Organizational psychology: a look backward, outward, and forward

Porter, Lyman W.

doi:10.1002/job.531

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Sidle (2010, p. 102) stated “researchers have generally ignored the question of whether there are any potential benefits of counterproductive behaviors.” However, the construct of positive deviance that was recently introduced by Spreitzer and Sonenshein (2004) and drawn upon by Waldman et al takes a different perspective since it focuses on behaviors “whereby the general norm is rejected for purposes of doing good” (Waldman et al, 2011, p. 2). The fact that deviating from organizational norms is no longer solely regarded as inhibiting organizational productivity but (also) as potentially benefiting others is in concordance with recent calls for a shift in organizational psychology/organizational behavior from a purely “managerial perspective... to a general welfare‐of‐employees‐and‐society perspective” (Porter, 2008, p. 522).…”

Section: Positive Deviance In Organizationssupporting

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Money over man versus caring and compassion? Challenges for today's organizations and their leaders

Peus¹

2011

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis commentary discusses three important topics in organizational behavior that have been largely ignored previously: Organizational responses to terrorism, positive deviance in organizations, and the creation of caring and compassionate organizations. The article highlights the challenges these three topics pose for organizational leaders. Furthermore, it explores future directions of research that might facilitate a deeper understanding of these topics as well as organizational behavior in general. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords: terrorism; positive deviance; compassion Our society and the organizations therein are faced with a number of man-made crises. These include an economic as well as a moral crisis (e.g., indicated by the lack of trust in leaders), environmental disasters such as the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the experience or realistic threat of terrorist attacks. In response to this situation, a number of authors have recently called for scholars in organizational behavior or management in general to show more consideration for ''the common good'' (Lefkowitz, 2008, p. 440) and to ''focus on research showing how modern organizations can make life better for its employees and the communities where they operate'' (DeNisi, 2007, para. 3). That is, research in organizational behavior and related areas has been asked to assume societal responsibility by generating knowledge pertaining to the role of organizations in tackling pressing societal problems such as poverty (Lefkowitz, 2008) or promotion of peace (Spreitzer, 2007). Generally speaking organization scholars are asked to contribute to the question of how organizations can alleviate human suffering and promote the greater good. In line with this demand Waldman, Carmeli, and Halevi (this issue) examine, in the empirical part of their paper, organizational responses to individual suffering resulting from terrorist attacks. Furthermore, based on their findings they propose a model of key organizational variables that are crucial for the development of individuals' resilience after traumatic events. Waldman et al. stimulate future research by drawing our attention to a number of important topics that have received attention in organizational behavior only recently. I will address just three of these topics here: organizational responses to terrorism, positive deviance in organizations, and the creation of caring and compassionate organizations.

show abstract

Section: Positive Deviance In Organizationssupporting

confidence: 59%

“…Looking at it from a different perspective, this paper also poses the question of how organizations should be led when faced with extra‐organizational threats, thus once more pointing to the importance of external‐environmental context in organizational behavior research (cf. Porter, 2008).…”

Section: Organizational Reactions To Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Money over man versus caring and compassion? Challenges for today's organizations and their leaders

Peus¹

2011

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aguinis, Bradley, and Brodersen () certainly offer provocative and thought‐provoking conclusions and suggestions, including many observations in line with those of Porter (). Their evidence, and our own first‐hand experiences in management and psychology departments, respectively, are compelling that there is a trend for industrial–organizational (I–O) PhDs to be migrating to business schools.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Industrial–Organizational Psychologists Moving to Business Schools: Potholes in the Road to Migration?

Gupta

Beehr

2014

Ind. organ. psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A determinant of practitioners' research knowledge is their field of training or education (Hodgkinson & Herriot, 2002;Porter, 2008;Terpstra & Rozell, 1997). The training of industrial and organisational (I/O) psychologists is firmly rooted in science (Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001;Gasser, Butler, Waddilove, & Tan, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(We followed the example of Rynes et al 2002, who used the term ''beliefs'' to describe the gap between research findings and practitioner beliefs.) We chose to contrast HR practitioners with I/ O psychologists on the basis that the latter receive more extensive scientific training and the former more business-oriented training (Porter, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancy between human resource research and practice: Comparison of industrial/organisational psychologists and human resource practitioners' beliefs

Carless

Rasiah

Irmer

2009

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a large and growing body of research to show that human resource (HR) practices affect individual performance, organisational productivity and organisational performance. Academic findings about effective HR practices, however, have not readily been adopted by practitioners. A variety of theoretical and practical explanations have been advanced about the research-practice gap. Research by Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002) suggested that the research-practice gap is due to a lack of knowledge, but the extent to which these findings apply to the Australian context is unknown. The sample consisted of 102 industrial/organisational (I/O) psychologists and 89 HR practitioners. The main aim of the present study was to replicate and extend the work of Rynes et al. by examining and comparing the knowledge of I/O psychologists and HR practitioners. It was found that overall I/O psychologists were better informed about HR research than HR practitioners; in particular, they were more knowledgeable about management practices and recruitment and selection. In both groups, of the five content areas examined (Management Practices; General Employment Practices; Training and Development; Recruitment and Selection; and Compensation and Benefits), the greatest gaps were in Recruitment and Selection.

show abstract

Organizational psychology: a look backward, outward, and forward

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Money over man versus caring and compassion? Challenges for today's organizations and their leaders

Money over man versus caring and compassion? Challenges for today's organizations and their leaders

Industrial–Organizational Psychologists Moving to Business Schools: Potholes in the Road to Migration?

Discrepancy between human resource research and practice: Comparison of industrial/organisational psychologists and human resource practitioners' beliefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About