Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A metaanalytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.

The trust literature distinguishes trustworthiness (the ability, benevolence, and integrity of a trustee) and trust propensity (a dispositional willingness to rely on others) from trust (the intention to accept vulnerability to a trustee based on positive expectations of his or her actions). Although this distinction has clarified some confusion in the literature, it remains unclear (a) which trust antecedents have the strongest relationships with trust and (b) whether trust fully mediates the effects of trustworthiness and trust propensity on behavioral outcomes. Our meta-analysis of 132 independent samples summarized the relationships between the trust variables and both risk taking and job performance (task performance, citizenship behavior, counterproductive behavior). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling supported a partial mediation model wherein trustworthiness and trust propensity explained incremental variance in the behavioral outcomes when trust was controlled. Further analyses revealed that the trustworthiness dimensions also predicted affective commitment, which had unique relationships with the outcomes when controlling for trust. These results generalized across different types of trust measures (i.e., positive expectations measures, willingness-to-be-vulnerable measures, and direct measures) and different trust referents (i.e., leaders, coworkers)

Organizational behavior : improving performance and commitment in the workplace, 4th ed./ Colquitt

xxvi, p.613.: ill.; 28 c

Organizational behavior : improving performance and commitment in the workplace, 4th ed./ Colquitt

xxvi, p.613.: ill.; 28 c

A Meta-Analysis of Voice and Its Promotive and Prohibitive Forms: Identification of Key Associations, Distinctions, and Future Research Directions

This article reports meta-analyses intended to clarify and enhance our understanding of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms. We find that undifferentiated constructive voice is associated with a wide range of antecedents that fit in Morrison's (2014) five categories: (a) dispositions, (b) job and organizational attitudes and perceptions, (c) emotions, beliefs, and schemas, (d) supervisor and leader behavior, and (e) contextual factors. However, relative weight analyses reveal a highly dominant variable within each category (personal initiative, felt responsibility, engagement, leader–member exchange, and positive workplace climate). We also find that undifferentiated constructive voice has a moderate zero-order association with job performance that is nonsignificant when task performance and organizational citizenship behavior are also considered. Finally, we explore how associations vary as a function of whether voice is promotive or prohibitive. First, there are significant differences in associations with over a third of the antecedents (core self-evaluations, felt responsibility, organizational commitment, detachment, psychological safety, ethical leadership, and leader openness). Second, although promotive voice has a positive association with job performance, the opposite is true for prohibitive voice. We conclude with suggestions to enhance our understanding of voice, especially with respect to efforts needed to clarify and distinguish promotive and prohibitive voice.This accepted article is published as Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology 70(1), 11-71. doi: 10.1111/peps.12185. Posted with permission

Organizational behaviour : improving performance and commitment in the workplace

xxvi, 613 hlm.; 26 c

Organizational Behavior

xxi 617 ha

Organizational Behavior Improving Performance and Commitment in The Workplace

617.;xxi.;26 c

Organizational behavior : improving performance and commitment in the workpace (BI)

xxvi, 613 hlm.: 28 c

Divided we fall:How ratios undermine research in strategic management

Despite scholars’ admonitions regarding the use of ratios in statistical analyses, the practice is common in management research. This is particularly true in the area of strategic management, where important variables of interest are operationalized as ratios. In this study, we employ simulations to demonstrate the implications of using ratios in statistical analyses. Our simulations illustrate that ratio variables produce inaccurate parameter estimates and can result in lower levels of statistical power (i.e., the ability to uncover hypothesized relationships). We also find that when an independent or a dependent variable is a ratio, the relationship between the independent and dependent variable fluctuates as the dispersion of the denominator changes. These fluctuations occur even when the correlations between the unscaled variables remain exactly the same. We also find that including ratios in models as control variables influences estimates of relationships between focal independent and dependent variables. This is true even when neither the independent or dependent variable is a ratio. We provide several recommendations for researchers who may be interested in avoiding the pitfalls of ratio variables