ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR IN THE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL ERA

0084-6570/97/0201-0515$08.00 515

ROUSSEAUOB IN THE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL ERAAnnu.Rev. Psychol. 1997.48:515–46Copyright© 1997by AnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR INTHE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL ERA

DeniseM. RousseauHeinz School of Public Policy and Management and Graduate School of IndustrialAdministration,CarnegieMellon University, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania15213

KEY WORDS: employment relations, performanceparadox, organizational change, organiza-tional learning, organizing, self-management

ABSTRACT

Changes in contemporary firms and their competitive environments translateinto anewfocusin organizational research.Thischapterreviewsorganizationalbehavior researchreflecting theshift from corporatistorganizationsto organiz-ing.Keyresearchthemesincludeemergingemployment relations,managingtheperformanceparadox, goal setting and self-management, discontinuousinfor-mation processing,organization learning,organizationalchangeandindividualtransitions, and the implications of change for work-nonwork relations. Re-search into organizing is building upon and extending many of the field’straditional concepts. This chapter suggests that someassumptions of organiza-tional behavior research arebeing superseded by thosemoreresponsive to theneworganizational era.

This chapter is dedicated to Herbert Simon on the occasion of his eightiethbirthday.

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 516A NEW ERA IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH............................................................. 517RESEARCH THEMESREGARDING ORGANIZING.......................................................... 518

NewEmploymentRelations................................................................................................. 518Performance:Measurementand Management................................................................... 525Goal SettingBecomes Self-Management............................................................................. 527InformationProcessing: Discontinuousand Multiphased.................................................. 529Organizational Learning..................................................................................................... 530ManagingOrganizational Changeand Individual Transitions.......................................... 533

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Leisure,Nonwork, and Community: Personal and Institutional Supports ......................... 535CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 536APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................... 537

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary organizationsarechanging,andthe field of organizational be-havior is changingwith them.This chapterdescribestheshiftsorganizationalresearchmanifestsasfirms transitionto a neweraof flexible, lateralformsoforganizing(Davis 1987,Miles & Creed1995).It seeksanswersto two ques-tions.First, how arecorefeaturesof organizationalresearchinfluencedby thechangescontemporaryorganizationsareundergoing?Second,what new dy-namicsand features are emergingas importantorganizationalresearch issues?

Thecentralproblemsin organizationalbehaviorareinfluencedby changesin organizationsthemselves(Barley & Kunda 1992, Goodman& Whetten1995). Although Annual Reviewof Psychology(ARP) authorsoften havereportedthe durability of suchtraditionalcategoriesaswork motivation andperformance,absenteeismandturnover,climateandculture,andgroupsandleadership(e.g.O’Reilly 1991),other recentcommentariesreportmoresub-stantialshifts. The time frameusedto review a body of researchis probablythegreatestdeterminantof whetherwe observechangeor stability. For exam-ple, Barley & Kunda’s (1992) investigation of trendsin managerialthoughtrangedfrom the1870sto thepresentandreportedalternating cyclesof rational(e.g. scientific management)and normative(e.g. humanrelations)thinkingamongmanagersandscholarspredicatedon the degreeof expansionor con-traction in the economyof the time. From their startingpoint in the 1950s,Goodman& Whetten(1995)notedanadaptivequality in thefield’s work thatshifts attentiontowardparticularappliedproblemsfirms facewithin a givendecade:Organizationaldevelopmentwasa themein the1950sand1960s,andorganizationaldecline and interorganizational relationswere themesin the1980sand1990s.In the ARP,the historic reachof chapterstypically centersaroundthe intervening yearssincea subject’s last review,a practicethat canhighlight stability andmask trends.

SeveralpreviousARPreviewers have characterizedthe field as“moribund”(O’Reilly 1991)or “fallow” (Mowday& Sutton1993),concludingpessimisti-cally thatneitherinnovation nor progress was evident.However,boththe timeframeof areviewandthecategoriesreviewersfocusonshapehowdynamic orstablethe field appears.I conducteda contentanalysisof ARPchapters(de-scribedin the Appendixof this chapter)to determinethe field’s key contentareasand their stability over time. That analysisprovidesevidenceof bothchangeandstability in thefield’s majortopics.It suggeststhatthougha stablecoreof topics reappear—focusingon organizationaland individual perform-

516 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ance,motivation, and worker responses—the correlationof categoriesovertime is moderate,with issuesemergingandrecedingwith thefield’s advancesandshifts in the problemsorganizations face.A trendtoward increasedspe-cializationis evident,which maymakeoverallprogressin thefield difficult togauge.With this in mind, thepresentchapterfocuseson researchparticularlyresponsiveto contemporary organizationalchanges.In contrastwith the con-clusionsof earlierreviewers,I showthatthereis causefor optimismabouttheprogress beingmadein organizationalresearch.

A NEW ERAIN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH

This review is predicatedon the premisethat the meaningof organizationischanging.The term organizationhas two principal definitions. “The act orprocessof organizing”is thelongestestablishedmeaning.Thesecondrefersto“a body of personsorganizedfor someend or work,” or alternatively“theadministrative personnelor apparatusof a business”(Merriam-Webster Inc.1989).As Drucker(1994)noted,theseconddefinition—“the” organizationasan entity—has beenwidely usedonly sincethe 1950s,which is concurrentwith the eraof theindustrial state. Thisseconddefinitionhasbeenoperativeinorganizationalresearch.Now, however,thereis evidencethat organizationalbehaviorresearchersare reconnectingwith the more traditional meaningoforganizationas process,given the increasingattentionto group-level—par-ticularly team-level—phenomena,socialnetworks,managerialcognitionandinformationprocessing,andentrepreneurship(e.g.Arthur & Rousseau1996,Drazin& Sandelands1992,Snowetal 1992,Weick1996).In hisARPchapter,Wilpert (1995) describedthe related“social constructionof organizations”perspectiveas a respectedtradition in Europeanresearch.However,more isgoingon here thanjust a shiftin epistemological assumptions.

Increasinginterestin socialconstructionoccursat a time whenfirms andwork roles themselves have an emergentquality in responseto an era ofupheavalandtransition. Changesin severalinstitutional sectorsareinfluenc-ing firms (Davis1987,Handy 1989): TheReagan Era’s conservative approachto antitrust laws opened upa setof previously illegal interorganizationalrelationships; global competition hasheightened;information technologyhasexplodedin the manufacturingandservicesectors;distressededucationalin-stitutionsarestruggling to meetnew skill demands;andescalatingpressurescoupledwith lagging resourcesstressfamilies and other social institutionscaughtin the transition. Theseinstitutional forcesoften operatequite differ-ently acrosssocietiesand can yielddistinctlocal variationsin firms (Rousseau& Tinsley1996). Inmost industrializedsocieties, institutional forcesaremani-festingthemselvesin severalrelatedorganizationalchanges:themovementtosmall-fi rm employment in the United States(Small BusinessAssociation

OB IN THE NEWORGANIZATIONAL ERA 517

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

1992), the United Kingdom (Storey 1994), and elsewhere(Castells1992);relianceon interfirm networksto substitute for corporateexpansion,oneprod-uct of which is outsourcing work amongfirms (Bettis et al 1992); new andmoredifferentiatedemploymentrelations[e.g. coreandperipheralpart-timeworkersandindependentcontractors,guestworkerssuchastechnical-supportpeopleemployedby a vendorbut working insidea client firm (Handy1989)];andnewformsof interdependenceamongworkersandwork groups,which inturn link rising performancestandardswith the concurrentassertionof theinterestsof manystakeholders,suchascustomers,workers,andstockholders(Davis1987).Inevitably,transition costsoccur,for people,firms, andsociety(Mirvis & Hall 1994,Perrow 1996).

Theshift from organizationto organizingtranslatesinto activities thatwereoncepredominately repetitivebecomingpredominately novel, networksfor-merlybased on rolesnow formingaroundknowledge,careersonce firm-basednow dependingmore on personalresources,and work structuresoncerule-centerednow constructedby the peopledoing the work (cf Drazin & Sande-lands1992, Manz1992). The disappearanceof old work structures along withexpansionof small-firm employmentandthedemiseof hierarchicaladvance-ment—particularly thedeclinein middle-managementpostsandtheconcomi-tant riseof professionalandtechnicaljobs—removescuesprovidedto peoplefrom traditional internal labor marketsandcareerpaths.The shif t from mana-gerial prerogativesto self-managementremovesa gooddealof formal controloverwork. With theerosionof traditionalexternalguidesfor behavior,inter-nally generatedguidesareneededto operatewithin andaroundthemorefluidboundaries offirms, interfirmnetworks,andwork groups. With fewerexternalguidesfor work, greatervalueis placedon improvisationandlearning(Weick1996).

RESEARCH THEMES REGARDINGORGANIZING

Shifting to more flexibleways oforganizingwork and employmentintroducesnew elementsto established organizationalresearchtopicsand,moresignifi-cantly, gives new meaningsto existing concepts.We can observethe mostsignificantchangesin those areaswheretheeffectsof organizing aregreatest.1

NewEmployment Relations

Since 1987, 7million Americans havelost their jobs (Cascio 1995), andseveralindustrial sectorshaveexpandedtheir hiring concomitantly. This evi-

518 ROUSSEAU

1The present chapter omits areasrelevantto organizing that arealready treatedin contemporary

reviews:teams (Guzzo& Dickson1996), personnel selection, andotherhumanresource practices(Bormanetal 1997, Cascio1995).

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

dent mobility is tied to the formation of new and more varied employmentrelationshipsacrossindustries as well as within specific firms. Worldwideshifts in personnelmanagementpracticesare evident, including decline ofseniority-basedwagesin Japan(Mroczkowski & Hanaoka1989),declineinjob securitycoupledwith higherperformancedemandsin England(Herriot &Pemberton1995),andhigherunemployment prolonging postsecondaryschooleducationandapprenticeshipsin Germany(Robertset al 1994). In addition,EasternEuropehas undergonea strategicreorientationfrom placementviacentralizedworkforce planning to recruitmentthrough labor markets(Roe1995).

Researchon the employmentrelationshipreflectsboth new employmentarrangementsand the by-productsof transition. The shift to organizing isevidentin theweakerrole of hierarchyandgreaterdecentralizationof person-nel practices,therole of strategicandenvironmentalfactorsin shapingincen-tives for workersand work groups,and generallyincreasedturbulenceanduncertaintyin employment. Central themesinclude rewardsavailablefromlabor forceparticipation andperformance,how workersunderstandnew psy-chological contracts,and the impactof thesecontracts on equity, workerattachment,andother responses.

ACCESSINGREWARDS Therewardsthatmotivate workforceparticipation andperformance—suchas compensationand benefits,careeropportunities, andfulfilling work—are centralto researchon motivation. Accessingrewardsentailsissuesof who distributesrewards,how theyareallocated,andwhatthepartiesunderstandtheexchangeto mean.Rewarddistribution is amajorthemein organizationalresearch,particularlyregardingthelocusof decisionmakingabout incentivesand personnelactions.Control over hiring, firing, and paylevelsappearsto beincreasinglydecentralizedto permitresponsivenessto localmarket conditions (Cappelli 1996). Wagesare now more sensitiveto theinfluenceof local labormarkets(Katz& Kruger1991),while rewardsbasedonseniority havedeclined(Chauvin1992). Decentralizingpersonneldecisionsmeansrelationswith immediatesuperiorsandcoworkersareimportant in theaccessing of rewards. Impression management—particularly with supe-riors—hasbeenfound to impactperformanceratingsandtheability to accessrewardsbeyondanindividualor group’s actuallevel of performance(Ancona1990,Tsuietal1995).Mostrewarddistributionremainsmediatedbymanagers,even as theirroles shiftunderself-management(Manz & Sims1987).

Delayering coupledwith broaderspansof control complicatesthe roleleadersplay in distributing rewardsandmotivating employees.High-qualityleader-memberexchanges(LMX) havebeenfound to increasetheopportuni-tiesbothpartieshaveto performwell andaccessrewards(Graen& Scandura1987). However,LMX has historically dependedupon two conditions—a


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

long-term supervisor-subordinate relationship and demographic similarity(Graen& Scandura1987)—thatareincreasinglyunlikely in a mobile, hetero-geneousworkforce.Themeaningof qualityLMX underconditionsof organiz-ing is unclear.Nonetheless,trust-basedrelationsbetweenworkersandmanag-ersappearto be increasinglycritical asworkersareheldaccountablefor theirperformanceacrossmore dimensions (e.g. internal and externalcustomers)(Miles & Creed1995).Theproblemof howto distributerewardsappropriatelywith fewer managersincreasesthe relevanceof “substitutes for leadership”(Kerr & Jermier1978,Podsakoffet al 1993) suchas membersocialization,computer-basedperformancemonitoring, andclient/customer feedback(Pod-sakoffet al 1993).Gainsharinghasbeenfoundto increasepeermonitoring ofcoworkerbehavior(Welbourneet al 1995),which suggeststhat social com-parisonsandpeerpressureincreasewhenan individual’s rewardsaretied topeer performance.Rearrangedjobs anda rising proportion of pay that isperformance-contingentcombineto make individual and teamperformancemoreobservable,asoccursin organizingaroundprojects.Contingentpayandpeer pressure generated by teamsare emergingas substitutes forboth manage-rial influenceandinternalizedmembercommitment, in effect creatingshort-term contractsthatare heavilyleveraged on individual orteam performance.

The rewardsthemselvesarechanging.Promotions andformal statusgainsarebeingreducedandreplacedby lateralmovespresentedas“career-building”assignments (Arthur 1994, Kanter 1989).In particular, autonomousworkgroups andjob rotation tendto breakdownnarrowjob descriptions andreducethenumberof job titles,a processreferred to as“broadbanding”(Katz1985).Employability, the ability to accessalternativework on the external labormarket(Kanter 1989), is replacingjob security in somesegments. High-in-volvementwork systemshave beenfound to offer job security to valued,highly skilled workersin whomthefirm hasconsiderableinvestments (Handy1989).Theseshifts areevidencethat externallabor-marketfactorsdrive em-ployee experienceswithin thefirm.

Workersoften perceivetraining as a reward,providing self-actualizationandthemotivation to learn;careerdevelopmentwith increasedresponsibility,autonomy, andlikelihood ofadvancement;andpersonalpsychosocialbenefits,including increasedconfidence,new friendships,and better functioning innonwork life (Noe & Wilk 1993,Nordhaug1989).However,employer-pro-vided training varieswidely with marketforces.Bartel & Sicherman(1994)reportedthat training is more frequentwhereunemployment ratesare low,which suggeststhat employersprovide skills through training where labormarketsaretight but thattheyarelesslikely to do sowhentheycanbuy skillson theoutsidemarket.Hicks & Klimoski (1987)providedevidencethat reac-tions to developmentopportunities canbe enhancedwhenemployeesreceive

520 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

realistic informationaboutthe benefitsof training; yet environmentaluncer-taintycanmakeit difficult to forecastaccuratelythebenefitsof training.In anycase,asthe contextof training is altered,the meaningworkersattachto it islikely to change as well.

Traditional organizational researchhas viewed rewards asdiscrete ex-changes(e.g. payfor performance). Increasingly, rewardsandotherconditionsof employmentareviewedascompensation “bundles” (Gerhart& Milkovich1992).Koys (1991)foundthatemployees’ attitudestowardthefirm areinflu-encedby their perceptionsof the motivesthat underlierewardsystemsandotherhumanresourcepractices.Thoughincreasinglythreatenedby costcut-ting andshifts to peripheralemployment(contractors,temporaries),theavail-ability of benefitsand employee perceptionsof their importancecontributejointly to employeecommitmentandtheirperceptionof organizationalsupport(Eisenberger et al1986,Greenbergeretal 1989,Sinclair etal 1995).

Although rewardsare traditionally thoughtof as static and discrete,withworkershavingsimilar understandings of thefirm’s, management’s, or super-visor’s intentions in rewarddistribution, the conceptof a psychologicalcon-tract suggestsotherwise.Psychologicalcontractsarebeliefs individuals holdaboutthe exchangerelationshipbetweenthemselvesandan employer,in es-sence,what peopleunderstandthe employment relationshipto mean[e.g. ahigh-involvementrelationshipor limited transactionalemployment(Rousseau1995)].Introducingtheconceptof apsychologicalcontractdistinguishestradi-tional notions of discreterewardsfrom the meaningascribedto the wholeexchangerelationship. They havebeencharacterizedas schemasor mentalmodelsthat capturehow employeesinterpretbundlesof rewards.The samereward(e.g.trainingor development)cansignaldistinctkindsof relationships(e.g.short-termincentiveor long-termbenefit)dependingon theemploymentcontext in which it occurs.Contractsare dynamic, with time playing twoimportant roles: First, employmentduration can alter the rewardsaccrued.Second,psychological contractscanundergounannouncedchangesin termsand meaninggiving riseto idiosyncraticwork roles (Miner 1990) andemploy-ment relationships (Rousseau1995).Trustedseniorworkerswho havemoreflexibilit y in responsibilitiesandwork hoursthandotheir junior colleaguesarelikely to perceivethemselvesparty to a more relationally orientedcontractwith their employer.As mentalmodelsof the employment relationship, psy-chologicalcontractsareformedtypically atcertainpointsin time(e.g.athiringor when undergoingsocializationfor new assignments)and resist revisionexceptwhencircumstancessignaltheneedto reviseanold schemaor createanew one (Rousseau1995).Thosewho had the strongestattachmentto theiremployershave beenfound to react more adverselyto contractviolations(Robinson& Rousseau1994), and theseviolations of promisedcontractual


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

commitments engendermore adversereactionsthan do unmet expectations(Robinson 1995).When psychological contractsarecongruentwith changesinwork practices,workers have beenfound to more fully implement change(Rousseau& Tijori wala 1996).

INEQUALITY AND SHIFTING REWARD ALLOCATIONS Pollsof public opinion intheUnitedStatesobservethattheoptimistic attitudesof the1960stowardone’seconomicsuccesshave given way in the 1990sto fear of losing affluence(Yankelovich1993).Workplacejustice,along-standingtopicin organizationalresearch,is an increasingconcernwith the often unevenconsequencesoftransitions. Critics of organizational restructuringshaveraisedconcernthatshort-termshareholdervalueisbeingincreasedbyappropriatingvaluedemploy-ment conditions, such as job security, for which workers have contracted(Smolowe1996).Compensation researchhasfocusedon specificdistributiveissues,includingthedisparitybetween “havesand have nots”across organiza-tional hierarchies(Cowherd& Levine1992),particularlythehigh salariesandbonusesof corporateexecutivesin comparisontothoseof rank-and-fileemploy-ees.Cowherd& Levine reportedhigher product quality in firms with lessdisparityin compensation betweenexecutivesandtherankandfile. Redistrib-utingrewardsamongworkerswith differentemploymentrelationsraisesissuesof employeeequityandof appropriatemanagementpracticesfor firms notusedto dealingsimultaneouslywith distinct typesof workers.Firmsmostlikely tohave internal labor markets,that is, firms with more than 1000 employees,demonstratethe greatestexpansionin useof temporaryhelp (Magnumet al1985).This meansthat firms with the mostextensivecommitmentsto someemployeesarealsousingworkersto whomtheymakefew commitments,andthat these firms arestill learning how to manage eachtype of employeesimultaneously.Full-timeemployeesoftenbenefitfrom thepresenceof tempo-raries.Although firms requiringgreateramountsof technicalskills werelesslikely to usetemporaries(Davis-Blake& Uzzi 1993),evena limi tedpresenceof temporaryworkerscanenhancethe quality of work life for full-time coreemployeesbecausepromotion opportunitiesaretypically limi tedto corework-ers.Pearce(1993) found that managersaremore likely to assigntemporaryworkerstasksthat requirelitt le knowledgeandto shift complexassignmentsinvolving teamworkto full-ti mers.Although wagesare about the sameforpart-time and temporaryworkers as for full-time employees(from a 1988Bureauof NationalAffairs surveycitedby Cappelli1996,p.19),benefitswereperhaps half aslikely. This rise in dual(or evenmultiple) labor markets withinthesameorganizationraisesissuesof socialcomparisonandequity,aswell asbroaderissuesof employment relations(e.g.socialquestionssuchaswhethertemporaryor noncoreworkersshouldbeinvitedto holidaypartiesorparticipate

522 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

in companyorientations). Legal issuessurroundingthe contingentworkforcearestill beingsortedout (Feldman& Klaas 1996).

NEW EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BRING NEW MEANINGS TO OLD DEPENDENT

VARIAB LES New distinctionsamongcore,peripheral,temporary,andcontin-gentworkersraiseissuesfor microorganizational behavior’s typical measuresof individual-levelresponses.Traditionally, commitmenthasbeenviewedasanindividual outcome,largely motivated by individual differences(Mathieu &Zajac1990).Commitment—particularlyitsbehavioralcomponent,theintentionto remain—hasrecentlybeenexaminedasa two-waystreet(Eisenbergeret al1986,Shore& Wayne1993),theproductof aninteractionbetweenindividualandemployer.Measuresof employee-firmattachment,suchascommitment,areproblematicfor new employment relations.Quite commonly, employeesoftemporary-helpagencieswork for morethanoneagency(NationalAssociationof TemporaryStaffing Services1994). Where the employment relationshiptakeson theform of anorganizedopenmarket,a hiring hall, peoplemaystaywithin thesameoccupationbutnotnecessarilywith thesameemployerfor anylengthof time. Thus,occupationalcommitmentmay be a betterindicatorofattachmentthanorganizationalcommitment.Increasingly,workersare“partici-pants,”if notnecessarily“employees,”in severalfirms (e.g.thetechnicianpaidbyXeroxtoworkoutof anofficeatMotorolaheadquartersexclusivelyservicingtheXeroxequipment Motorola uses).However,it is alsopossiblethatoutsour-cinghasmerelyshiftedloyaltiessuchthatoutsourcedinformationsystemsstaffwhooncewerecommittedtoamultifunctionalcorporation(e.g.AT&T) arenowsimilarly committed tothe specialtyfirm for whichthey work(e.g. EDS).

Researchon dual commitmentshasfocusedon union and organizationalcommitment(e.g.Gordon& Ladd1990),but we know very little aboutmulti-plecommitment to severalemployersor multipleclientsor customers.Hunt &Morgan (1994) testedcompetingmodelscontrastingorganizationalcommit-mentasoneof manydistinct commitments(e.g.commitmentsto work group,supervisor)with organizationalcommitment as a mediatingconstructin therelationsbetweenconstituency-specificcommitmentsandoutcomes,suchascitizenshipandintention to quit. Theiranalysissupportedtherole of organiza-tional commitmentasa mediatorbetweenattachmentto different constituen-ciesandoutcomes.Finding no evidenceof conflict amongdifferent commit-ments,theyconcludedthatemployeecommitmentsto differentpartieswithinthe organizationeitherpromoteglobal organizationalcommitmentor arenotsignificantly relatedto it. More researchcanbe expectedregardingmultiplecommitments,that is, commitmentsto occupation,employer,client, internalcustomers,team,union,andothers.

Trust, particularlybetweenlabor andmanagement,haslong beenconsid-eredimportantto organizationalsuccess(for an extensivehistorical review,


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

seeMiles & Creed1995).Its baseratemayhavedeclinedin recentyearsevenwhile its valuehas risen (Barney & Hansen1994). Trust for the generalmanagerin a chainof restaurantshasbeenfoundto besignificantly relatedtosales,profits, and employeeturnover(Davis et al 1995).Davis et al (1995)arguedthat trust fulfills Barney’s (1986)requirementsfor competitive advan-tage:Trustaddsvalueby reducingtransactioncosts,it is rarebetweenemploy-eesandmanagement,andit is not easilycopied.Mayer et al (1995)offer anintegrativeframeworkdefining organizationaltrust as “the willingnessto bevulnerable”to another.Underconditions of organizing,thepartiesassociatedwith organizationaltrust includebut arenot limited to coworkers,immediatesuperiors,seniormanagersand executives,and the organizationin general.Organizingcan,however,signala shift in thedynamicsof trust.Traditionally,trustderived fromlong-termexperiences of reciprocity(Creed &Miles 1996);however,the rise of temporarywork systemssuchasproductdesignteams,film crews,andcampaignorganizationsrequireswhathasbeentermed“swifttrust” (Meyersonetal 1996)supportedby socialnetworksandvulnerability tosocial reputation.In organizing,trust plays a fluid role as both causeandresult.

Organizationalcitizenshipis a correlateandpossible outcomeof trust (Or-gan 1990). It hasbeenfound to be influencedby perceptionsof proceduralthoughnot distributive fairness(Ball et al 1994,Moorman1991).As competi-tive pressureincreasesperformancedemands,themeaningof citizenshipmayshift as“performance beyondexpectations”becomesexpected. Perhaps duetoorganizationaltransitions,therehasbeena shift in the typesof citizenshipbehaviorsinvestigated,with increasingfocuson morenegativecitizenship, orretributivebehaviors(suchassabotageor theft) thatdirectly work againsttheinterestsof the organization.Using multidimensionalscaling, Robinson &Bennett(1995)developeda typologyof deviantworkplacebehaviorthatvar-ies along two dimensions: minor vs serious,and interpersonalvs organiza-tional.Consistentwith distinctions made by Hollinger & Clark (1982), organi-zationally relevantbehaviorsfall into two types: production deviance(e.g.leavingearly, taking excessive breaks),assessed asrelativelyminor; and prop-erty deviance(e.g. sabotagingequipment,stealingfrom the company),as-sessedas serious.In their frameworkfor researchon organizationally moti-vated aggression,O’Leary-Kelly et al (1996) proposedthat organizationalinsiders(e.g.members)areprimarily responsiblefor violencein theworkplace(as opposedto outsiders),but that poor treatmentby the organizationandhierarchicalor control-oriented organizationalnormsinfluenceboth the inci-denceandtargetsof violence.Surveyinghumanresourcemanagementexecu-tives in public corporations,Griffin (R Griffin, unpublishedmanuscript)re-spondentsreportedthat violence in the form of threats,verbal attacks,and

524 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

racial andsexualharassmentis increasingin their organizations. Humanre-source(HR) managersattributedthesechangesto the effectsof downsizing,reengineering,and increased employeeworkload.

In conclusion, researchon the employment relationshipin the new organ-izational era has two overarching themes: the greater complexity of theworker-firm relationshipthan appreciatedpreviouslyand the often-negativeconsequencesthat haveresultedin the shift from organizationto organizing.Awarenesshasincreasedregardingtheimportanceof trust in theemploymentrelationshipas well as how misleading it can be to atomistically study thatrelationship’s terms inisolation.

Performance:Measurementand Management

Performanceissueshavelong beena centralthemein organizationalresearch.Escalatingcompetition and expandedperformance-measurementcapabilitieshavemadegreaterscrutinyof organizationalperformanceevidentin all sectorsof the economy.This attention has led to the recognitionof a phenomenonreferredto as the “performanceparadox” (Meyer & Gupta 1994, NationalResearchCouncil 1994). This paradoxhas two features:First, measuresofperformanceoften areobservedto be only loosely interrelated.Second,per-formanceimprovementsin subunits do not necessarilytranslateinto produc-tivity gainsfor the firm. An exampleof the first featureis thatorganizationalsuccessin obtaining marketshareoften bearslitt le relationship to otherper-formanceindicators:Thoseorganizationsgoodin someareasmaybepoor inothers.Although this patternwasobservedin early studiesof organizationalperformance(e.g.Seashoreetal 1960),it largelywentunnoted.An exampleofthe secondwould be a division whosesuccessfulinnovationsdo not lead tofirm-wide innovation (e.g. the Saturndivision of GeneralMotors). As com-petitive pressuresand performanceexpectationshave increased,both re-searchersandmanagersarebecomingmoreawareof the two featuresof thisparadox,calling attention to the needfor enhancedcoordinationwithin firms(Goodmanet al 1994)aswell asperformancemonitoring, reconcilingdiversesourcesof performanceinformation (client, peer,subordinate, task/technical),customerresponsiveness,organizationallearning,and more systematic per-formance management(Pritchard 1994,Sink & Smith 1994).2


2In this section, we focusprimarily upon researchpertinent to the first feature of the paradox.

The secondis addressedin the latersection on within-firm organizational learning. Research intohigh-reliabil ity organizations indicatesthatmajor—and sometimescatastrophic—errorscan occur,while otherperformanceindicatorsarepositive(Perrow 1984, Sagan1993). Organizational factorscontributing to high performance in indicators such as customer satisfaction are likely to bedifferent from thosecontributing to safetyor costcontainment. Firms may alsohave limitedfocusof attention, which can constrain their abili ty to gather information and provide support forperformance inmorethana fewareas.

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

So what doesorganizationalresearchsay for firms seekingto be goodatseveralthingsatonce?Morematurefirms havebeenfoundto bemostsuccess-ful in their efforts to performwell on severalindicatorsconcurrently,whichsuggeststhat it takestime to learn how to do severalthings well at once(Meyer & Gupta1994). A meta-analysisof managementby objectives(anamalgamof participative management,goal setting,and performancefeed-back)andits impacton organizationalproductivity indicatethecritical role oftop managementcommitment [56% averagegain underhigh commitmentvs6% underlow commitment(Rodgers& Hunter1991)].Absenceof top man-agementcommitmentwasreportedalsoto give rise to local innovations thatgo unusedby thelargerfirm andto coordination problemsfor unitsseekingtoobtain a high-priority objective that conflicts with the goalsof anotherunitwith which it is interdependent.It is a truism that top managementcommit-mentpromotesproductivity improvement.As firms becomesmallerandlesshierarchical,thecritical processesfor productivity improvementmaychange.Researchis neededon theeffectsof concurrentfeedbackfrom amultiplicity ofperformanceindicatorsfor groups,individuals,and organizations, in decen-tralized as well as hierarchicalsettings. Effects might rangeanywherefromresponsivenessand highperformance tovigilanceandoverload.

The goal of high-performancework teamsis to performwell on multipledimensions (financial,customer satisfaction, employeewell-being).Huselid’s(1995)study of 968 firms in major industriesindicatesthat humanresourcemanagementpracticesassociatedwith high-performancework systems(bun-dling training, participative decision making, incentive systems,and opencommunications)impactbothemployeeoutcomes(turnoverandproductivity)andcorporatefinancialresults.Findingssuggestthatfirms thathavetop man-agersfocusedon a set of clearly definedgoalssupportedby integratedHRpractices are less likelyto manifestthe suboptimal performance paradox.

ProMES(ProductivityMeasurementandEnhancementSystem),a method-ology for measuringandmanagingorganizationalperformancedevelopedbyRobertPritchard(1990),is designedto addresssomeof thedifficulties relatedto the performanceparadox.Using consensus-building amongstakeholders,ProMEScombinesthe integrationof multiple conflicting goalsandperform-ancefeedbackthat canbe readilyunderstoodandactedupon,with incentivesandothermanagerialsupportfor performanceimprovement. As the demandfor high performance escalates, successful new performance-managementmethodologiesarelikely to find waysof increasingthefirm’s capacityto focusits attention broadlyenoughto reflectmajor constituentsandinterests,whilebeingsufficiently selectiveto providefeedbackusefulin directingandcoordi-natingefforts toimproveperformance.

526 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Goal SettingBecomesSelf-ManagementGoal settinghasbeenessentialto organizationalresearchon motivation andperformanceat manylevels:individual,group,andorganization. Its centralitymakesit a bellwetherfor issuesin the new organizationalera.Goal setting’sstylizedfact hasbeenthat moderatelydifficult goalsmotivatehigh perform-ance(Locke& Latham1990).However,researchersin this areaacknowledgethat it largelyhasfocusedon repetitivetasks(seeLocke et al 1981),often inthecontextof assignmentof performanceobjectivesby ahierarchicalsuperior.There is a striking shift toward studying goal setting as it relatesto morecomplextasksand social arrangements(e.g.Smith et al 1990). In field set-tings, researchinvestigatesthe role of goal settingto a firm’s (aswell asanindividual’s or group’s) planningprocesses,strategy,andperformance (Rodg-ers& Hunter1991)andhasshownsignificanteffectsof goal settingon firmproductivity.

Perhapsthe mostsignificant shift is a new (or perhapsrenewed)focusonself-managementin goal setting (Gist et al 1990, Latham & Locke 1991).Self-regulationhaslong beenimplicit in goal-settingtheory,becausesettinggoalsandtranslatingtheminto actionis a volitionalprocess (Latham& Locke1991),whereacceptanceof goals,whenthey are notself-set, iscritical to theirachievement. Frederick Kanfer (1975) focused attention on self-controlmechanismsasa basisin clinical practiceto modify addictive behavior,train-ing peopleto stopsmokingor overeating.Self-managementteachespeopletoassesstheir problems,setspecifichardgoalsto addresstheseproblems, self-monitor the effectsof the environmenton goal attainment, andappropriatelyadminister rewardsor penaltieswhile working toward the goals.Althoughgoal setting and self-managementhave beenlinked theoreticallyfor manyyears,“classic” goal-setting researchemphasizedgoal setting alone, whileself-managementfocusedattention on thelearningandorchestrationof cogni-tive processesfor acquiring skills, self-monitoring progress,and providingself-reinforcement(Gist et al 1990).Gist et al foundthatgoalsetting perseislesseffective in novel, complextasksthan is self-management,a processinwhich moreskills arelearnedandactivelydisplayed,evenwhentheeffectsofgoal level arecontrolled.Goal settingandthe cognitive andbehavioralproc-essessurroundinggoal achievementremainat the core of self-managementpractices,but the latter focus attention on learning,adaptation, knowledgetransfer, and theflexibilit y to adapt tochangingcircumstances.

Organizationaldelayeringand the riseof smaller, often entrepreneur-based,fi rms give self-management new meaning [including self-leading teams,(Manz 1992)]. This new meaninggives rise to debatesover the distinctionbetweenthe personalautonomyof self-managementand the interdependentforms of sharedgovernance,wherethe self in “self-managed”canmeanper-


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

son(Gist et al 1991),work group(Manz1992),or broaderinstitution (Welch1994). At the heartof this shift in meaningsis a debateover who setsthestrategicgoalsfor the firm, coupledwith questionsaboutthe legitimacyandcompetenceof stakeholdersinvolved in thesestrategicchoices(Manz 1992).Caseanalysisof W.L. GoreandAssociates,thefirm thatdevelopedtheprod-uct Gore-tex,providesevidencethat self-managementpracticeswherelearn-ing is emphasizedcanyield a fluid adhocwork system,reflectingorganizingprocessesratherthan formal structureand resulting in innovation, high per-formance,and collaborativeshapingof the firm’s goals (Shipper& Manz1992).In Brazil, similar self-managementpractices—basedon a combinationof profit sharing,collaborativedecisionmaking,andsharedfinancialinforma-tion—arereported tobe successful(Semler 1989).

Self-managementin the achievementof personalandorganizationalgoalsintroducesanewtwist to researchonorganizationalleadership,bothstretchingand challenging how leadership is conceptualized.Podsakoffet al (1993)conductedan empirical investigation of Kerr & Jermier’s (1978) model ofSubstitutesfor Leadership.Originally developedto accountfor theoften-lim-ited effect of managers and supervisorson subordinate performance, thismodel identified factorsthat might neutralizethe effectsof (or minimize theneedfor) leaders.Podsakoffet al reportedthat contingentrewards,profes-sionalorientation, nonroutine work, organizationalformalization,andspatialdistancefrom otherscontributeto employeecriterionvariableswhile reducingthe impact of leaderbehaviors.However,leadersupportappearsto aid em-ployeesexperiencingrole ambiguity. Under conditionsof organizing,self-managementpracticescoupledwith appropriaterewardsand developmentsappearto enhanceperformancein the absenceof formal leaders.In a highlyturbulentbusinessenvironment,Howell & Avolio (1993)foundthat transfor-mationalleadershippositively predictedbusiness-unit performanceoveraone-year interval, while transactionalleadership,including contingentrewards,wasnegativelyrelatedto business-unitperformance.They suggestit may becounterproductivefor leadersto spendtoo much time focusingon meetinggoalsas opposedto promoting freedomof actionin dynamic environments.

Theconceptof stretchgoals(Sherman1996)is predicatedon the ideathatseemingly impossible goals can motivate high performance bymandatingcreativity andassumption-breakingthinking that takesthe performer“out ofthebox.” On thesurface,stretch goals appearto violateanessential premiseofgoal theory, that workerscannotaccepta goal that doesnot seemfeasible.Relatedto the conceptsof transformational leadership,where performanceexpectationsare elevatedwell beyond the limi ts of past experience(Bass1985),anddouble-looplearning(Argyris & Schoen1996),wherepreviouslysuccessfulframeworksarequestioned,revised,or discarded,thefact thatprior

528 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

experienceis often a poor guide for stretch-goalachievementshifts the per-formers’ attention awayfrom old routinesandassumptions towardnovelandcreativeapproaches.Wood et al (1987) reportedthat “do-your-best” goalsworked betterthan difficult,specific goalswhen the task wasnovel and highlycomplex.Plausibly,bothworkerself-efficacyandthecredibility of thepeoplesetting the stretch goal contribute to the resulting performance. Kelly &McGrath(1985)havesuggesteddysfunctionalconsequencesfor groupswork-ing on especiallydifficult tasks,suchasstringenttime deadlines,wheretheyspendlesstime discussingtask ideas(e.g.agreementsor modifications) thatmight affectproductquality or interpersonalissues(e.g.conflicts,needs)thatcan affect membersupportand well-being.Further,they reportedthat thesenegativeinteractionprocessescarry over evento later trials for which timelimits have changed.

Employersthat rewardonly extreme performancehavebeenfoundto fostersomeunexpectedconsequences.In a studyof high-technology firms, Zenger(1992) reportedthat performance-basedcompensationthat aggressivelyre-wardsextreme performance whilelargelyignoringperformance distinctionsatmoderatelevels yields retentionof extremelyhigh and moderatelylow per-formers. In contrast,moderatelyhigh and extremely low performerswerelikely to depart.New issuesariseasorganizationsandgoal-setting researchersturn their attentionto morecomplexcircumstancesandevermorechallenginglevelsof performance.

InformationProcessing:DiscontinuousandMultiphased

Turbulentcompetitiveenvironments,technologicalsophistication,andflexibleorganizinggive riseto greaternoveltyandcomplexity in work, which contrib-utesto anexpandinginterestin individual andmanagerialcognition (Kiesler&Sproull1992)andthebroaderdomainof information processingby firms andindividuals (Fiol 1994,Louis & Sutton1991).Evidencethat peopleprocessinformationdifferently in novel vs routinesituations hasled to the develop-mentof theconceptof “discontinuousinformationprocessing”(Sims& Gioia1986).Organizingpromotesuseof controlledinformation processing,whereinformationis activelysoughtandcarefullyprocessedto makea quality deci-sion when thereis littl e experienceon which to rely. This phenomenonhasbeenused to characterizethe vigilance and flexibilit y required to operateAmerican aircraft carriers as “high-reliability organizations” (Weick &Roberts1993),whereevenhierarchymust be adaptable.Models of rationaldecisionmaking suchasexpectancytheory(Vroom1964)tendto work well inaccountingfor behavior in nonroutine decisionssuch as choosinga career(Wanouset al 1983) but do less well in explaining routine behaviors.Inroutinesituationssuchassustainedperformancein astablesituation overtime,controlledprocessesgive way to relianceon automaticprocessesusingestab-


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

lishedmentalmodelsandroutines(Bartunek& Moch1987,Fiol 1994,Sims&Gioia1986).

An individual’s capacity to switch back and forth betweenroutine andnonroutine information processing [“ shift ing the gears” (Louis & Sutton1991)] is postulatedto be influencedby personalitycharacteristics(e.g.locusof control)asis an individual’s capacityto enactthe “weak situations” charac-teristicof work settingswhereorganizingis required(Weick 1996).Researchis neededon theimpactof personalityandcognitivestylesonboth discontinu-ous informationprocessingandenactmentof weaksituations.Cascio(1995)hassuggestedthat personalitytestsoffer important predictivepowerfor suc-cessful performance innew formsof work.

“Shifting thegears”in cognitiveprocessesis evidentin researchon training(Heskethet al 1989),socialization (Louis & Sutton1991),andorganizationallearning(Argyris 1991,Nicolini & Meznar 1995).In training,unpredictabilityandvariation tendto causedifficulti es for the learner.Yet thesefactorsalsoenhancetheability to applytrainingin thefuture,whendiversecircumstancesarise that are not necessarilyanticipatedat the time of training (Neal et al1995).In socialization, individualsmaybeopento learningabouttheorgani-zationonly at certainpointsin time (Guzzo& Noonan1994,Louis & Sutton1991).Organizationallearningbasedon active thinking hasbeenadvocated(Fiol & Lyles 1985),while strategicfailings havebeentracedto overrelianceuponautomaticprocessing(Starbuck &Millik en 1988).

Organizational LearningAlthoughorganizationallearninghasplayeda rolein theorganizational litera-ture for decades(e.g.Congelosi& Dill 1965),until recentlytherewas littleempirical researchon the subject.Rising competitive pressureshavefueledinterestin organizational learning asamajor determinantof sustainableorgan-izational performance,which suggeststhat to survive and thrive firms willneedto learnat an increasinglyrapid rate.Competition hasbeenobservedtopromote organizationallearning in single-unit firms, typically small, fre-quentlyentrepreneurialenterprises,while largermultiunit firms tendto mani-fest less learning in responseto competition, insteadlevering their marketpositionto obtaincompetitive advantage(Barnettet al 1994).Learningneces-sitatesa facility for discontinuousinformationprocessingon the part of bothfirms and individuals, the capability to deploy knowledgeanddemonstrableskills in novel ways and flexible combinations (Argyris & Schoen1996).Organizationallearningcanoccurwithin a firm whenit involvesdiffusion ofknowledgebetween membersand across units(e.g. Epple etal 1996) orbetweenfirms, with dissemination and implementationof new knowledgeobtainedthroughexternalmonitoring or benchmarkingandinterpersonalcon-tact (Miner& Robinson 1994).

530 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

WITHIN-FIRM: MEMORY AND SHARED UNDERSTANDING To a point, organiza-tional learningdisplaysseveralfeaturesof individual learning,particularlyinits needfor memoryandthetransferof learningto newsettingsandproblems.The major distinction is organizationallearning’s requirementthat membersconveytheirlearningtooneanother,developsharedunderstandingsorcommoncognitivestructuresregardingapplicationof sharedknowledge,andotherwiseexternalizewhattheylearn(Lyles & Schwenk1992;Goodman& Darr 1996).Theprevalenceof thesecondfeatureof theperformanceparadox(above),whereinnovationsin asubunitdonotnecessarilytranslateinto innovationsfor thefirmasa whole,suggeststhatwithin-firm learningis difficult. Nonetheless,it doesoccur.In anempiricalstudyof alargefinancial firm, Fiol (1994) observed thatgradual consensus building with interactions among different subgroupsplayed acritical rolein overcomingresistanceto changeand ledto acollectiveunderstandingthatacknowledgedbothdifferencesandagreementregardinganewventure.In pizzafranchises,unitcostdeclinedsignificantly asstoresgainedexperiencein production(Darretal 1994).Knowledgetransferredacrossstoresownedby thesamefranchiseebutnotacrossstoresownedby differentfranchi-sees.Employeeturnovercontributedto“forgetting,”orknowledgedepreciation,in thishigh-turnoverindustry.

The repeated finding that turnover leadsto organizational“forgetting”raisesquestionsabout whetherorganizationallearning has really occurredwhenperformancegainsaremanifest.It canbedifficult to distinguishbetweengains due to individual learning among many members as opposed to organiza-tional learning embedded in new processes and procedures. In a laboratorysimulation, pairedsubjectsdevelopedinterlockedtask-performancepatternsthat displayedcharacteristicsof organizational routines(Cohen& Bacdayan1994). Proceduralmemory explainshow such routinesarise,stabilize, andchange. Procedures can become enduring propertiesof organizations.Butunlessthey are externalized(e.g.written down or incorporatedinto trainingprograms),they may not be effectively retainedwhen knowledgeableindi-vidualsleave.

Internalorganizational barriersofteninhibit within-firm learning.Goodman& Darr (1996) report that evena multiunit firm ostensiblycommitted tolearning may find it difficult to disseminate information and createsharedunderstandings aboutnewprocessesandcapabilities. Ifsharedcognitivestruc-turesarecritical for organizationallearning,thesemaybeeasierto achieveinsmaller, single-unit fi rms. Embedding knowledgein technologyhas beenfound to facilitate transferacrossshifts (Epple etal 1996). This researchsuggestsuseful directionsfor researchinto transfermechanisms(e.g. repre-sentations,flow diagrams,andprocedures)that inhibit forgettinginducedby


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

employeeturnover.Thesetransfermechanismsthemselvesmay distinguishorganizationallearningfrom that ofindividuals.

LEARNING BETWEEN FIRMS: CAREERSAND SOCIAL NETWORKS New organiza-tionalformssuchasjoint ventures,outsourcingamongorganizationalnetworks,researchconsortia,and other forms of organizing(Aldrich & Sasaki1995)provide evidencethat organizationallearningwill occur acrossincreasinglyblurry boundaries.While outsourcing hasbeenlinked to declinesin organiza-tional learningin outsourcedfunctions(Bettisetal 1992),networkedorganiza-tions with flexible membershipscan promote it (Snow et al 1992). These“boundaryless”organizations,definedhereas organizationswhosemember-ship,departmentalidentity, andjob responsibilities areflexible (Kanter1989,Miner & Robinson 1994),yield a patternof moreflexibly structuredcareers.Careerpatternsarefoundto contributeto organizationallearningby generatingdiverseframesof referencefor problemsolving,redirectingold routinesin newways,andharvestingorganizationalmemory(Miner & Robinson1994).Jobtransitions(loss,rehire,rotation,transfers,internationalassignments,horizontalmoves,demotions) becomecommonplace andcan promoteorganizational andindividual learning(Miner & Robinson1994).Transitionsoutof firms compli-cateretentionbut createopportunities for learningin new firms, particularlygiventhemovementof employeesfrom largeto smallerfirms whereroutiniza-tion is often lower. Nonhierarchicalcareersrecombinepersonalandorganiza-tional learning in novel ways andthemselves can becomerepositories ofknowledge(Bird 1994).

Socialnetworksoutsidecorporationsandotherfirms havebecomesourcesof career advantage(DeFilippi & Arthur 1994)and expertise(Miner & Robin-son 1994), functioning in ways similar to occupationalcommunitiesthat influ-encecareerdecisionsand transitionsof members(Van Maannen& Barley1984).Firms that cultivaterelationshipswith educationalinstitutionssuchashigh schoolsimprove their accessto appropriatelyskilled workers (Rosen-baumet al 1990).The impactsocialnetworksoutsidethefirm haveon careeradvancement may be particularly important to the careerdevelopmentofwomenandminorities.Evidencesuggests thatwithin-firm socialnetworkscanwork to the advantageof white men over women (Ibarra 1992) and overAfrican-Americans (Thomas& Higgins1996).

In sum,organizing—with its flexible work arrangements,personnelmove-ments,relianceuponpersonalexpertise,andsystematic information process-ing—places a premium on experimentation and collective learning. Asboundaries betweenfirms blur, we canexpectmore rapid organizational learn-ing and possiblya similar rate of forgetting,along with greaterattention tomechanismsfor retainingknowledgewith or without a stablemembership.Theshift towardnetworkorganizations(Snowetal 1992)suggeststhatknow-

532 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ing who is becomingas important as knowing how (DeFillippi & Arthur1994).

Managing OrganizationalChange andIndividual Transitions

Transitionsaboundin the new organizationalera both for firms and for theworkforce. Managingorganizationalchangeand individual transitions is anoverarching research theme.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE Changemanagementfocuseson theimplementa-tion andultimately thesuccessfulinstitutionalizationof new technology,cul-ture, strategy, and related employment arrangements. OrganizationalDevelopment (OD),thetraditional practicesideof organizational research,haslonghadashakyreputationamongorganizationalscientists for its lackof rigorand“pop” style.However,theboundarybetweenODandorganizationalsciencehasbecomeblurredasmoreresearcherstackletheproblemsof implementingchange (e.g. Kiesler& Sproull 1992,Novelli et al 1995).

Organizingis typically a radicaldeparturefrom thetraditional wayspeoplethink and act in firms. Stableand enduringmentalmodelsor schemashavebeenfoundto contribute to reactionsto change(e.g.Bartunek& Moch 1987).Lau & Woodman (1995) identify three features of schemaspertinent forchange:causality(attributions usedto understandcausesof change),valence(meaningandsignificance),and inferences(predictionsof future outcomes).They reportedthat organizational commitment is relatedto thesefeaturesofchangeschemas,consistentwith theargumentthata fundamentalrealignmentin howpeopleunderstandthe firmis neededto fosterorganizationalchange.

Organizationalchangealsohasbecomea justiceissue(Novelli et al 1995).Distributive justice, the perceivedfairnessof the outcomes,is a particularfocus becausethe departuresfrom the statusquo that constitutechangearecommonly experiencedas losses,and gains from changemay take time torealize,particularly when masteryof a radical new organizationalform isrequired.Offsetting lossesfrom work systemchangeshasbeenfound to im-prove distributive fairnessby helping peoplegain the skills neededto besuccessful andgain rewards underthe new system(Kirkman etal 1994).

Interactionaljustice pertainsto the communication processin managingchange.Presentingbad newswith politenessand respect(Folger 1985) andproviding credibleexplanationsor socialaccountsfostermorepositivereac-tions (Bies& Moag1986).In labordisputes,thegeneralpublic wasfound toreactwith strongerperceptionsof unfairness,moresympathy,andmoresup-port for grievancesbasedon interactionaljusticeratherthanproceduraljustice,which in turn generatedmore intensereactions than grievances based ondistributive injustice (Leung et al 1993). For victims of change,when out-comesareparticularlysevere,explanationshigh on specificitywerejudgedto


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

be more adequateand led to more positive reactionsthan did explanationsemphasizinginterpersonalsensitivity. Effectsareenhancedwhentheexplana-tion is delivered orallyrather thanvia memoor letter (Shapiro etal 1994).

Proceduraljustice in changerefersto the processeswherebyimplementa-tion decisionswere made.Voice mechanismsthat allow affectedpeopletoparticipatein decidingupon the changeor planning its implementation en-hanceproceduraljustice,asdo proceduresto correctfor biasesor inaccuracyof informationusedin the process(Sheppardet al 1992). In a studyof newtechnology implementation,employee strain increasedduring theimplementa-tion phaseandwashighestamongthoseindividuals who werenot includedinthe implementation process(Korunka et al 1993). However, voice had noeffectin reactionsto sevenfacility relocations(Daly & Geyer1994),althoughthe researchersspeculatethat employeesmay not have expectedto haveavoicein relocationdecisions. Thetiming andphasesof changemayalsoplayarole in effective implementation(Jick 1993), but thesehave receivedlesssystematicattention.

INDIVIDUAL TRANSITIONS Employmentdisplacementsareoccurringat fasterratesthanin thepastandarepredictedto continue(Handy1989).Joblosshasbeenassociatedwith lower self-esteem(Cohn 1978), increasedanxiety,andpsychologicaldistress(Winefield et al 1991). Moreover, workers who arepressured toleave butopt to stayreport unusually high levels ofpsychologicaldistress (Price& Hooijberg 1992).Reemploymentcanmeansettling for unsat-isfactory newjobs(Liem 1992),which canengenderlong-termadverseconse-quences.In alongitudinalstudyof laid-off industrialworkers,Leana& Feldman(1996)found that financial pressures,levelsof optimism andself-blame,andtheamountof problem-focusedandsymptom-focusedcopingindividuals en-gagein weresignificantpredictorsof reemployment, which supportspreviousresearchon the importanceof individual differencesin successfulsearches(Kanfer& Hulin 1985).Jobsprogramscoupledwith interpersonalsupporthavebeen foundto playa role insuccessfulreemployment(Vinocuret al1991).

Forecastingrepeatedcyclesof employmentandunemployment for skilledas well as unskilled workers,severalorganizationalresearcherspredict thattransitionswill becomelessdisruptive aspeopledevelopskills for adaptingtochange(Weick 1995)andaspersonalexpectationsanddefinitionsof psycho-logical successrecast“unemployment” asan opportunity for personaldevel-opmentor family benefit (Mirvis & Hall 1994). A major factor in workeradaptationis likely to be thebroadersocietalsupports—educational,cultural,and economic—forworkers andnonworkers alike.

534 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Leisure,Nonwork, and Community: Personal andInstitutionalSupportsEscalatingpressureson the workforce due to restructuringmanifest in theattentionpaid to work-nonwork relations(Mirvis & Hall 1994). Decline ofcorporatistfirms andtheir traditionalbenefitsraisesconcernsaboutthe infra-structureneededto supportbothnewformsof employmentandorganizingandindividual workers and theirfamilies—evident inan emergingarea of scholar-shipon socialcapital(Etzioni1993,Perrow 1996).

Socialcapitalrefersto civic life andpublic trust,thesocietalinfrastructurefrom whichworkersandorganizationsreceivesupport.Socialinstitutionssuchasfamily andschoolsare reportedto havedifficulty respondingto theprevail-ing economicpressures(Etzioni 1993), a fact suggestingthat more activeindividual involvementin community life may be requiredto sustaintheseinstitutions. Greaterinvolvementin off-the-job activitieshasbeenassociatedwith reducedrole interferenceand psychologicalstrain (Gutek et al 1991,O’Driscoll et al 1992).Kirchmeyer(1995)found that employeecommitmentis enhancedwhen organizationsprovide resourcesto help employeesfulfillfamily andothernonwork responsibilities. Shefurther reportedthat workersprefer benefits that let them managetheir responsibilities themselves (e.g.flexible scheduling)ratherthanhavethefirm do it for them(e.g.on-sitechildcare).

Kanter (1977) suggestedthat early in the twentiethcentury,corporationstried to “swallow the family andtakeover its functions.”Subsequently,firmsmovedto separatework and family in order to excludecompetingloyalties.Demographicchanges,particularlyworking mothersanddual income-careerfamilies,haveincreasedthe interdependenceof work andfamily andintensi-fied conflicts, particularly regardingtime allocation.Recentstudiessupportthesignificanceof institutionalfactors,includingsocietalbeliefsabouttheroleof womenandwork-family relations,in expandedorganizationalemphasisonwork-nonworkrelations(Goodstein1994,Ingram& Simons1995).Consistentwith institutional arguments, larger(i.e. more publicly visible) firms seeklegitimacy by adopting child-carebenefitsand work flexibil ity (Goodstein1994).However, Ingram &Simons(1995)reported thatinstitutionalpressuresexplainlate adoptionof “family friendly” HR practices,while early adoptersarelikely to do so insteadto gainstrategicadvantage(e.g.professionalfirmscoping with labor shortagesby filling positions with qualified women anddual-career spouses). Early adoption is linked to significant numbers ofwomenin a firm’s workforce,while late adoptionsarelessaffectedby firm-specific demographics(Galinsky& Stein1990,Goodstein1994).

Traditional corporatefirms havebeenimplicatedin anerosionof commu-nity and civic life (Etzioni 1993, Perrow1996). If corporationsdid in fact


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

erodesocial capital, the shift to organizingdoesnot reversesuch effects.Organizingmay requiremoresocialcapitalthandid organizationswith hugeinternal infrastructures, particularly inrespectto education (Handy1989),portableretirementandhealth-carebenefits(Lucero& Allen 1994),andfam-ily support(Mirvis & Hall 1994).As a result,organizationalresearchersarelikely to expandtheir considerationof work-nonworkrelationsto include abroader arrayof supportsystemsandcommunity institutions.

CONCLUSION

The evolution from organizationto organizingchangesboth the phenomenatraditionally studiedby organizational researchandthemeaningof sometradi-tional concepts.Theanswerto theopeningquestionsof this reviewareappar-ent.Corefeaturesof organizationalresearch,including its focuson perform-anceandworker-firm relations,endure,but they do so with new dimensions.Performancenow involvesa multiplicity of resultspursuedconcurrentlyandwith an expandedfocuson adaptiveandsustainedlearning.Goal setting andleadershipmay convergeinto self-management.However,new dynamicsareevidentin theshift towardaninteractiveview of theemployment relationship,reorientedfrom a focus on what managersoffer workers to how workersacrossall ranksaccessrewardscontingentuponthe firm’s strategicconcerns.We seean increasinglycomplexview of information processing,reflectingamore rapid cycling from novel to routineandbackagain,characteristicof amoredynamicenvironment. Thereis alsoa broaderconcernfor the personaland societalimpactof theway work isorganized.

This chapterhasfocusedon topicsparticularlysensitive to thedynamicsoforganizing.Assumingthe shift from organizationto organizingwill not bequickly undone,what are its implications for organizationalresearchas awhole?Barley& Kunda(1992)maintainthatperiodsof economiccontractionlead to more emphasison relationshipbuilding, organizational support,andstrengtheningof employee-firmcommitment (witnessElton Mayo’s HumanRelationsmovementduring the depressionof the 1930s).Formerly, firmsdisplacedworkersonly when the economywasshrinking.Therecent couplingof massive terminations with economicexpansionfragmentsthe managerialideologiesthatbothjustify andguideorganizationalactions.Theymaydo thesame forresearchideologies. Asa result,we might expect to find moreresearchersinvestigating competinghypothesesfrom moredistinct andoftendivergentframeworks.A central thememay be the drive to increaseshare-holdervaluecoupledwith concernaboutthecostsof displacementandtransi-tion for the workforce which createsthat value. Clearly, organizationalre-searchneedsto dig into themessyproblemsof servingmultiple constituencies.

536 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

This chapteris not anattemptto createa “short” list of researchtopics;noprescriptionsare intendedfor future researchersabouttopics to “buy” or to“sell.” Severalkey researchthemes,including customerservice(Schneider&Bowen1995),quality (Dean& Bowen1994),andthe adoption of new tech-nology(Leonard-Barton& Sinha1993)wereomittedbecauseof spacelimita-tions.Rather,this chapterhighlightsbroadareaswheretheeffectsof organiz-ing aremorevisible, whereour learningprogressesevenas further researchneedsappear.If the pastis a prologue,we canexpectthat relevantorganiza-tional changeswill manifestthemselves in other areas,too. However,whilenew topics such as the performanceparadoxappear,establishedoneskeeptheir labelsbut shift their focus.Perhapsit is for this reasonthat in themanyyearsof ARPs reviewedin preparationfor this chapter,certaincore themeshaveendured.Yet, at somepoint,we might needto acknowledgethatchangesin firms areprofoundenoughto alter furtherbasicassumptions on which thefield is based.In anycase,a newerain organizationalbehaviorappearsto bein themaking.

APPENDIX

In preparingthis chapter,a contentanalysiswas conductedon the 23 ARPchapterssince1979 dealingwith organizational research(organizational behav-ior, industrial/organizational psychology, personnel and human resourcemanage-ment,traininganddevelopment, andorganizationaldevelopmentand change).Substantivetopics coveredwere categorizedby having two ratersreadeachchapterandidentify their centralconcepts.Ratersgenerated a setof categoriesand then codedchaptersaccordingto their content(rate of agreementwas85%).In thecaseof the1979ARP,for example,Mitchell’s (1979)chapteronorganizationalbehavior was coded as including personality,job attitudes,commitment, motivation, and leadership.That volume containeda secondorganizationallyrelevantchapter,Dunnette& Borman’s (1979) “PersonnelSelectionandClassification Systems,”which wascodedasincluding catego-ries of validity, job analysis,performanceratings,equalopportunity, andse-lectionpractices. Content codingidentified94 discretecategories altogether.

Correlations computedbetweencategorymatricesfor each time periodassessthe degreeof stability in categorypatternsover time. Using the QAPcorrelationtechnique(Krackhart1987),correlationswerecomputedbetweenentriesin two matrices,and the observedcorrelationswerecomparedto thefrequencyof randomcorrelationsto provide a test of statisticalsignificance(basedon 500 permutations).This analysis,usingnormalizeddata(Table1),indicatesmoderatestability in ARP categorieswith slightly greaterconver-gencein categoriesin ARPchaptersacrossperiods1 and3. It alsosuggestsafair degree of variety overtime in theissuesaddressed.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Examination of frequentlycited categoriesacrossthe threeperiods(Table2) suggeststhat categoriesrelatedto the generaltopicsof performance(e.g.predictorsof individual performance,measurement,organizationalperform-ance,ineffectiveness,andfailure), motivation (e.g.effort resultingfrom goalsettingor rewardsoffered),andemployeeresponses(e.g.stress,satisfaction,andcommitment) form a stablecore.Thesecategoriescomprisewhat appar-entlyarethecentraldependentvariablesor outcomesoperationalizedin organ-izationalbehaviorresearch.Otherdurablecategorieswith basicallyconsistentlevelsof research/citationthroughout this extendedperiodincludetheperson-nel-relatedareasof job analysisand performanceappraisal.Topics wherereports of research activitiesareincreasing over time include individual cogni-tion, organizationalchange,and organizationalperformance.A multidimen-sionalscaling(MDS) of the ARPcategorieswithin eachtime period(Krack-hardt et al 1994) suggeststhat the field has moved from three core areas(Change,Personnel,andMicro OB) of earlieryearsto a morehighly differen-tiated set of categoryclusters(Personnel, MicroOB, Context Power andInfluence,Organizationenvironment).Figures1 and 2 display MDS for thefirst and third periods.Categoriesin ellipsesbridge two or moreareas,thusPers (Personality)bridges Personneland Micro-OB in both periodswhileOperf (OrganizationalPerformance)emergesas a bridge amongMicro OB,Personnel,andContextin period3. Bridging categoriesprovidean opportu-nity for integration acrossdisciplinesandparadigms.Nonetheless,from 1979to 1995,a trend toward specialization is evident.Further information aboutthis analysisis availablefrom theauthor.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thankColin Housingfor his helpwith the literaturereview,TizianaCasciarofor her work with the quantitative review, and both Tiziana and

Table 1 Annual Reviewof Psychology: summaryinformation

Time period ARP# ofarticles

ARP# ofcategories

Times ARPa

Time 1:1979–1984

9 47 1 × 2 .23

Time 2:1985–1990

8 57 2 × 3 .24

Time 3:1991–1995

6 44 1 × 3 .34

Totalb 23 94aCorrelationsaresignif icantly different from .00, the average corre-

lation acrossall cells inmatrix.bRepresentstotal number of total distinct categories where many

categories mayappearin severaltimeperiods.

538 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Kristina Dahlin for their assistance in coding the data. David Krackhardtmeritsspecialthanksfor help with the multidimensionalscalinganalysisandthe figures.Michael Arthur, Kathleen Carley, Paul Goodman, and LaurieWeingartprovidedusefulinput at variouspoints in this chapter’s preparation.Thanksalso to CatherineSenderlingfor her editorial work and to CaroleMcCoy for wordprocessing.

Table 2 Frequent categories

ARPTIME 1 Performance predictors= 5

Stress =5Jobanalysis= 4EEO= 4Motivation = 4Personnel selection= 3Satisfaction= 3Equity = 3Performance appraisal= 3Jobdesign = 2Methodology = 2Fairness= 2Organizationalperformance= 2Personality = 2Individual difference =2Personnel training= 2

TIME 2 Jobanalysis= 6Leadership= 6Motivation = 5Performance predictors= 3Affect = 2Organizationalculture =2Organizationalchange= 2Performance appraisal= 2Personnel selection= 2Personnel layoffs = 2

TIME 3 Organization context/cross level effects= 3Motivation = 2Stress =2Performance predictors= 2Organizational technology = 2Organizationalperformance= 2Performance appraisal= 2Personality = 2Jobanalysis=2Legal issues= 2Organizationaldemography = 2


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Fig

ure

1M

DS

onA

RP

for

Peri

od1.

540 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Fig

ure

2M

DS

ofA

RP

for

Per

iod

3.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Aldrich HE, Sasaki T. 1995.R&D consortia inthe United Statesand Japan.Res.Policy24:301–16

Ancona DG. 1990. Outward bound: strategiesfor teamsurvival in anorganization. Acad.Manage.J. 33:334–65

Argyris C. 1991. Teaching smartpeople howto learn. Harvard Bus.Rev.69:99–109

Argyris C, Schoen DA. 1996. OrganizationalLearning II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Arthur MB. 1994. The boundarylesscareer:anewperspective for organizational inquiry.J. Organ. Behav. 15:295–306

Arthur M, Rousseau DM, eds. 1996. TheBoundarylessCareer: A NewEmploymentPrinciple for a New Organizational Era.New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Ball GA, Trevino LK, SimsHP Jr. 1994. Justandunjust punishment: influenceson sub-ordinate performance and citizenship.Acad. Manage.J. 37:299–322

Barley S, Kunda G. 1992. Design and devo-tion: surgesof rational andnormative ide-ologies of control in managerial discourse.Adm.Sci. Q. 37:463–99

Barnett WP, Greve HR, Park DY. 1994. Anevolutionary model of organizational per-formance.Strateg.Manage.J. 15:11–28

Barney JB. 1986. Organizational culture: Canit be a source of sustained competitive ad-vantage?Acad. Manage.Rev.11:656–65

Barney JB, HansenMH. 1994. Trustworthi-nessasa source of competitive advantage.Strateg. Manage. J.15:175–90

Bartunek JM, Moch MK. 1987. First-order,second-order, and third-order change andorganizational development interventions:a cognitive approach. J. Appl. Behav. Sci.23:483–500

BassBM. 1985. Leadershipand PerformanceBeyond Expectations. NewYork: FreePress

Bettis RA, Bradley SP, Hamel G. 1992. Out-sourcing andindustrial decline.Acad. Man-age. Exec.6:7–22

BiesRJ, Moag JS.1986. Interactional justice:communication criteria of fairness.In Re-searchon Negotiations in Organizations,ed.MH Bazerman,R Lewicki, B Sheppard,pp. 1:43–55. Greenwich,CT: JAI

Bird A. 1994. Careersasrepositoriesof knowl-edge:a new perspective on boundarylesscareers.J. Organ. Behav. 15:325–44

BormanW, Hanson M, HedgeJ.1997. Person-nel sel ect i on. Annu. Rev. Psychol .48:299–337

Cappelli P. 1996. Rethinking employment. Br.J. Ind. Relat. In press

CascioWF. 1995. Whither industrial and or-ganizational psychology in a changingworld of work?Am.Psychol. 50:928–39

Castells M. 1992. Four Asian tigers with adragon head:a comparative analysis of thestate, economy and society in the AsianPacific Rim. In Statesand Developmentinthe Asian Pacific Rim, ed.RPApplebaum,J Henderson, pp. 33–70. Newbury Park,CA: Sage

Chauvin K. 1992. Declining returns to tenurefor managerial jobs.Manage.Econ.

CohenMD, BacdayanP. 1994. Organizationalroutinesarestored asprocedural memory:evidence from a laboratory study. Organ.Sci. 5:554–68

Cohn R. 1978. The effectsof employment statuschangeonself-attitudes.Soc.Psychol.41:81–93

Congelosi VE, Dil l WR. 1965. Organizationallearning: observations toward a theory.Adm.Sci. Q. 10:175–203

CowherdDM, LevineDI. 1992. Product qual-ity andpayequity betweenlower-levelem-ployeesandtop management: an investiga-tionof distributive justice theory. Adm.Sci.Q. 37:302–20

CreedWED, MilesRE. 1996. Trust in organi-zations: a conceptual framework linkingorganizational forms, managerial philoso-phies,andtheopportunity costsof controls.SeeKramer& Tyler 1996, pp. 16–38

Daly JP,GeyerPD. 1994. Therole of fairnessin implementing large-scalechange: em-ployeeevaluationsof processandoutcomein sevenfacility relocations. J. Organ. Be-hav. 15:623–38

Darr E, Argote L, Epple D. 1994. The acquisi-tion transfer,and depreciation of knowl-edge inservice organizations.Manage.Sci.41:1750–62

Davis JH, Mayer RC, Schoorman FD. 1995.The trustedgeneral manager and firm per-formance:empirical evidenceof a strategicadvantage. Presented at Strateg.Manage.Soc. Meet., Oct., MexicoCity

Davis S. 1987. Future Perfect.Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley

Davis-Blake A, Uzzi B. 1993. Determinants ofemployment externationalization: the caseof temporary workers and independentcontractors.Adm.Sci.Q. 29:195–223

Dean JW Jr, Bowen DE. 1994. Managementtheory and total quality: improving researchandpractice through theory development.Acad. Manage. Rev. 19:392– 418

DeFillippi RJ, Arthur MB. 1994. The bound-aryless career: a competency-based per-spective.J. Organ. Behav. 15:307–24

DrazinR, Sandelands L. 1992. Autogenesis: aperspective on the processof organizing.Organ. Sci. 3:230–49

Drucker PF. 1994. The ageof social transfor-mation. Atl. Mon.275:53–80

LiteratureCited

542 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Dunnette MD, Borman WC. 1979. Personnelselection andclassification systems.Annu.Rev.Psychol. 30:477–526

Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchinson S,Sowa D. 1986. Perceived organizationalsupport. J. Appl. Psychol. 71:500–7

Epple D, Argote L, Murphy K. 1996. An em-pirical investigation of the micro structureof knowledge acquisi tion and transferthrough learning bydoing. Manage.Sci. Inpress

Etzioni A. 1993. The Spirit of Community:Rights,Responsibili ties,and the Communi-tarian Agenda. New York: Crown

FeldmanDC, KlaasBS. 1996. Temporary work-ers:employeerights andemployer respon-sibilities. Empl. Responsib. RightsJ.9:1–21

Fiol M. 1994. Consensus, diversity, andlearn-ing in organizations.Organ. Sci. 5:403–20

Fiol MC, Lyles MA . 1985. Organizationallearning. Acad. Manage.Rev.10:803–13

Folger R. 1985. The Churchill Effect. A. B.FreemanSch. Bus.,Tulane Univ., New Or-leans

Galinsky E, Stein PJ.1990. The impactof hu-manresourcepolicies:balancing work andfamily issues.J. Fam.Issues11:368–83

Gerhart B, Mi lkovich GT. 1992.Employeecompensation: research and practice. InHandbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, ed. MDDunnette, LM Hough,pp. 481–569. PaloAlto, CA: Consult. Psy-chol. Press.2nd ed.

GistME, BavettaAG,StevensCK. 1990. Trans-fer training method: its influence on skillgenerali zation, skil l repetition, and per-formance level. Pers.Psychol. 43: 501–23

Gist ME, StevensCK, Bavetta AG. 1991. Ef-fects of self-efficacy and post-training in-tervention on the acquisition and mainte-nance of complex interpersonal skills.Pers. Psychol. 44:837–61

GoodmanPS,Darr E. 1996. Exchanging bestpracticesthrough computer-aidedsystems.Acad. Manage.Exec.10(2):7–19

GoodmanPS, Lerch J, Mukhopadhyay T. 1994.Linkagesand performanceimprovements. SeeNational ResearchCouncil 1994, pp. 54–80

GoodmanPS,WhettenDA. 1997. Fifty yearsof organizational behavior from multipleperspectives. In A Half Century of Chal-lenge and Change inEmployment Rela-tions, ed. M Neufeld, J McKelvey. Ithaca,NY: ILR Press.In press

GoodsteinJD.1994. Institutionalpressuresandstrategic responsiveness: employer in-volvement in work-family issues. Acad.Manage.J. 37:350–82

Gordon ME, Ladd RT. 1990. Dual allegiance:renewal,reconsideration, and recantation.Pers. Psychol. 43:37–69

Graen GB, Scandura TA. 1987.Toward a psy-chology of dynamic organizing. In Re-

search in Organizational Behavior, ed.LLCummings,BM Staw, 9:175–208. Green-wich, CT: JAI

Greenberger E, Goldberg WA, Hamill S,O’Neil l R, Payne CK. 1989. Contributionsof a supportive work environment to par-ents’ well-being and orientation to work.Am.J. Commun. Psychol. 17:755–83

Griffin R. 1995. Stress, aggression, and vio-lence in the new workplace. Cent. Hum.Resour. Manage., Tex. A&M Univ., Col-lege Station

Gutek B, Searle S, Klepa L. 1991. Rationalversus gender role explanations for work-family conflict. J. Appl. Psychol. 76:560–68

Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. 1996.Teams in or-ganizations: recent research on perform-ance and effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Psy-chol. 47:307–38

Guzzo RA, Noonan KA. 1994. Human re-source practices as communications andthe psychological contract. Hum. Res.Manage.33:447–62

Handy C. 1989. The Age of Unreason. Cam-bridge:HarvardBus.Sch.Press

Herriot P,Pemberton C. 1995. NewDeals: TheRevolution in Managerial Careers. Chich-ester:Wiley

Hesketh B, Andrews S, Chandler P. 1989.Training for transferable skills: the role ofexamples andschema.Educ. Train. Tech-nol. Int. 26:156–65

Hicks WD, Kli moski RJ. 1987. Entry intotrainingprogramsanditseffectsontrainingoutcomes.Acad. Manage.J. 30:542– 52

Hollinger RC, Clark JP.1982. Formal andin-formal social controls of employee devi-ance.Sociol. Q. 23:333–43

Howell JM, Avolio B. 1993. Transformationalleadership, transactional leadership, locusof control, and support for innovation. J.Appl. Psychol. 78:891–902

Hunt SD, Morgan RM. 1994. Organizationalcommitment:one ofmanycommitments orkeymediating construct? Acad. Manage. J.37:1568–87

Huselid MA. 1995. The impact of human re-source managementpracticeson turnover,productivity, and corporate financial per-formance.Acad. Manage.Rev.3:635–72

Ibarra H. 1992. Homophily anddifferential re-turns: sexdifferencesin network structureandaccess inanadvertising firm. Adm.Sci.Q. 37:422–47

Ingram P, Simons T. 1995. Institutional andresource dependence determinants of re-sponsesto work-family issues.Acad. Man-age.J. 38:1466–82

Jick TD. 1993. Managing Change: CasesandConcepts.Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin

Kanfer FH. 1975. Self-management methods.In Helping People Change,ed.FH Kanfer,pp. 309–55. NewYork: Wiley


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Kanfer R, Hulin CL. 1985. Individual differ-encesin successfuljob searchesfollowinglayoff. Pers.Psychol. 38:835–47

Kanter RM. 1977. Work and Family in theUnited States: A Critical Review andAgenda for Research and Poli cy. NewYork: RussellSageFound.

Kanter RM. 1989. When Giants Learn toDance.NewYork: Simon& Schuster

Katz HC. 1985. Shifting Gears:Changing La-bor Relations in the U.S. Automobile In-dustry.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press

Katz LF, Kruger AB. 1991. Changes in thestructure of wagesin the public andprivatesectors.In Researchin Labor Economics,ed.RGEhrenberg, 12. Greenwich,CT: JAI

Kelly JR, McGrath J. 1985. Effects of timelimits and task typeson task performanceand interaction of four-person groups. J.Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49:395–407

Kerr S, JermierJM. 1978. Substitutesfor lead-ership: their meaning and measurement.Organ. Behav.Hum.Perform. 22:375–403

Kiesler S, Sproull L. 1992. Managerial re-sponseto changing environments: perspec-tiveson problem sensing from social cog-nition. Adm.Sci. Q. 27:548–70

KirchmeyerC. 1995. Managing the work-non-work boundary: anassessmentof organiza-tional responses.Hum.Relat. 48:515– 36

KirkmanBL, Shapiro DL, Novelli L Jr. 1994.Employeeresistanceto work teams: a jus-tice perspective. Presented at Acad. Man-age.Meet., Aug., Dallas

Korunka C, WeissA, Karetta B. 1993. Effectsof newtechnologieswith specialregardforthe implementation processper se.J. Or-gan. Behav. 14:331–48

Koys DJ. 1991. Fairness, legal compliance,andorganizational commitment.Empl. Re-sponsib. Rights4:283–91

Krackhardt D. 1987. QAP partialling asa testof spuriousness.Soc. Netw. 9:171–86

Krackhardt D, Blythe J, McGrath C. 1994.KrackPlot 3.0: an improvednetwork draw-ing program.Connections17:53–55

KramerRM, Tyler TR, eds.1996. Trustin Or-ganizations: Frontiers of Theory and Re-search.Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage

Latham GP, Locke EA. 1991. Self-regulationthrough goal setting. Organ. Behav. Hum.Decis.Process.50:212–47

Lau C, WoodmanR. 1995. Understanding or-ganizational change: a schematic perspec-tive.Acad. Manage.J. 38:537–54

LeanaCR, Feldman DC. 1996. Finding newjobs after a plant closing: antecedents andoutcomesof the occurrenceandquality ofreemployment. Hum.Relat. In press

Leonard-Barton D, Sinha DK. 1993. Devel-oper-userinteraction and usersatisfactionin internal technology transfer.Acad. Man-age. J.36:1125–39

Leung K, Chiu W, Au Y. 1993. Sympathy andsupport for industrial actions. J. Appl. Psy-chol. 78:781–87

Liem R. 1992. Unemployed workersandtheirfamilies:socialvictimsor social critics?InFamilies and Economic Distress, ed. PVoydanoff, LC Majka, pp. 135–51. Bev-erly Hil ls, CA: Sage

Locke EA, Latham GP. 1990.A Theory ofGoal Setting and Task Per formance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall

Locke EA, ShawKN, SaariLM, LathamGP.1981. Goal setting and task performance:1969–1980. Psychol. Bull . 90:125–52

Louis MR, Sutton RI. 1991. Switching cogni-tive gears:from habits of mind to activethinking. Hum.Relat. 44:55–76

LuceroMA, All en RE. 1994. Employeebene-fits: a growing source of psychological con-tract violations. Hum. Res. Manage.33:425–46

Lyles MA, Schwenk CR. 1992. Top manage-ment, strategy, and organizational knowl-edgestructures.J. Manage. Stud. 29:155–74

Magnum G, Mayhall D, NelsonK. 1985. Thetemporary help industry: a responseto thedual internal labor market. Ind. Labor Re-lat. Rev.38:599–611

Manz CC. 1992. Self-leading work teams:moving beyond self-management myths.Hum.Relat. 45:1119–40

ManzCC,SimsHP Jr. 1987. Leading workersto leadthemselves:the external leadershipof self-managing work teams.Adm.Sci. Q.32:106–28

Mathieu JE, Zajac DM. 1990. A review andmeta-analysis of the antecedents, corre-lates, and consequences of organizationalcommitment.Psychol. Bull . 98:224–53

Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. 1995.An integrative model of organizationaltrust.Acad. Manage.Rev.20:709–34

Merriam-Webster Inc. 1985. Webster’s ThirdInternational Dictionary. Springfield, MA:Merriam-Webster

Meyer M, Gupta V. 1994. The performanceparadox. In Research in OrganizationalBehavior, ed. B Staw,LL Cummings, 16:309–69. Greenwich,CT: JAI

Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM. 1996.Swift trust and temporary groups.SeeKra-mer& Tyler1996, pp. 166–95

Miles RE, CreedWED. 1995. Organizationalforms andmanagerial philosophies. In Re-searchin Organizational Behavior, ed.LLCummings, BM Staw, 17:333–72. Green-wich, CT: JAI

Miner AS. 1990. Structural evolution throughidiosyncratic jobs: the potential for un-plannedlearning. Organ. Sci. 1:195–210

Miner AS, Robinson DF. 1994. Organizationandpopulation level learning asenginesforcareer transitions. J. Organ. Behav. 15:345–64

Mirvis PH, Hall DT. 1994. Psychological suc-

544 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

cessandtheboundarylesscareer.J. Organ.Behav. 15:365–80

Mitchell TR. 1979. Organizational behavior.Annu. Rev.Psychol. 30:243–82

MoormanRH. 1991. Relationship betweenor-ganizational justiceandorganizational citi-zenship behaviors: do fairnessperceptionsinfl uence employee citizenship. J. Appl.Psychol. 76:845–55

Mowday R, Sutton RI. 1993. Organizationalbehavior: li nking indivi duals and groupsto organization contexts. Annu. Rev.Psychol. 44:195–229

Mroczkowski T, Hanaoka M. 1989. Continuityandchange in Japanesemanagement. Cali f.Manage.Rev.31:39–53

National Association of Temporary andStaff-ing Services.1994. Temporary Help/Staff-ing ServicesIndustry Continues to CreateEmployment Opportunities. Alexandria,VA: Natl. Assoc.Temp. Staff.Serv.

National ResearchCouncil, ed. 1994. Organiza-tional Linkages: Understanding theProductiv-ityParadox.Washington,DC: Natl.Acad.Press

Neal A, Hesketh B, Andrews S. 1995. In-stance-based categorization: intentionalversusautomatic forms of retrieval. Mem.Cogn. 23:227–42

Nicolini D, MeznarMB. 1995. The social con-struction of organizational learning: con-ceptual andpractical issues in the field.Hum.Relat. 48:727–46

Noe RA, Wilk SL. 1993. Investigation of thefactors that influence employees’ participa-tion in development activities.J. Appl. Psy-chol. 78:291–302

Nordhaug O. 1989. Rewardfunctions of per-sonnel training. Hum.Relat. 42:373–88

Novelli L, Kirkman BL, Shapiro DL. 1995.Effective implementation of organizationalchange: an organizational justice perspec-tive.In Trends inOrganizational Behavior,ed. CL Cooper, DM Rousseau,pp. 2:15–36. Chichester:Wiley

O’Dri scoll MP, Ilgen DR, Hildreth K. 1992.Time devoted to job andoff-job activities,interrole confl ict, and affective experi-ences.J. Appl. Psychol. 77:272–79

O’Leary-Kelly AM, Griffin RW, Glew DJ. 1996.Organization-motivated aggression: aresearchframework. Acad. Manage.Rev. 21:225–53

O’Reilly CA. 1991. Organizational behavior:where we’ve been, where we’r e going.Annu. Rev.Psychol. 42:427–58

Organ DW. 1990. The motivational basisofcitizenship behavior. In Researchin Or-ganizational Behavior, ed. LL Cummings,BM Staw,12:43–72. Greenwich,CT: JAI

PearceJL. 1993. Toward anorganizational be-havior of contract laborers: their psychologi-cal involvementand effects on employeeco-workers.Acad. Manage.J. 36: 1082–96

Perrow C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with

High-risk Technologies. New York: Ba-sic Books

Perrow C. 1996. The bounded careerand thedemise of civil society. See Arthur &Rousseau1996, pp. 297–313

Podsakoff PM, Niehoff BP, MacKenzie SB,Will iams ML. 1993. Do substitutes forleadership really substitute for leadership?An empirical examination of Kerr andJer-mier’s situational leadership model.Organ.Behav.Hum.Decis.Process.54:1–44

Price RH, Hooijberg R. 1992. Organizationalexit pressures and role stress:impact onmental health. J. Organ. Behav. 13:641–52

Pritchard RD. 1990. Measuring and ImprovingOrganizational Productivity. New York:Praeger

Pritchard RD. 1994. Decomposing the produc-tivity linkagesparadox. SeeNational Re-searchCouncil 1994, pp. 161–92

Roberts K, Clark SC,WallaceC. 1994. Flexi-bili ty and individualisation: a comparisonof transitions into employment in EnglandandGermany. Soc. 28:31–54

RobinsonSL. 1995. Violation of psychologicalcontracts: impact on employee attitudes.SeeTetrick & Barling 1995, pp. 91–108

Robinson SL, Bennett RJ.1995. A typology ofdeviant workplace behaviors: a multidi -mensional scaling study. Acad. Manage.J. 38:555–72

RobinsonSL, RousseauDM. 1994. Violatingthe psychological contract: not the excep-tion but the norm. J. Organ. Behav. 15:245–59

Rodgers R, Hunter JE. 1991. Impact of man-agement by objectives on organizationalproductivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 76:322–36

Roe RA. 1995. Developments in EasternEurope and work and organizational psy-chology. In International Reviewof Indus-trial and Organizational Psychology, ed.CL Cooper, IT Robertson. Chichester: Wiley

Rosenbaum JE, Kariya T, SetterstenR, MaierT. 1990. Market and network theories ofthe transition from high school to work.Annu. Rev.Soc. 16:263–99

RousseauDM. 1995. Psychological Contractsin Organizations: Understanding Writtenand UnwrittenAgreements.Newbury Park,CA: Sage

RousseauDM, Tijoriwala S. 1996. It takesagood reason to change a psychologicalcontract. Presented at Soc. Ind./Organ.Psychol., April, SanDiego

RousseauDM, Tinsley K. 1996. Human re-sources are local: society and social con-tractsin a global economy. In Handbook ofSelectionand Appraisal, ed.N Anderson, PHerriot. London: Wiley. In press

SaganS.1993. The Limitsof Safety: Organiza-tions, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons.Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Schneider B, Bowen DE. 1995. Winning theServiceGame.Boston: HarvardBus.Sch.Press

Seashore SE, Indik BP, Georgopolous BS.1960. Relationships among criteria of jobperformance.J. Appl. Psychol. 44:195–202

Semler R. 1989. Managing without managers.Harv. Bus. Rev.67(5):76–84

Shapiro DL, Buttner EH, Barry B. 1994. Ex-planations: What factors enhancetheir per-ceived adequacy? Organ. Hum. Decis.Process.58:346–68

Sheppard BH, Lewicki RJ, Minton JW. 1992.Organizational Justice: The Search forFairness in the Workplace. New York:Lexington Books

ShermanS. 1995. Stretch goals: the dark sideof asking for miracles.Fortune, Nov. 13.pp. 231–32

Shipper F, Manz CC. 1992. Employee self-management without formally designatedteams: an alternative road to empower-ment. Organ. Dyn.20:48–61

ShoreLM, Wayne SJ.1993. Commitmentandemployee behavior: comparison of affec-tive commitment andcontinuancecommit-ment with perceived organizational sup-port. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:774–80

Sims HP, Gioia DA, eds.1986. The ThinkingOrganization: TheDynamicsof Organiza-tional Social Cognition. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass

Sinclair RR, HanniganMA, Tetrick LE. 1995.Benefit coverageandemployeeattitudes:asocial exchangeperspective.SeeTetrick &Barling1995, pp. 163–85

Sink DS, Smith GL. 1994. The influence oforganizational linkages and measurementpracticeson productivity andmanagement.SeeNational ResearchCouncil 1994, pp.131–60

Small Business Administration. 1992. TheState of Small Business.Washington, DC:US Gov. Print. Off.

Smith KG, Locke EA, Barry D. 1990. Goalsetting, planning, and organizational per-formance:an experimental simulation. Or-gan. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 46:118–34

Smolowe J. 1996. Reap as ye shall sow: pay-for-performance standards are a jackpotthis yearfor executivesbut not for workers.Time,Feb.5, p. 45

Snow CC, MilesRE,ColemanHJ. 1992. Man-aging 21st century network organizations.Organ. Dyn.20:5–20

Starbuck WH, Mill iken FJ. 1988. Executives’perceptual fi lters: what they notice andhow they makesense.In TheExecutive Ef-fect: Concepts and Methods for StudyingTop Managers, ed. D Hambrick. Green-wich, CT: JAI

Storey DJ. 1994. Understanding the SmallBusiness Sector. London: Routledge

Tetrick LE, Barling J, eds. 1995. ChangingEmploymentRelations: Behavior and So-cial Perspectives. Washington, DC: Am.Psychol. Assoc.

ThomasD, Higgins M. 1996. Mentoring andthe boundarylesscareer:lessons from theminority experience. SeeArthur & Rous-seau1996. In press

Tsui AS, Ashford SJ, St. Clair L, Xin KR.1995. Dealing with discrepant expectations:response strategies and managerial effec-tiveness.Acad. Manage.J. 38: 1515–43

Van Maannen J, Barley SR. 1984. Occupa-tional communities: culture and control inorganizations. In Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, ed.BM Staw,8:287–364.Greenwich,CT: JAI

Vinocur AD, vanRyn M, Gramlich EM, PriceRH. 1991. Long-term follow-up andbene-fi t-cost analysis of the jobsprogram:a pre-ventive intervention for the unemployed.J.Appl. Psychol. 76:213–19

Vroom V. 1964. Work and Motivation. NewYork: Wiley

WanousJP,KeonTL, LatackJC.1983. Expec-tancy theory and occupational organiza-tional choices: a review and test. Organ.Behav.Hum.Perform. 32:66–85

Weick KE. 1995. Sensemaking in Organiza-tions.Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage

Weick KE. 1996. Enactment and the bound-arylesscareer:organizing aswe work. SeeArthur & Rousseau1996, pp. 40–57

Weick KE, Roberts KH.1993. Collectivemindin organizations.Adm.Sci. Q. 38:357–81

Welbourne TM, Balkin DB, Gomez-Mejia LR.1995. Gainsharing andmutual monitoring:a combined agency–organizational justiceinterpretation. Acad. Manage.J. 38:881–99

Welch R. 1994. Europeanworks councils andtheir implications: the potential impact onemployer practicesand tradeunions.Empl.Relat. 16:48–61

Wilpert B. 1995. Organizational behavior.Annu. Rev.Psychol. 46:59–90

WinefieldA, WinefieldH, TiggemanM, Gold-ney R. 1991. A longitudinal study of thepsychological effects of unemploymentand unsatisfactory employment on youngadults.J. Appl. Psychol. 76:424–31

Wood R, Mento A, Locke E. 1987. Taskcom-plexity as a moderator of goal effects: ameta-analysis.J. Appl. Psychol. 72:416–25

Yankelovich D. 1993. How changes in theeconomy are reshaping American values.In Valuesand Public Policy,ed. HJAaron,TE Mann, T Taylor. Washington, DC:BrookingsInst.

Zenger TR. 1992. Why do employersonly re-ward extremeperformance?Examining therelationships among performance,pay, andturnover.Adm.Sci. Q. 37:198–220

546 ROUSSEAU

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 1

997.

48:5

15-5

46. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by W

IB62

42 -

Uni

vers

itaet

s- u

nd L

ande

sbib

lioth

ek D

uess

eldo

rf o

n 11

/15/

13. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Documents

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR IN THE NEW ORGANIZATIONAL ERA