Group & Organization Management

We seek to contribute to the ongoing discussion about interdisciplinary research by contextualizing its benefits, challenges, and realities specifically within the management field. The purpose of this Musing is to highlight the a“musing” (i.e., entertaining) and be“musing” (i.e., confusing) experiences that we have had trying to publish interdisciplinary research so we can offer some recommendations for how the management field can stop ignoring something we all claim to be of great value. In our experience, interdisciplinary research is amusing if you're intrinsically motivated to do it, but it is bemusing if you expect it to be tied to extrinsic rewards.

Despite ample access to large, archival datasets, the micro-organizational sciences field seem to consistently cast these datasets aside in favor of primary datasets collected by independent researchers. In the current GoMusing, we argue that these archival datasets should not be a secondary (or even last) choice for the micro-organizational sciences. In fact, large archival datasets can enable researchers to (a) investigate phenomena of interest across generalizable samples, (b) incorporate multiple levels of context into research, and (c) take advantage of several additional methodological benefits. In the hopes of spurring a paradigm shift in the micro-organizational sciences, we begin our article by discussing problems with the standard approach to data collection (i.e., independent researchers collecting their own datasets). We then discuss how archival datasets can remedy many of these issues and advance the range of research questions the field is able to answerer. We conclude by providing a step-by-step process for incorporating these archival datasets into our literature and provide insights into addressing common challenges. We hope this GoMusing will serve as a call to action for researchers and editorial teams alike to move our research forward though a greater usage of large archival datasets.

Although popular in the organizational sciences, in the media, and in practice, the concepts of “generations” and “generational differences” have been increasingly scrutinized based on theoretical, methodological, and statistical concerns. Here, we present a short obituary to bid adieu to these troubled concepts, with the hopes of memorializing and “putting to rest” these controversial ideas. We encourage researchers and practitioners to think beyond the narrow scope offered by the idea of generations, adopt a more critical perspective on our science and practice, and learn from the mistakes of the past.

The title of this GOMusing is “The Word On The Street: Science Is Not Advocacy, But Publishing Research Is” and the goal of this GOMusing is to challenge us to re-examine our assumptions about a topic and spark debate around the phrase “science is not advocacy.” While I agree science is not advocacy, I make an argument about how the process of publishing research in peer-reviewed journals is an act of advocacy. I accomplish this by explaining five way researchers engage in advocacy. Specifically, (1) we advocate that our study’s shortcomings are common limitations rather than fatal flaws, (2) we advocate for our research methodology of choice, (3) we advocate for using best practices in our research designs and methods, (4) we advocate for our theoretical framework of choice, and (5) we advocate for a better peer-review process.

For employees with stigmatized concealable identities, the decision to disclose or not disclose represents a critical workplace experience. Moreover, employees enact their disclosure decisions by engaging in identity management (IM) strategies. Although multiple conceptual frameworks exist related to disclosure decisions and IM strategies, none of these frameworks consider the relationship between these two phenomena. In addition, empirical work surrounding disclosure decisions often positions disclosure as a dichotomous decision, rather than considering disclosure as occurring along a continuum. In this study, we use in-depth interviews to investigate the nuances of concealable IM using a sample of stigmatized employees, namely, those with depression. Through inductive thematic analysis, a continuum of disclosure decisions emerged (non-disclosure, partial disclosure, and full disclosure) as well as eight distinct IM strategies that participants used to enact their disclosure decisions. Our results extend the knowledge of concealable IM in multiple ways. First, we map specific IM strategies onto the disclosure continuum to provide a more robust understanding of the IM process for employees with depression. Second, we identify specific IM strategies related to partial disclosure and full disclosure, thereby extending existing conceptual frameworks. Additionally, we expand the definitions of the concealing and signaling IM strategies. Lastly, our study exposes the lived experiences of a group of employees that have traditionally been underrepresented in applied organizational research, those with depression.

Drawing upon social information processing theory, this study builds a multilevel model to explore the effects of humble leader behavior on performance in teams. Time-lagged and multi-source data were gathered from 298 employees across 70 work teams. Results indicated that at the individual level, humble leader behavior was positively related to individual performance via organization-based self-esteem, while at the team level, humble leader behavior was positively related to team performance via team potency. Moreover, team cognitive diversity moderated the indirect effects of humble leader behavior on individual and team performances, such that the positive indirect effects were stronger for teams with high cognitive diversity than for those with low cognitive diversity. Implications and limitations are also discussed.

Despite qualitative evidence suggesting that changes in informal hierarchy strength likely impact performance, informal hierarchy strength changes have received little theoretical or empirical attention. We address this by extending structural adaptation theory (SAT) to develop and test a theoretical model of why informal hierarchy strength changes and how those changes impact performance. Building on SAT’s principle that teams can become more ordered following stimulation, we propose that pressure subsequently increases informal hierarchy strength. In project teams where pressure starts low and increases at the midpoint, informal hierarchy should weaken early in project life and strengthen after the midpoint. We also extend SAT’s asymmetric adaptability principle to consider not just the direction but also the rate of the changes. We hypothesize that sharply strengthening informal hierarchy harms performance, but informal hierarchy strengthening gradually improves performance. SAT also implies that gradual change is promoted by inclusive discussions. Because most influential extraverts tend to squelch inclusive discussions where most influential neurotics tend to be inclusive, teams with most influential extraverts strengthen their informal hierarchy quickly where teams with most influential neurotics strengthen their informal hierarchy gradually. We find support for our theoretical model using longitudinal data and client performance ratings on self-managed project teams. Our results contribute to SAT by showing its application to informal, unplanned changes and introducing the rate of change to its asymmetric adaptability principle. Our findings also highlight the importance of shifting informal hierarchy strength research away from the predominant static approach and toward studying informal hierarchy strength changes.