In 2017, about 30% of all U.S. adults volunteered for a total of 6.9 billion hours. This raises the question, why do so many people volunteer? Extant research has produced highly variable estimates of the effect sizes of various motivating factors, and there has been little to no research on potential moderators (i.e., study-level covariates that might strengthen or weaken the main effect of volunteer motives). We meta-analyzed 61 studies ( N = 38,327) to estimate the effect sizes of six volunteer motivators (Volunteer Functions Inventory [VFI]; Clary et al., 1998) in predicting outcomes (satisfaction, commitment, intention to continue, and frequency). Results demonstrate that all six motivators significantly predicted the three outcome variables ([Formula: see text] ranging from .12 to .44). Values was the strongest predictor by far, based on the largest effect size and a post hoc relative importance analysis. Moderator analyses indicated some differences in effect sizes across gender and student status; there were few differences across geographic location, race-ethnicity, college degree attainment, and employment status. Implications for volunteer managers and organizations on how to best work with volunteers are described.

In the past two decades, there has been growing interest in workplace spirituality, why it matters, and how it impacts organizational outcomes. We examined how workplace spirituality interacts with elements of workplace teams (i.e., leadership and the surrounding organizational context) to impact important individual- and team- level outcomes. Using a sample of 331 full-time employees plus an additional 293 team member peers, we used a newly developed workplace spirituality measure, The Integration Profile (Miller et al., 2019), to predict organizational commitment and collective efficacy, with ethical leadership and openness of faith environment as moderators. Findings demonstrated the importance of workplace spirituality for organizational commitment, along with significant moderators of ethical leadership and openness of faith environment. We also report exploratory analysis of the factor structure of the workplace spirituality measure, concluding that most of the construct is driven by a global factor as opposed to the theorized eight first-order dimensions.

Multiteam systems (MTSs) are complex organizational forms comprising interdependent teams that work towards their own proximal goals within and across teams to also accomplish a shared superordinate goal. MTSs operate within high-stakes, dangerous contexts with high consequences for suboptimal performance. We answer calls for nuanced exploration and cross-context comparison of MTSs “in the wild” by leveraging the MTS action sub-phase behavioral taxonomy to determine where and how MTS failures occur. To our knowledge, this is the first study to also examine how key MTS attributes (boundary status, goal type) influence MTS processes and performance. We conducted historiometric analysis on 40 cases of failed MTS performance across various contexts (e.g., emergency response, commercial transportation, military, and business) to uncover patterns of within- and between-team behaviors of failing MTSs, resulting in four themes. First, component teams of failing MTSs over-engaged in within-team alignment behaviors (vs. between-team behaviors) by enacting acting, monitoring, and recalibrating behaviors more often within than between teams. Second, failing MTSs over-focused on acting behaviors (vs. monitoring or recalibrating) and tended to not fully enact the action sub-phase cycle. Third and fourth, boundary status and goal type exacerbated these behavioral patterns, as external and physical MTSs were less likely to enact sufficient between-team behaviors or fully enact the action sub-phase cycle compared to internal and intellectual MTSs. We propose entrainment as a mechanism for facilitating MTS performance wherein specific, cyclical behavioral patterns enacted by teams align to facilitate goal achievement via three multilevel behavioral cycles (i.e., acting-focused, alignment-focused, and adjustment-focused). We argue that the degree to which these cycles are aligned both between teams and with the overarching MTS goal determines whether and how an MTS fails. Our findings add nuance beyond single-context MTS studies by showing that the identified behavioral patterns hold both across contexts and almost all types of MTS action-phase behaviors. We show that these patterns vary by MTS boundary status and goal type. Our findings inform MTS training best practices, which should be structured to integrate all component teams and tailored to both MTS attributes (i.e., boundary status, goal type) and situation type (e.g., contingency planning).

No abstract

The focal article by Kath et al. (2021) presents a clear and laudable argument for why and how industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology instructors should be demonstrating best practices of teaching in the classroom. Though they mention the importance of having non-I-O students benefit from I-O classes, implicit in their body of helpful resources and advice is the assumption that instructors will be focused on teaching I-O students (or at least, psychology majors). In our response, we extend the I-O content described in the focal article beyond simply that of informing our teaching practices; instead, the content of what is taught in an I-O course can and should be presented in a way that is applicable to students from all fields and educational backgrounds. Taken a step further, we daresay that an "Introduction to I-O Psychology" course should be a foundational general studies course for all undergraduate students regardless of major. Too often, I-O instructors seem to be stuck in the idea that they are teaching future I-O graduate students, researchers, consultants, or HR professionals (Ones et al., 2017; Weathington et al., 2014). As a result, I-O content tends to be presented with such an audience in mind: diversity and inclusion is taught from the perspective of test bias and predictive validity in selection, leadership is taught from the perspective of training leaders within organizations, and teamwork is taught from the perspective of managing teams or assessing team performance. However, the reality is that the field of I-O psychology has much to offer to students who are planning to become professional musicians, medical doctors, or restaurant managers or even those who have no clue about what they want to do after graduation. The popularization of an I-O course for non-psychology students falls in line with The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology's (SIOP) strategic goals in advancing public knowledge of our field, and we argue that this is a worthy goal of any I-O instructor. Kath et al. (2021) acknowledge this in their focal article, but their recommendations remain focused on how each of the four content areas (training and development, diversity and inclusion, groups and teams, and leadership) informs best practices in teaching. Following their four-part structure, we demonstrate how each of these content areas not only informs best practices in teaching but also potentially serves as content that is applicable to any undergraduate student who enters our classroom. Training and development Whereas the focal article focuses on the application of what we know about effective training programs to teaching in the classroom (e.g., needs assessments, goal-setting, and delivery modem), the same content could be used to provide any undergraduate with the skills to succeed in their college and future careers regardless of their major. Goal setting in particular has a demonstrated We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.