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

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

No abstract

Small talk-short, superficial, or trivial communication not core to task completion-is normative and ubiquitous in organizations. Although small talk comprises one-third of adults' speech, its effects at work have been discounted. Integrating theories of interaction rituals and micro-role transitions, we explore how and why seemingly inconsequential conversations during the workday generate meaningful effects on employees' experiences. In a sample of employed adults from a Northeast US University's alumni database and LinkedIn (n = 151), we used an experience sampling method (ESM) to capture within-individual variation in small talk over three weeks. We also conducted a validation of our daily small talk measure with Masters students from a Northeastern US University (n = 73) and two samples of employed adults registered with Amazon Turk (n = 180 and n = 202). Results showed that, on one hand, small talk enhanced employees' daily positive social emotions at work, which translated into heightened organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and well-being at the end of the workday; on the other hand, small talk disrupted employees' ability to cognitively engage in their work, which compromised their OCB. Our results also showed higher levels of trait-level self-monitoring mitigated the negative effects of small talk on work engagement. Combined, results suggest that the polite, ritualistic, and formulaic nature of small talk is often uplifting yet distracting.

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