I–O Psychology: We Have the Evidence; We Just Don't Use It (or Care To)

Thayer, Amanda L.; Wildman, Jessica L.; Salas, Eduardo

doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01290.x

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, dozens of reviews and meta‐analyses of the teamwork literature have been published within the past 15 years in an effort to summarize this vast body of knowledge. However, one of the widespread challenges of scientific research is the transition from basic science into practical application, and organizational science is no exception (Briner & Rousseau, ; Thayer, Wildman, & Salas, ). Basic science is research performed for its own sake—the development of knowledge in order to understand.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide

Salas

Shuffler

Thayer

et al. 2014

Human Resource Management

Self Cite

356

315

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teams are pervasive in today's world, and rightfully so as we need them. Drawing upon the existing extensive body of research surrounding the topic of teamwork, we delineate nine “critical considerations” that serve as a practical heuristic by which HR leaders can determine what is needed when they face situations involving teamwork. Our heuristic is not intended to be the definitive set of all considerations for teamwork, but instead consolidates key findings from a vast literature to provide an integrated understanding of the underpinnings of teamwork—specifically, what should be considered when selecting, developing, and maintaining teams. This heuristic is designed to help those in practice diagnose team‐based problems by providing a clear focus on relevant aspects of teamwork. To this end, we first define teamwork and its related elements. Second, we offer a high‐level conceptualization of and justification for the nine selected considerations underlying the heuristic, which is followed by a more in‐depth synthesis of related literature as well as empirically‐driven practical guidance. Third, we conclude with a discussion regarding how this heuristic may best be used from a practical standpoint, as well as offer areas for future research regarding both teamwork and its critical considerations. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide

Salas

Shuffler

Thayer

et al. 2014

Human Resource Management

Self Cite

356

315

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implicitly, at least, the underlying ideal type behind this perspective may be a version of the scientist-practitioner model in which professionals [such as industrial and organizational (I/O) psychologists] would be trained as both scientists and practitioners. However, in a world of growing specialization and rapid change, it is increasingly difficult for both practitioner and research skills to be found in the same person (Thayer et al 2011). Still, the ideal might nevertheless be largely attained to the extent that scientific studies are motivated and informed by practical problems, and practitioners seek to address those problems by blending the insights of scientific evidence "with years of accumulated wisdom gained in the field-art and science in harmony" (Hodgkinson 2011, p. 51).…”

Section: Evidence-based Management: History and Context The Academic-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Management: Foundations, Development, Controversies and Future

Rynes

Bartunek

2017

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review the recent development of evidence-based management (EBMgt), tracing its origins to longstanding gaps between research and practice, discrepant findings across studies, and the emergence of evidence-based medicine (EBMed). We provide a definition of EBMgt and review four foundational articles advocating its use. We then review categories of articles that comprise the EBMgt canon: advocacy articles, essays or perspectives, teaching-related, empirical, reviews, and critiques and responses. Critiques include political, epistemological, and methodological issues directly pertinent to EBMgt as well as broader concerns about the scholarly research base on which EBMgt depends. Our suggestions for future research emphasize, first and foremost, increasing the production of high-quality empirical studies in EBMgt. Topics of particular interest include research co-creation by academics and practitioners, process and outcome studies of EBMgt implementations, and practitioners' use of evidence in their working environments. We also call for broader types of systematic reviews (SRs) than have generally been conducted in the organization sciences.

show abstract

“…Meta‐analysis is an important form (but only one of many forms) of research synthesis. Points made in number of commentaries (Burke, 2011; Catano, 2011; Thayer, Wildman, & Salas, 2011) imply that the focal article was arguing that systematic reviews are necessarily superior to meta‐analyses or that somehow meta‐analyses are fundamentally flawed. Rather, meta‐analyses are one form of systematic review or, more accurately, research synthesis that, again, may be entirely appropriate depending on the question the review sets out to address (Rousseau et al, 2008).…”

Section: Corrections and Clarifications: Did We Really Say That?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based I–O Psychology: Not There Yet but Now a Little Nearer?

Briner

Rousseau

2011

Ind. organ. psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our focal article sought to promote discussion of evidence-based approaches to practice in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. It did so by describing the meanings and origins of evidence-based practice, evaluating the extent to which I-O psychology practice is currently evidence-based, and considering the role of systematic reviews in promoting evidence-based practice. The commentaries on our focal article raised many interesting and important points. In our response, we divide them into two broad categories. The first category consists of comments and objections that arise from what we believe to be misinterpretations of evidence-based practice and our focal article. The second category contains those comments that in various ways extend and elaborate the issues raised in our focal article. Although we are not there yet, we hope that these commentaries will take us a little nearer to an evidence-based approach to I-O psychology.Our focal article asserted that industrialorganizational (I-O) psychology would benefit from adopting an evidence-based practice approach. In our analysis, we suggested that I-O psychology practice is currently not strongly evidence based. The commentaries it evoked did not contradict or take strong issue with that conclusion. Although some consensus exists-that the practice decisions of I-O psychologists should be more informed by relevant research evidence-what many of the commentaries identify are current limitations and necessary developments for rendering our solutions actionable.Reading commentaries evokes much the same array of emotions as reviews on one's

show abstract

I–O Psychology: We Have the Evidence; We Just Don't Use It (or Care To)

Cited by 10 publications

References 8 publications

Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide

Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide

Evidence-Based Management: Foundations, Development, Controversies and Future

Evidence-Based I–O Psychology: Not There Yet but Now a Little Nearer?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About