Studying Intergroup Relations Embedded in Organizations

Alderfer, Clayton P.; Smith, Ken

doi:10.2307/2392545

Cited by 295 publications

(231 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

221

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, highly interdependent jobs provide increased contact and more opportunities to communicate what each worker requires (Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999), what is expected in return (Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995), and what each worker is doing (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007). That is, this contact helps bound individual roles (Alderfer & Smith, 1982) by clarifying the roles that each individual fills (Tuckman, 1965). Second, feedback from 1336 HUMPHREY, NAHRGANG, AND MORGESON others enhances role perceptions by providing opportunities to negotiate and define roles with the appropriate people who hold the expectations and provide the performance feedback (Graen, 1976).…”

Section: Extending the Job Characteristics Model: Social Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

Humphrey¹,

Nahrgang²,

Morgeson³

2007

Journal of Applied Psychology

1,733

1,732

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors developed and meta-analytically examined hypotheses designed to test and extend work design theory by integrating motivational, social, and work context characteristics. Results from a summary of 259 studies and 219,625 participants showed that 14 work characteristics explained, on average, 43% of the variance in the 19 worker attitudes and behaviors examined. For example, motivational characteristics explained 25% of the variance in subjective performance, 2% in turnover perceptions, 34% in job satisfaction, 24% in organizational commitment, and 26% in role perception outcomes. Beyond motivational characteristics, social characteristics explained incremental variances of 9% of the variance in subjective performance, 24% in turnover intentions, 17% in job satisfaction, 40% in organizational commitment, and 18% in role perception outcomes. Finally, beyond both motivational and social characteristics, work context characteristics explained incremental variances of 4% in job satisfaction and 16% in stress. The results of this study suggest numerous opportunities for the continued development of work design theory and practice.Keywords: work design, job design, satisfaction, performance, social support Interest in work design has a long history. Early writings focused on how the division of labor could increase worker efficiency and productivity (Babbage, 1835;Smith, 1776). The first systematic treatment of the topic was conducted in the early part of the 20th century by Gilbreth (1911) and Taylor (1911), who focused on specialization and simplification in an attempt to maximize worker efficiency. Yet, one of the problems of designing work to maximize efficiency was that it tended to result in decreased employee satisfaction, increased turnover and absenteeism, and difficulties in managing employees in simplified jobs (Hackman & Lawler, 1971).Reacting to this, researchers developed theories focusing on the motivating features of work (Hackman & Lawler, 1971;Hackman & Oldham, 1975;Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959;Turner & Lawrence, 1965). The motivational approach forwarded by these scholars has been influential over the past 30 years (Morgeson & Campion, 2003). For example, the key articles summarizing Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics model and measures have been cited nearly 2,000 times by researchers (ISI Web of Knowledge, 2006). Although the model is more than 30 years old and there are several criticisms of its key propositions and measures (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992;Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006;Roberts & Glick, 1981;Taber & Taylor, 1990), it retains a central place in work design theory today. Yet the success of the motivational approach has had two curious effects on work design research over the past 30 years.First, it has focused research attention on a limited set of motivational work features (e.g., skill variety, autonomy). Although these are important work characteristics, other important aspects of work (such as the social environment and work context) have been neglected. As a conseq...

show abstract

Section: Extending the Job Characteristics Model: Social Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

Humphrey¹,

Nahrgang²,

Morgeson³

2007

Journal of Applied Psychology

1,733

1,732

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may make a difference with respect to the individual relationships within the groups (see . Organizational culture may matter for the individual dyads, as embedded intergroup relations theory suggests (Alderfer & Smith, 1982; see also argumentation by Nkomo & Cox, 1996). We can assume that employees belonging to a minority do not feel equally integrated in groups and, as a consequence, experience less LMX.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing antecedents and consequences of leader – member exchange in a German working context to findings in the US

Schyns¹,

Paul²,

Mohr³

et al. 2005

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, both positive and negative stereotypes of women and minorities can limit the equality of their outcomes, the quality of their relationships, and their personal performance. While these effects of diversity are measured at the individual level, it is likely that they also have implications for the ways in which intergroup dynamics play out in organizations (Alderfer & Smith, 1982).…”

Section: B Positive When?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Positive Approach to Studying Diversity in Organizations

Ramarajan

Thomas²

2011

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we distinguish between positive findings in diversity research and a positive approach to studying diversity. We first review and integrate research on diversity from organizational behavior, social psychology and sociology from 1998-2010 that has already documented positive findings in relation to diversity. We discuss this research using two broad categories: (1) to studying diversity and describe some examples of organizational scholarship that has taken such an approach. We also discuss some of the limitations of taking a positive approach to diversity and propose some ways in which diversity scholars interested in taking a positive approach can overcome these limitations. By illuminating both positive findings in diversity research and a positive approach to studying diversity, we hope to spark more research that examines the beneficial and empowering aspects of difference for individuals and groups in organizations.

show abstract

Studying Intergroup Relations Embedded in Organizations

Cited by 295 publications

References 20 publications

Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

Comparing antecedents and consequences of leader – member exchange in a German working context to findings in the US

A Positive Approach to Studying Diversity in Organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About