Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions

Puente-Palacios, Katia

doi:10.1590/s1415-65552003000200014

Cited by 47 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Schneider et al, 1998). Ployhart et al demonstrated specifically that these results were stronger at the job level than the organizational level, in keeping with multilevel theory, which asserts that individual and job levels are more strongly related than individual and organizational levels (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Shifting from personality to life experiences, J. L. Schneider (1994) demonstrated that holding vocation constant, biodata could be used to differentiate among employees in specific accounting firms and law practices.…”

Section: Antecedents Of Pe Fitmentioning

confidence: 85%

Person–environment fit.

Kristof‐Brown

Guay

2011

APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization.

331

367

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of all the issues in psychology that have fascinated scholars and practitioners alike none has been more pervasive than the one concerning the fit of person and environment. (B. Schneider, 2001, p. 141) Person-environment fit is defined as the compatibility that occurs when individual and work environment characteristics are well matched (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Models of personenvironment (PE) fit have always been a prominent theme in the field of industrial and organizational psychology. The notion that people are differentially compatible in particular work environments is so well accepted that Saks and Ashforth (1997) called the topic "a cornerstone of industrial/organizational psychology and human resources management" (p. 395). B. Schneider (2001) concluded that "the concept of person-environment fit is so pervasive as to be one of, if not the, dominant conceptual forces in the field" (p. 142). Yet in the same article, B. Schneider also notes, "There is considerable ambiguity over what is appropriate research from a person-environment fit perspective" (p. 150). Thus, the purpose of this chapter is as much to review where research on PE fit has been as it is to illuminate what the research contains and where it is going.

show abstract

Section: Antecedents Of Pe Fitmentioning

confidence: 85%

Person–environment fit.

Kristof‐Brown

Guay

2011

APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization.

331

367

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As suggested by the work-home (W-HR) resources model (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), macro resources represent the tools located within the social system in which a person is embedded. Conceptualized as a supervisor-level construct, FSSBs capture the shared team perceptions of what constitutes supervisor supportive behaviors regarding family responsibilities (Hammer et al, 2009) that emerge from "being exposed to common features, events and processes" (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Through social interactions, team members eventually develop consensus and agreement that their supervisor acts in consistent support of their management of family demands.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dual Spillover Spiraling Effects of Family Incivility on Workplace Interpersonal Deviance: From the Conservation of Resources Perspective

Lin

Bai

2022

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, interest in family-to-work interference and its consequences has increased dramatically. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, we propose and test a dual spillover spiraling model which examines the indirect effects of family incivility on workplace interpersonal deviance through increasing family-to-work conflict (resource loss spiral) and decreasing family-to-work enrichment (resource gain spiral). We also examine the moderating effects of family-supportive supervisor behaviors on these indirect effects. The findings from a three-wave survey, with 455 employees and their coworkers in 60 teams, reveal that experienced family incivility (Time 1) induces more interpersonal deviance at work (Time 3) through facilitating family-to-work conflict (Time 2) and inhibiting family-to-work enrichment (Time 2). Such indirect deviation amplifying effects are mitigated by higher supervisor-level family-supportive supervisor behaviors (Time 1). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…Specifically, these dynamics can include inertia, feedback, asymmetric influence, and endogenous change (Cronin & Vancouver, 2019). Considering these aspects of human and technological action on both micro and meso levels (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) can provide a more realistic view of AI in teams. For example, future research can expand to include AI actors in multilevel examinations of adaptive performance (Han & Williams, 2008).…”

Section: Human-ai Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration

Bezrukova

Spell

Rice

et al. 2023

Group & Organization Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We theorize about human-team collaboration with AI by drawing upon research in groups and teams, social psychology, information systems, engineering, and beyond. Based on our review, we focus on two main issues in the teams and AI arena. The first is whether the team generally views AI positively or negatively. The second is whether the decision to use AI is left up to the team members (voluntary use of AI) or mandated by top management or other policy-setters in the organization. These two aspects guide our creation of a team-level conceptual framework modeling how AI introduced as a mandated addition to the team can have asymmetric effects on collaboration level depending on the team’s attitudes about AI. When AI is viewed positively by the team, the effect of mandatory use suppresses collaboration in the team. But when a team has negative attitudes toward AI, mandatory use elevates team collaboration. Our model emphasizes the need for managing team attitudes and discretion strategies and promoting new research directions regarding AI’s implications for teamwork.

show abstract

Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions

Cited by 47 publications

References 0 publications

Person–environment fit.

Person–environment fit.

The Dual Spillover Spiraling Effects of Family Incivility on Workplace Interpersonal Deviance: From the Conservation of Resources Perspective

Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About