We present a comprehensive theory of collective organizational engagement, integrating engagement theory with the resource management model. We propose that engagement can be considered an organization-level construct influenced by motivationally focused organizational practices that represent firm-level resources. Specifically, we evaluate three distinct organizational practices as resources-motivating work design, human resource management practices, and CEO transformational leadership-that can facilitate perceptions that members of the organization are as a whole physically, cognitively, and emotionally invested at work. Our theory is grounded in the notion that, when used jointly, these organizational resources maximize each of the three underlying psychological conditions necessary for full engagement; namely, psychological meaningfulness, safety, and availability. The resource management model also underscores the value of top management team members implementing and monitoring progress on the firm's strategy as a means to enhance the effects of organizational resources on collective organizational engagement. We empirically test this theory in a sample of 83 firms, and provide evidence that collective organizational engagement mediates the relationship between the three organizational resources and firm performance. Furthermore, we find that strategic implementation positively moderates the relationship between the three organizational resources and collective organizational engagement. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Although interdependence is a central aspect of team design, there has been a lack of clarity regarding the meaning and impact of different forms of interdependence. To provide theoretical clarity and to advance research on team interdependence, we develop an organizing, conceptual framework of interdependence in teams and test it using meta-analysis. We first review and tie together different conceptualizations of interdependence in the literature and illustrate how they converge around 2 major constructs: task interdependence and outcome interdependence. After providing integrative definitions of these forms of interdependence, as well as subdimensions, we then explore the relative effects of task and outcome interdependence on team functioning and performance. Specifically, we propose a pattern of differential effects in which task interdependence is primarily associated with team performance through its effects on task-focused team functioning (i.e., transition/action processes, collective efficacy), whereas outcome interdependence is primarily associated with team performance through its effects on relational team functioning (i.e., interpersonal processes, cohesion). We test these differential effects using a meta-analytic database of 107 independent samples and 7,563 teams. The meta-analytic path model provides strong support for our hypotheses. Implications and future directions for the study of interdependence in work teams are discussed.

Research Summary: We introduce to the upper echelons literature a novel, linguistic measure of CEOs' Big Five personality traits that we specifically developed and validated using a sample of CEOs. We then provide a predictive test of the measure by applying it to a sample of more than 3,000 CEOs of S&P 1500 firms to explore the direct and interactive effects of CEOs' Big Five personality traits and firm performance on strategic change. Our validated, unobtrusive measure of CEOs' Big Five traits provides a strong foundation for future theory development on the firm-level effects of CEOs' personality traits. Our specific findings also extend our understanding of how CEO personality influences firm-level change and how both person and situationbased factors interact to jointly influence firm strategy. Managerial Summary: This paper introduces a languagebased tool we developed to measure the Big Five personality traits (i.e., openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) of more than 3,000 CEOs of S&P 1500 firms. After describing our process to develop and validate the tool, we test it by examining how CEOs' Big Five traits influence strategic change, both in isolation and in combination with recent firm performance. Our results suggest that CEOs' personality traits have a meaningful impact on strategic change, but that the nature of these effects differs based on their firms' recent performance. Our tool also provides a strong basis for scholars seeking to measure the personality traits of large samples of publiccompany executives.

No abstract