in nature and develops theory surrounding emotion in organizations by integrating theories on transformational leadership, emotion management, and organizational identity.

Transformational leaders utilize interpersonal emotion management strategies to influence and respond to emotions arising from the self-evaluative processes of organizational members during times of organizational identity change.

The conceptual model detailed provides insight on the intersubjective emotional processes grounded in social identity that influence transformational leadership. Future research into transformational leadership behaviors will benefit from a multilevel perspective which includes both interpersonal emotion management and intrapersonal emotion generation related to social identity at both the within-person and between-person levels.

The proposed model expands on the role of emotions in transformational leadership by theoretically linking the specific transformational behaviors to discrete emotions displayed by followers. While previous empirical research has indicated the positive outcomes of transformational leadership and the role of emotion recognition, work has yet to be presented which explicates the role of discrete emotions in the transformational leadership process.

This chapter aims to provide nuance into the issue of generational cohort differences at work by focusing on the role of contextual moderator variables. Theory and hypotheses derived from the research on generational differences, psychological contracts, and work values are contrasted to a countervailing set of hypotheses derived from theory and research on the confluence of age and Person-Environment (P-E) fit. Complex patterns of interactive effects are posited for both alternatives. The results favored a generational hypothesis regarding the positively valenced construct of job satisfaction but an age-based hypothesis for the negatively valenced construct of turnover intentions. Results are tested using a subset from a large and nationally representative sample of adults from the US workforce (n = 476). Results offer mixed support for both age and generational cohorts, qualified by the specific type of outcome at hand.

Government service delivery is undergoing change as a result of innovations in information technology (IT). Scholars and practitioners have paid attention to electronic-government (e-government) as a strategic tool for delivering services through the Internet and thus enhancing service quality, as well as streamlining internal operations (Council for Excellence in Government [CEG], 2000; Center for Technology in Government, 1999; Ho, 2002; Norris & Moon, 2005; West, 2004). Many local governments have also initiated e-government development and taken advantage of internet-based applications to facilitate community development and communication with constituents (Benjamin, 2001; Modesitt, 2002), as well as to provide online application services (Ho, 2002; Norris & Moon, 2005). E-government brings with it the potential for greater cost-efficiency, enhanced citizen involvement, improved service quality, and increased transparency. Although e-government has the potential to provide many benefits, little research has been conducted on e-government performance and the influence of public management on e-government performance in local government.

Employees as citizens and companies as part of our society have to deal with the implications of grand challenges such as the global climate change or the COVID-19 pandemic in this turbulent twenty-first century. Internal versus external Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) acquires an integrative element of sustainable business strategies. Human Resource Management (HRM) contributes by defining modern internal Workplace CSR concepts for supporting sustainable business strategies. The focus of the sustainable HRM strategy is the employees as the key asset of companies, applying especially to those who are particularly talented as future leadership successors and CSR ambassadors. On the basis of the current Green HRM and Workplace CSR review, theoretical and practical implications are concluded to foster Workplace CSR strategy as part of a modern working culture and an integrative HRM frame. The COVID-19 pandemic as an accelerator of Green and social transformation is also discussed in the context of this sustainable HRM framework.

All things change, nothing is extinguished…. There is nothing in the whole world which is permanent. Everything flows onward; all things are brought into being with a changing nature; the ages themselves glide by in constant movement. (Ovid)

Achieving sustainable development in heart-wrenching milestone in the face of the current pandemic (COVID-19) situation is becoming a key factor for competitiveness of organizations. Human Resource Development professionals are deemed to be in an ideal position to facilitate the organizational sustainable development by bringing about contextual changes in the workplace and by changing the behavioral patterns of employees. The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered the disruption across societies, raising challenges for the organizations besides other institutions to play their imperative role for a sustainable development pathway. One such way of striving by organizations would be to embark among employees a spark of bringing a change among its employees from being self-centered to societal-oriented by instilling among them the kindle of DSIW (Desire to have Significant Impact through Work). It is the desire of making substantial impact toward society and others' lives, which is evoked under ethical leadership and perceived ethical Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Thus, we have identified the underpinning values of being an ethical leader in wake of contributing toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) toward bringing a societal perspective among employees by infusing the altruistic desire, that is, DSIW among employees. This chapter is broadly divided into two main sections. The first section highlights the contextual settings and the underlying mechanisms that lead to DSIW. The second section draws the attention toward the implication of DSIW for employees in bringing about social change with respect to sustainability, social well-being, as well for the sustainable development of organizations and for positive socioeconomic consequences.