An HRM perspective on workplace commitment: Reconnecting in concept, measurement and methodology

Workplace commitment is viewed as an important mechanism connecting HRM practices with organizational outcomes, including performance. For this reason, commitment has emerged as one of the most significant and voluminous areas in HRM studies. Yet some of the key advances in the wider field of commitment have not been incorporate in studies of commitment in the HRM field. This is problematic as the body of work on commitment may develop separately from HRM research, wherein which the construct is so central. We seek to rectify this disconnected development through a systematic literature review which is targeted on three key threads, i.e., (1) definition and conceptual meaning, (2) multiple targets of commitment, and (3) the dynamics of commitment. These three threads are then connected to measurement and methodology, together providing the basis for a ‘toolkit’ for future research on commitment in HRM studies. Our review advances the field of commitment research in HRM by providing much needed conceptual, theoretical and methodological clarification, and by providing ways of bridging the gap and stimulating further research in this area

Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology

This entry explores the ontology, epistemology and methodology drawn on by research in work and organizational psychology (w/o psychology). Based on a review of studies published in nine highly ranked w/o psychology journals over the past decade, we identify and discuss three dominant themes: (1) the absence of ontological and epistemological debates, (2) sameness of ontology and epistemology, (3) methodological isomorphism. By identifying directions for future w/o psychology scholarship, we recommend greater focus on congruence between ontological and epistemological beliefs and methodology. While this may enable scholars to make more deliberate research choices in how they work, it also fosters pluralism in the field. As such, this entry is an invitation to scholars to further reflect on these themes

Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology

This entry explores the ontology, epistemology and methodology drawn on by research in work and organizational psychology (w/o psychology). Based on a review of studies published in nine highly ranked w/o psychology journals over the past decade, we identify and discuss three dominant themes: (1) the absence of ontological and epistemological debates, (2) sameness of ontology and epistemology, (3) methodological isomorphism. By identifying directions for future w/o psychology scholarship, we recommend greater focus on congruence between ontological and epistemological beliefs and methodology. While this may enable scholars to make more deliberate research choices in how they work, it also fosters pluralism in the field. As such, this entry is an invitation to scholars to further reflect on these themes

Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology

This entry explores the ontology, epistemology and methodology drawn on by research in work and organizational psychology (w/o psychology). Based on a review of studies published in nine highly ranked w/o psychology journals over the past decade, we identify and discuss three dominant themes: (1) the absence of ontological and epistemological debates, (2) sameness of ontology and epistemology, (3) methodological isomorphism. By identifying directions for future w/o psychology scholarship, we recommend greater focus on congruence between ontological and epistemological beliefs and methodology. While this may enable scholars to make more deliberate research choices in how they work, it also fosters pluralism in the field. As such, this entry is an invitation to scholars to further reflect on these themes

The baby and the bathwater: On the need for substantive-methodological synergy in organizational research

Murphy (2021) argues that the field of Industrial-Organizational (I/O) Psychology needs to pay more attention to descriptive statistics ('Table 1'; e.g., M, SD, reliability, correlations) when reporting and interpreting results. We agree that authors need to present a clear and transparent description of their data and that descriptive statistics and plots can be helpful in making sense of one's data and analyses (Tay et al., 2016). Many journals already require this. Although this information can be presented in the manuscript, more details can be placed in online supplements where there are fewer space limitations (e.g., detailed presentation and discussion of descriptive statistics, missing data and outliers, plots and diagrams, conceptual issues, and computer syntax). However, we strongly disagree with the claim that 'increasing complexity and diversity of data-analytic methods in organizational research has created several problems in our field' (p. 2). This claim suffers from two important oversights: (1) it neglects the crucial role of methodological fit, or the notion that theory, methods, and analyses need to be aligned, and (2) it neglects the fact that in I/O research, most constructs are not directly observable but need to be inferred indirectly though latent variable models. We expand on both issues, using examples to illustrate that the complexity and diversity of data-analytic methods is not a threat but a blessing for I/O research (and beyond). Finally, we conclude by highlighting the need for substantive-methodological synergies to solve some of the issues raised by Murphy (2021)