Scientific Contributions of Within-Person Research in Management: Making the Juice Worth the Squeeze

Abstract

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.

Managers’ Resources for Authentic Leadership – a Multi‐study Exploration of Positive Psychological Capacities and Ethical Organizational Climates

“…Our research focuses on short‐term behavioural fluctuations, also termed the ‘ebb and flow’ of leadership, as measured in experience sampling studies (Podsakoff et al ., 2019). Drivers of short‐term fluctuations in leadership are transient affective and cognitive states linked to COR theory (Kelemen, Matthews and Breevaart, 2019; McClean et al ., 2019; McCormick et al ., 2018), such as demands (e.g. email load; Rosen et al ., 2019) and the availability (or lack of) resources (e.g.…”

“…Two recent meta‐analyses also show that self‐efficacy and self‐esteem exhibit a meaningful proportion of within‐person variability (i.e. 36% – McCormick et al ., 2018; 39% – Podsakoff et al ., 2019).…”

“…Finally, we incorporate the called‐for temporal element into management theorizing and research (Fischer, Dietz and Antonakis, 2017; Kelemen, Matthews and Breevaart, 2019; McClean et al ., 2019; McCormick et al ., 2018), especially in relation to AL (Alvesson and Einola, 2019; Ibarra, 2015; Sidani and Rowe, 2018). Kelemen, Matthews and Breevaart (2019) argue that ‘studying leadership in a daily fashion is critical […] as it gives unique insight that cannot be easily captured in other ways’ (p. 2).…”

“…Kelemen, Matthews and Breevaart (2019) argue that ‘studying leadership in a daily fashion is critical […] as it gives unique insight that cannot be easily captured in other ways’ (p. 2). Day‐level research enables (1) testing of leadership theories at the within‐person level (see also McCormick et al ., 2018); (2) in‐depth insights into the short‐term processes of leadership; and (3) the analysis of leadership in its natural context. Despite its original formulation as a dynamic phenomenon (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; see also Cooper, Scandura and Schriesheim, 2005; Luthans and Avolio, 2003; May et al ., 2003), in the study of AL ‘these good intentions have later been largely replaced by static […] conceptualizations and empirical studies’ (Alvesson and Einola, 2019, p. 387).…”

“…Here we test personal resources and AL on a between‐person level of analysis and replicate the findings of the role of contextual resources. The multi‐study approach allows us to constructively replicate (Eden, 2002) and compare results (Iszatt‐White and Kempster, 2018; Xanthopoulou et al ., 2009), thereby advancing the understanding of AL and COR theory at within‐ and between‐person levels of analysis (Kelemen, Matthews and Breevaart, 2019; McCormick et al ., 2018; Miller and Bamberger, 2016; Podsakoff et al ., 2019).…”