Knowledge that Transforms

This paper provides an overview of the literature on interorganizational relationships. Although the literature on interorganizational relationships is extensive, a pervasive theme that is either explicit or implicit in the majority of the articles is the simple notion of whether interorganizational relationships make sense and whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This article reviews six widely used theoretical paradigms that explain interorganizational relationship formation, including transaction costs economics, resource dependency, strategic choice, stakeholder theory, organizational learning, and institutional theory. Although each paradigm alone is insufficient to capture the complexities of interorganizational relationship formation, the fact that interorganizational relationships can be justified from such diverse theoretical backgrounds is impressive. The paper also reviews the six forms of interorganizational relationships most commonly pursued in practice and discussed in the literature, including joint ventures, networks, consortia, alliances, trade associations, and interlocking directorates. Through these discussions, we elaborate on the potential advantages and disadvantages of participation in interorganizational relationships.

Through a meta-analytic review of the empirical literature on the determinants of CEO pay, this study tests the hypothesized relationships between firm size, performance, and CEO pay. We show that firm size accounts for more than 40% of the variance in total CEO pay, while firm performance accounts for less than 5% of the variance. We also show that pay sensitivities are relatively similar for both changes in size (5% of the explained variance in pay) and changes in financial performance (4% of the explained variance in pay). The meta-analysis also suggests that moderator variables may play an important role, but we were unable to test for this.

This article reports the results of a comprehensive meta-analysis of turnover antecedents, extending an earlier one by Hom and Griffeth (1995). As such, this updated meta-analysis represents the most wide-ranging quantitative review to date of the predictive strength of numerous turnover antecedents. Importantly, the present investigation identifies various moderators of antecedent-turnover correlations. The implications of these findings for both theory and practice are discussed.

As a means to enhance prescriptive theory on a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation, this paper addresses the strengths and weaknesses of three approaches to measurement: managerial perceptions, firm behaviors, and resource allocations. We examine a set of recent studies employing these approaches, propose important contingencies regarding their use, and suggest that measurement accuracy can be improved by using a triangulation of methods. The paper concludes with a discussion of theoretical, resource availability, and interpretability considerations in measurement selection.

Many practitioner-oriented publications argue that managers should be more proactive on the job, and that proactive behavior is an increasingly important component of job performance. Organizational research on the antecedents and consequences of proactive behavior has appeared in several different literatures and has taken different approaches toward defining, measuring, and understanding proactivity. In this article, I review a diverse set of literatures that directly address proactive behavior in organizational contexts. I describe four constructs related to proactive behavior: proactive personality, personal initiative, role breadth self-efficacy, and taking charge. Next, I review six research domains that have explicitly addressed proactive behaviors: socialization, feedback seeking, issue selling, innovation, career management, and certain kinds of stress management. After considering findings from these research streams, I offer an analysis of the different approaches to the study of proactive behavior and provide a set of suggestions for future research.

Does the competitive dynamics perspective support the mutual forbearance (Edwards, 1955) and resource dissimilarity (Caves & Porter, 1977) theories of competitive behavior? This research examines competitive behavior in the U.S. software industry and finds: (1) as multimarket contact increases, a firm moves less frequently but more quickly following the moves of rivals; (2) as a firm’s resources are more dissimilar relative to rivals, it becomes more rivalrous along both action and timing dimensions of competitive behavior; and, (3) the influence of multimarket contact on firm-level action is most influential for firms whose resources are more dissimilar relative to rivals, but its influence on a firm’s time to move is most influential for firms whose resources are more similar relative to rivals. Thus, the dynamic perspective generally supports, but goes beyond, the insights of the established mutual forbearance and resource dissimilarity theories.

In this questionnaire study, the relations between the affective reactions of 114 technical consultants and both intragroup interdependence and job complexity were examined. Individual-level task interdependence and job complexity were found to be positively related to individual job satisfaction, team satisfaction, job commitment, and team commitment. Cross-level interactions showed the positive relations between task interdependence and the affective outcomes to be stronger in high outcome interdependent teams than in low outcome interdependent teams. Specifically, a proper match between high task interdependence and high group-level outcome interdependence was found to produce more positive affective responses than “low-high” and “high-low” mismatches. The unfavorable effects of mismatched task and outcome interdependence on job satisfaction and job commitment were found to be mitigated by high levels of job complexity.

Over the last thirty years, the amount of research on recruitment topics has increased dramatically. Despite this increase, recent reviews of the recruitment literature often have had a somewhat pessimistic tone. Reviewers have concluded that we still do not know a great deal about why recruitment activities have the effects they do. In particular, recent reviews have criticized many of the studies conducted for being poorly designed, narrow in focus, and not grounded in theory. We believe that many of these criticisms are legitimate. We also believe that, in order for future studies to result in a better understanding of the recruitment process, such studies need to be designed with an appreciation of the complexity of the recruitment process (i.e., the number of variables involved and the nature of their relationships). In this regard, we offer an organizing framework of the recruitment process. In introducing this framework, we draw upon theories from a variety of research domains and give considerable attention to process variables (e.g., aplicant attention, message credibility, applicant self-insight) that mediate the relationships between recruitment activities (e.g., recruiter behavior) and recruitment outcomes (e.g., the number of applications generated). Having introduced an organizing framework, we selectively review recruitment research, giving particular attention to the topics of recruitment sources, recruiters, and realistic job previews. This review makes apparent a number of important issues that recruitment research has yet to address.

We conducted a meta-analysis of correlations between role ambiguity and job performance and role conflict and job performance. Previous meta-analyses of these role constructs and performance relationships (e.g., Jackson & Schuler, 1985) were limited by small sample sizes and sparse reporting of reliability estimates in primary studies. The present study used a comprehensive database with a larger sample size and a distribution of interrater reliabilities to extend the previous findings. We also tested moderator hypotheses proposed but not conducted by Jackson and Schuler. Results revealed a negative relationship (r52.21) between role ambiguity and job performance with moderating influences due to job type and rating source. A negligible relationship (r52.07) was observed for role conflict and job performance, a finding consistent across job types and rating sources. Conclusions were that role ambiguity ought not to be dismissed as an unimportant variable in the job performance domain.

The rapid growth of research on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) has resulted in some conceptual confusion about the nature of the construct, and made it difficult for all but the most avid readers to keep up with developments in this domain. This paper critically examines the literature on organizational citizenship behavior and other, related constructs. More specifically, it: (a) explores the conceptual similarities and differences between the various forms of “citizenship” behavior constructs identified in the literature; (b) summarizes the empirical findings of both the antecedents and consequences of OCBs; and (c) identifies several interesting directions for future research.