Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-54vk6 Total loading time: 0.349 Render date: 2022-08-11T00:28:07.429Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The power of process theories to better understand and detect consequences of organizational interventions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2022

Michael T. Braun*
Affiliation:
DePaul University
Goran Kuljanin
Affiliation:
DePaul University
James A. Grand
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Steve W. J. Kozlowski
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
Georgia T. Chao
Affiliation:
University of South Florida
*
*Corresponding author. Email: mbraun4@depaul.edu

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alliger, J. M., & Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick’s levels of training evaluation: Thirty years later. Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 331342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Transfer of training 1988-2008: An updated review and new agenda for future research. In Hodgkinson, G. P. & Ford, J. K. (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 4171). Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronin, M. A., Gonzalez, C., & Sterman, J. D. (2009). Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 116130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, J. M. (1999). Agent-based computational models and generative social science. Complexity, 4(5), 4160.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2010). Computational models as aids to better reasoning in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 329335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., Kuljanin, G., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2016). The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 13531385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. R., Lin, Z., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 12291245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4), 270299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (in press). The data revolution and the interplay between theory and data. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Data, methods and theory in the organizational sciences. Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 390). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 5475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356376.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E. (2016). The problem with [in] management theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 11321141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analysis of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 2344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naylor, T. H., & Finger, J. M. (1967). Verification of computer simulation models. Management Science, 14(2), 92103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porras, J. I., & Silvers, R. C. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 5178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, H. L., Levine, B. R., Barth, S. E., Wessel, J. L., & Grand, J. A. (2019). Exploring women’s leadership labyrinth: Effects of hiring and developmental opportunities on gender stratification. Leadership Quarterly, 30(6), A10314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargent, R. G. (2013). Verification and validation of simulation models. Journal of Simulation, 7, 1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, J. A., & Grand, J. A. (in press). Applying systems science to advance research on team phenomena. In Dulebohn, J., Murray, B., & Stone, D. (Eds.), Managing team centricity in modern organizations. Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 14671478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, L. L., Gray, B. E., & Medeiros, K. E. (2021). Side effects associated with organizational interventions: A perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 15(1), 7694.Google Scholar
Weick, E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The power of process theories to better understand and detect consequences of organizational interventions
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The power of process theories to better understand and detect consequences of organizational interventions
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The power of process theories to better understand and detect consequences of organizational interventions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *