To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.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.
Organizations that are becoming more diverse and relying on teams to achieve performance outcomes often employ organizational interventions to deliver these outcomes. Although some negative or null side effects have been demonstrated related to these interventions, we argue that many positive side effects are often not captured or are disregarded and warrant further attention. Using examples from the training literature, we provide evidence for positive side effects of organizational interventions. We also identify lapses in the field’s approach to the measurement of the effects of organizational interventions and how this prevents our attempts to improve these interventions to create better and more holistic outcomes for employees and organizations. We suggest opportunities to improve interventions that can be applied in our diverse workplaces.
Pratt and Bonaccio's (2016) focal article properly reviews and identifies the need for qualitative research methods in our field. However, they overlooked one important benefit—team science—that is crucial to current organizations. Despite the fact that qualitative research in team science is lacking, we suggest that with qualitative research we can gain more insight into what teams need in order to be effective. According to Kozlowski and Bell (2003), team dynamics are historically looked at in a static way in teams research, solely focusing on individuals’ perceptions of the team at a given time as opposed to multilevels over time. In an attempt to further expand on how qualitative research can examine constructs that purely quantitative methods may not, the purpose of this commentary is to highlight importance of qualitative research regarding its ability to capture team dynamics as they occur in the real world. The need for qualitative methods exists across various components (i.e., inputs, team emergent states, processes, outputs) when it comes to teams. We argue that how these components appear, happen, and, more importantly, evolve over time should be taken into consideration. The current commentary highlights how qualitative research can start to fill the gap of understanding team dynamics and how to improve team practices by taking time into consideration.
Here, we expand on Landers and Behrend's (2015) discussion of the external validity of convenience samples. In particular, we note that their focal article failed to mention one important limitation of multi-organization convenience samples (e.g., MTurk samples, student samples): Multi-organization convenience samples tend to confound levels of analysis, which affects the external validity of these samples. Specifically, between-organizations phenomena (i.e., organization-level) and within-organizations phenomena (i.e., individual-level) are distinct and separable (Ostroff, 1993; Robinson, 1950). Unfortunately, multi-organization samples such as those found in MTurk or MBA student samples can confound these two sets of phenomena. The current commentary uses a levels-of-analysis framework to expand on Landers and Behrend's discussion of what external validity is, and then the commentary illustrates how the diversity of convenience samples can actually harm external validity under some common circumstances.