A Review and Synthesis of Situational Strength in the Organizational Sciences

Meyer, Rustin D.; Dalal, Reeshad S.; Hermida, Richard

doi:10.1177/0149206309349309

Cited by 515 publications

(717 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

651

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Job autonomy means that workers can make decisions about their work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and provides opportunities to exercise discretion over work tasks (Parker & Wall, 1998). With job autonomy, individual action is less constrained by formal rules or procedures (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). Accordingly, job autonomy provides more scope for employees to express their ideas, show their uniqueness, and pursue goals based on their personal values and needs (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).…”

Section: Interaction Effect Of Self-construal and Work Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and Why People Engage in Different Forms of Proactive Behavior: Interactive Effects of Self-construals and Work Characteristics

Parker

et al. 2018

AMJ

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author's final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. 1 WHEN AND WHY PEOPLE ENGAGE IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR: INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF SELF-CONSTRUALS AND WORK CHARACTERISTICS ABSTRACTWhen and why do people engage in different forms of proactive behavior at work? We propose that, as a result of a process of trait activation, employees with different types of self-construal engage in distinct forms of proactive behavior if they work in environments consistent with their self-construals. In an experimental Study 1 (N = 61), we examined the effect of self-construals on proactivity and found that people primed with interdependent self-construals engaged in more work unit-oriented proactive behavior when job interdependence also was manipulated. Priming independent self-construals did not enhance career-oriented proactive behavior, even when we manipulated job autonomy. In a field Study 2 (N = 205), we found that employees with interdependent self-construals working in jobs with high interdependence reported higher work unit commitment and higher work unit-oriented proactive behavior than employees in low interdependent jobs. Employees with independent self-construals working in jobs with high autonomy also exhibited stronger career commitment and more career-oriented proactive behavior than those in jobs with low autonomy. This research offers a theoretical framework to explain how dispositional and situational factors interactively shape people's engagement in different forms of proactive behavior.Keywords: Self-construal, Job design, Proactive behavior, Trait activation, Commitment 3 WHEN AND WHY PEOPLE ENGAGE IN DIFFERENT FORMS OF PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR: INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF SELF-CONSTRUALS AND WORK CHARACTERISTICSThere is a pressing need for proactive behavior in today's global work context (Crant, 2000).It has become increasingly important to anticipate opportunities and initiate actions to operate effectively in complex and uncertain work environments (Campbell, 2000;Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). Consequently, scholars have investigated proactive behavior, defined as "self-initiated and future-oriented action that aims to change and improve the situation or oneself" (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006, p. 636 Although researchers who focus on co...

show abstract

Section: Interaction Effect Of Self-construal and Work Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When and Why People Engage in Different Forms of Proactive Behavior: Interactive Effects of Self-construals and Work Characteristics

Parker

et al. 2018

AMJ

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…122). Strong situations provide signals related to requirements, thereby restricting the range of appropriate behaviors and leaving little room for individual deviation in situations in which people with different personalities and cultural backgrounds are involved (Meyer et al, 2010). Situational strength can be fostered through incentives and sanctions (Dalal et al, 2015).…”

Section: -----------------------------------Table 7 -----------------mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplier Development for Sustainability: Contextual Barriers in Global Supply Chains

Busse¹,

Niu²,

Schleper

et al. 2016

AMPROC

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledgments:An earlier version of this paper was the recipient of the 2015 Chris Voss Best Paper Award granted at the 22 nd European Operations Management Association conference. We are most grateful to the EurOMA Scientific Committee for choosing our paper and encouraging us to consider IJPDLM as a publication outlet for our research. We also acknowledge the helpful feedback received at the conference. Moreover, we would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers at IJPDLM who have provided extremely insightful and constructive suggestions which helped us to improve this paper substantially. Finally, we express our gratitude to the Editor, Alexander E. Ellinger, for facilitating a speedy review process. Design/methodology/approach -A dyadic case study design was adopted with a Western European buyer and six of its Chinese suppliers. The database consists of 41 interviews and 81 documents.Findings -Contextual barriers to SDS in global supply chains derive from complexities in the sustainability concept, socio-economic differences, spatial and linguistic distance, as well as cultural differences between buyers and suppliers. Partial remedies include effective joint communications, an open organizational culture, and the fostering of cross-contextual understanding.Research implications -The findings contribute to theory development at the intersection of sustainable and global supply chain management research. They help to explain why scarce sustainability-related progress in global supply chains has occurred in recent years.Practical implications -The identified barriers facilitate managerial decision making that will expedite SDS progress in global contexts.Social implications -By diffusing knowledge regarding available remedies, the study contributes to improving SDS effectiveness, thereby fostering sustainability capabilities and performance of suppliers.Originality/value -This research highlights the criticality of contextual barriers to SDS. The barrier effects that stem from differing real-world conceptions of sustainability may inform future sustainable supply chain management research within and beyond SDS.

show abstract

“…In the weak situation, there is variance in behavior, and that variance can be explained by personality, among other things. For a general conceptual discussion of situational constraints, we direct authors to Peters and O'Connor (1980); for descriptions of different types of constraining moderators and their use in organizational science research we point to Meyer, Dalal, and Hermida (2010).…”

Section: What Is the Rv Interaction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, the relationship between that variable and the other variable is weaker than it is when the moderator takes a value that corresponds to low strength. It should be noted that assessing interaction effects that are cross-level in nature requires additional theoretical justification and the use multilevel modeling (see Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Culpepper, 2013;Meyer et al, 2010;Peterson, Arregle, & Martin, 2012, for guidance on justifying and testing cross-level hypotheses).…”

Section: Rv Effects In Cross-level Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restriction of variance interaction effects and their importance for international business research

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent Journal of International Business Studies editorial on interaction effects within and across levels highlighted the importance of and difficulty associated with justifying and reporting of such interaction effects. The purpose of this editorial is to describe a type of interaction hypothesis that is very common in international business (IB) research: the restricted variance (RV) hypothesis. Specifically, we describe the nature of an RV interaction and its evidentiary requirements. We also offer several IB examples involving interactions that could have been supported with RV arguments. Our hope is that IB researchers can use this paper to bolster their arguments for interaction hypotheses by explaining them in terms of RV.

show abstract

A Review and Synthesis of Situational Strength in the Organizational Sciences

Cited by 515 publications

References 59 publications

When and Why People Engage in Different Forms of Proactive Behavior: Interactive Effects of Self-construals and Work Characteristics

When and Why People Engage in Different Forms of Proactive Behavior: Interactive Effects of Self-construals and Work Characteristics

Supplier Development for Sustainability: Contextual Barriers in Global Supply Chains

Restriction of variance interaction effects and their importance for international business research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About