Trends in Organizational Behavior: A Systematic Review and Research Directions

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a step-by-step guide to facilitate understanding of emerging trends in the discipline of Organizational Behavior using the technique of Systematic Literature Review. Method - Literature review is done by systematically collecting the existing literature over the period of 1990-2019. The literature is categorized according to the Journal Name and Ranking, Database, and Geographical Distribution (country wise). Literature is also categorized on the basis of type of study (empirical/conceptual), variables used, scales used, sample studies and sub area of study (Leadership/Motivation etc). This classification can serve as a base for researchers who wish to conduct meta-analysis on emerging trends in Organizational Behavior. Findings - A disciplined screening process resulted in 81 relevant research papers appropriate for the study. These papers explain the emerging trends in the discipline since 1990. Limitations - Due to the vast areas and sub-areas covered under Organizational Behavior, it is not possible to study the entire discipline since 1990 in a single study. Hence the study only focuses on relevant and emerging trends in Organizational Behavior. Implications - The study aims to fill the gap of unavailability of a structured systematic literature review in the discipline of Organizational Behaviour. This may serve as an important source of information for Academicians, Practitioners. The study postulates new avenues for future research. Originality - The study contributes to the methodology for conducting Systematic Literature Reviews in the field of management, specifically in Organizational Behaviour. It highlights an effective method for mapping out thematically, and viewing holistically, emerging research trends.

Headnote

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a step-by-step guide to facilitate understanding of emerging trends in the discipline of Organizational Behavior using the technique of Systematic Literature Review.

Method - Literature review is done by systematically collecting the existing literature over the period of 1990-2019. The literature is categorized according to the Journal Name and Ranking, Database, and Geographical Distribution (country wise). Literature is also categorized on the basis of type of study (empirical/conceptual), variables used, scales used, sample studies and sub area of study (Leadership/Motivation etc). This classification can serve as a base for researchers who wish to conduct meta-analysis on emerging trends in Organizational Behavior.

Findings - A disciplined screening process resulted in 81 relevant research papers appropriate for the study. These papers explain the emerging trends in the discipline since 1990.

Limitations - Due to the vast areas and sub-areas covered under Organizational Behavior, it is not possible to study the entire discipline since 1990 in a single study. Hence the study only focuses on relevant and emerging trends in Organizational Behavior.

Implications - The study aims to fill the gap of unavailability of a structured systematic literature review in the discipline of Organizational Behaviour. This may serve as an important source of information for Academicians, Practitioners. The study postulates new avenues for future research.

Originality - The study contributes to the methodology for conducting Systematic Literature Reviews in the field of management, specifically in Organizational Behaviour. It highlights an effective method for mapping out thematically, and viewing holistically, emerging research trends.

Keywords: Future Workplaces, Systematic Literature Review, Organizational Behavior

Introduction

Organization Behavior is the study of human behavior in an organizational setting (Baron and Greenberg, 1990). It is a multidisciplinary subject devoted to understanding of individual and group behavior, interpersonal processes, and organizational dynamics. It has emerged from the disciplines of psychology, sociology, political science, and economics (Schneider 1985). The study of Organizational Behavior as a discipline can be categorized into three simple levels: micro level (individual); meso level (group) and macro level (organization) (Barbour, 2017)

The period before 1890 is known as the Pre-Scientific Management era. In the period after 1890, Management Theories started gaining importance. Scientific Management was developed during this period. Scientific Management is also a theory of management, which focuses on improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. The period between 1920 and 1930 characterizes the growth of literature on human relations (Warner, 1994). This inter-war period paved way for work groups emerging as an important component of human relations. In 1920's, Hawthorne Effect studied the socio-psychological impact of human behavior in organizations. This study focused on relationship between productivity and variables such as lighting in the workplace, clean workstation, allowing employees to build and work in teams, and having regular breaks. (Mayo et al., 1939). The growing importance of people factor as the core of human relations became a concern for many active organizations in that inter-war period (Follet 1941; Child 1969). During the Word War I, considerable efforts were made to boost up worker's motivation due to war crisis. Similar practices were observed after 1918 in the peace time after World War II. Organizational behavior started to establish post World War II, specifically after 1945, as an academic discipline.

Due to the traditional and obsolete practices adopted by Human Relations, Organizational Behavior as a discipline started gaining importance. It emerged as the study of the structure and functioning of the organizations, its culture, its sub-elements and behavior of the groups and individuals within them. It emerged as an interdisciplinary science interlinking disciplines of sociology, psychology, economics, political science, social anthropology and production engineering. (Pugh et al., 1975).There has been significant literary work done post 1945 after establishment of Organizational Behavior as a discipline.

However, there is a dearth of a well-defined, relevant and structured study that explains the development of the discipline over the years. The need to understand how the discipline will work towards academic and practical implication for future research under the light of multi-disciplinarily gives rise to the need of framing this research paper. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to depict a clear picture of sub-elements in complexities and explore innovative areas of research that would help researchers and scholars in postulating new research avenues for research and development in the domain of Organizational Behavior. These new developments in the discipline will help practitioners take sound decisions backed by a systematic literature base.

In the forthcoming sections, the paper explains the various dimensions and sub-elements of Organizational Behavior. The evolution and establishment of the domain is defined in detail with the help of the technique of Systematic Literature Review. A step-by-step objective approach and the literature can serve as a basis for future research by scholars, as well as for implementation by practitioners.

Review Methodology and Structure

Identification of relevant literature

The first step in the review was identifying the relevant literature on organizational behavior. A total of 81 research papers spread across the time-period of 1990-2019 were considered for the study. The growing significance of understanding Organizational Behavior as a discipline and Systematic Literature Review as a review technique is the primary reason behind selection of the period of 1990-2019 for the study.

Scholarly databases such as EBSCO, Emerald, Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, ProQuest, J Stor and Taylor and Francis were searched using the key phrase 'literature review' 'systematic literature review' and 'organizational behavior'. A total of 93 papers were identified for the study.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

* Keyword: Using the database of ISI Web of Knowledge and the keyword "Organizational Behaviour" 26,418 papers were identified.

* Discipline: Using the inclusion criteria of "Management" as a discipline, the number of papers was reduced to 10,535.

* Language: Selection of "English" as a language reduced the number to 10,454

* Review Papers: Using "Review Papers" as the inclusion criteria, the number reduced down to 774 papers

* Research Areas: Using "Management Science", "Psychology", "Behavior Science", "Social Science", "Education Research", "Operation and Management Science", "Communication", "Sociology" as the inclusion category for allied research areas, 416 research papers were retrieved. Out of which 81 relevant research papers concerning performing Systematic Literature Review on emerging trends in Organizational Behavior were studied.

Analysis of Results

Inference: The country wise segregation shows that there has been manifold increase in the literature availability concerning Organizational Behavior after 1990 (see Table 1). And hence the period of 1990- 2019 has been chosen for the study. The table also shows the growth and prominence of Organizational Behavior as a discipline in developed countries like USA & UK. Hawthorne Studies which was a major development in the discipline was carried out in Western Electric, USA. Due to the majority of developments in the discipline being associated with USA, availability of literary studies is maximum for USA here. In the Indian context, the availability of prominent literature is scarce, and is mainly observed after the period of 2011. Hence there is a dearth of research literature in Organizational Behavior in Indian Context.

Organizational Behavior by definition is concerned with the study of what people do in an organization (social system), and how that behavior affects the performance of the organization at Individual, Group & Organization Level (Robbins and Judge, 1993). Hence we have classified the papers and sub-areas on the basis of three unit of analysis: Individual, Group and Organization.

Inference: Table 2 displays the patterns in literary studies in various sub-areas of Organizational Behavior over the past decade. Some of the sub-areas indicating significant shift in patterns are discussed in the following statements. Emerging subject area like 'Emotions at Workplace' has seen a literary growth in studies from 16.66% in 2001-2005 to 66.66% in 2011-2019. Also with changing patterns of Leadership, a tremendous growth in the sub-domain can be observed. Literary studies in 'Leadership' have moved from 8.33% in 1996-2000 to 83.33% in 2011-2019.

Inference: Table 3 represents study of top journals for the review. 30.76% Journals considered for the analysis have A· ranking in ABDC. And 26.92% of Journals considered here for analysis have A ranking in ABDC (ABDC here is a Journal Quality Ranking given by Australian Business Deans Council). Apart from top journals in Organizational Behavior, A· Journals such as Psychological Bulletin, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Applied Psychology and others from different disciplines have been considered to provide an interdisciplinary approach to the study.

Trends and Future Directions of Research

Organizational behavior is an interdisciplinary field of study, drawing from the psychological and sociological sciences. One of the main reasons for this interdisciplinary approach is because the field of organizational behavior involves multiple levels of analysis. These levels of analysis are necessary to understand behavior within organizations and also with context to the surrounding environment, because people do not act in isolation. Employees influence their environment and are also influenced by their environment. Hence we have studies the emerging trends in the light of Individual, Group and Organizational level of analysis.

Individual Level

Personality Traits

The aim of organizational behavior and work psychology has been to understand and uncover reasons behind why individuals vary in their motivation to work. A personality trait provides a person with an inclination to behave in a certain way (Eysenck, 1985). The relationship between motivation and individual personality traits as well as situational factors is of prime importance to understand sub-elements of organizational behavior (Furnham 2009). The study of personality traits in the formative years was marked by factor-analytic approach developed by Cattell and Eysenck. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is a self-report personality test developed by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber Cattell in 1949. Cattell developed the 16 personality factor (16PF) questionnaire with empirical justifications and identified 16 key personality dimensions. He explained that these 16 personality types accounted for the variance in individual differences between people. Eysenck's approach towards the study of personality types was at more basic level. He identified initially two (extraversion and neuroticism) and later three or four underlying personality factors. Chronologically the next big development was the "big five" model by J.M Digman in 1990. It identified five major factors underlying human individual differences in personality. The big five factors are described as conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness. There are also some competing frameworks such as the "big three" (neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism) and the more pragmatic "big nine" (Hough, 1992). Trait factor-analytic theory clearly implies that personality characteristics lead towards a particular behavior across a variety of different situations. Behavior is a summation of consistent individual differences in one's personality and function of the situations. A more recent development is the concept of reciprocal determinism developed by Bandura (1986). The concept focuses on the three key sets of variables, behavior, personal qualities, and situations, which interact in a mutually reciprocating way. It provides clarity on the context regarding the understanding of personality variables. To understand individual behavior as a part of work psychology and organizational behavior, study of personality trait is an important exercise. Future research on the various possible combinations of personality traits with respect to the work environment can work wonders for practitioners ahead. Such study will help the organization understand employee behavior holistically.

Motivation

Out of all the subject themes in the disciplines of Organizational Behavior and Industrial Organizational Psychology, motivation has consistently been one of the most confusing (Locke and Henne 1986, Shamir 1991). There have been a lot of motivational theories that have developed over years. Need theories (Maslow 1954, Mc. 1985), equity or social comparison theory (Adams 1965), expectancy theory (Vroom 1964), reinforcement theory (Hamner 1975), goal setting theory (Locke and Latham 1990), intrinsic motivation theory (Hackman and Oldham 1990).The problem is not with the development or addition of new theories but with universal applicability of the same. (Shamir 1991). So the need is not to add more motivational theories but to reconceptualise the existing ones. It is difficult to say what may motivate an employee as it may differ on the basis of individual characteristics. The overall aim should be to have employees identify their own welfare and wellbeing with that of the organization. (Bruce and Pepitone 1999, Milne 2007).

The basis of employee motivation has always been to hoard knowledge because of the competitive advantage that this would give to an organization. The new organizational culture shaping up however defies the older norms. It believes in sharing of knowledge and hence is progressing towards Knowledge Management. The restructuring of motivational theories in the light of knowledge management will help understand employee motivation and help organizations match individual goals with organizational goals (Milne, 2007). Future direction of research in this area can help the researchers and practitioners understand the dynamics of factors that keep employees motivated at work. This may then help organizations solve the issue of attrition rate to some extent.

Attachment Theory and Emotions at Workplace

The concept of Emotional Intelligence and management of emotions at workplace has emerged as a powerful concept in work psychology in the last decade (Zeidner, Roberts, and Matthews, 2004, Hjerto 2017). The growing importance of managing emotions at working has led to evolution of concepts like "Attachment Theory". The theory states that how attachment dynamics are directly related to positive organizational outcomes such as follower proactivity (Wu & Parker 2017, Yip 2015), ethical decision making (Chugh, Kern et al.,2014, Yip 2015), effective negotiation behavior (Lee & Thompson2011, Yip 2015), and creative problem solving (Mikulincer, Shaver et al.,2011, Yip 2015).

Whereas it also states the negative aspect that when attachment needs are not fulfilled, consequences follow. There is increased stress (Schirmer and Lopez, 2001, Yip 2015), higher reports of burnout (Littman-Ovadia, Lavy et al., 2013, Yip 2015), and increased turnover (Tziner, Oren et al., Yip 2015) among other undesired outcomes. The influence of attachment theory on organizational behavior has grown manifold.

The number of literature available for the last 5 years is much more than the preceding 25 years combined. The implementation of learnings from the theory can serve as an important tool for managing emotions at workplace and promoting healthy work relationships (Yip 2015).

Managing emotions at workplace is an emerging and challenging issue for most of the organizations. Further research on understanding the dynamics of work relationships, and its impact on employee morale and productivity, can help organizations boost employee engagement to considerable extent.

Group Level

Communication Relationship Satisfaction (CRS)

There has been a significant amount of research in the past decade trying to understand the factors affecting commitment of the employees to their organization. Research has also stated the importance of individual as well as organizational influence on organizational commitment (Angle & Perry, 1983). One of the most important reasons for lack of commitment is the disengagement of employee in important organizational decisions. The importance of communication and member7s satisfaction with communication relationships cannot be overlooked (Putti1990).

Communication Relationship Satisfaction (CRS) is the extent to which and individual seeks information regarding their job role and is informed about the organizational activities. Communication Relationship Satisfaction may be defined as the "personal satisfaction inherent in successfully communicating to someone or successfully being communicated with" (Thayer 1967). Communication Relationship Satisfaction can either be defined as an attitudinal or behavioral concept (Salancik 1977). The study of the impact of individual as well as group attitude and behavior on the concept can help us understand and resolve the issue of organizational commitment to some extent. Further research in this area can help us understand the dynamics of human communications at workplaces with respect to the job role and line of authority involved.

Leadership and Change

Scholars have had contrary views on the established leadership theories. Some of them argue that these theories fail to capture some of the construct space around how leadership is conceptualized (Dickson, Castano, Magomaeva and Den Hartog 2012; Dorfman et al 1997; Liden 2012; Psui 2007; Hiller,Sin, et al., 2019). There has been a considerable and parallel shift in the scholarly view of leadership dimensions. Earlier the simplistic one-dimension approach to leadership wherein "concern withpeople" versus "concern with production" were seen as mutually exclusive leader options (Vecchio 2002). Fieldler's (1967) construct of the Least Preferred Co-worker went through a lot of criticism for being one of its kind bi-polar views. It was said that there is an ideal combination displayed in these constructs. (Vecchio2002).Later, the leadership style defined by Kurt Lewin gained popularity. His classification of leadership includes Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez Faire leadership (Kurt Lewis, 1974). Post 1974, there have evolved multiple takes on leadership from Charismatic Leadership, Contingency Theory of Leadership, Participative Leadership, Leader- Member Exchange Theory, to Situational Leadership.

Moving past the traditional backdrop, the emergence of value-driven leadership seems to be a growing theoretical stream of thought and research well suited for the complexity of organizational behavior in the 21st century. The shift in the style of leadership is due to the strategic restructuring witnessed by organizations. The recent emerging trend in leadership has been the Paternalistic Leadership (PL). Paternalistic Leadership is defined by genuine concern, kindness by leader for follower's holistic wellbeing. It is based on the expected or typical relationship between a parent (father) and a child. (Aycan 2006; Chen and Farh 2010;Farh and Cheng 2000; Hiller, Sin et al., 2019). Further research on these new theories of leadership, that are value driven as well as focus on the overall wellbeing of the followers, can pave the way for future workplaces. A thorough understanding and study of these emerging leadership styles will solve a lot of organization issues and grievances.

Organization Level

Organizational Identification and Corporate Social Responsibility

Organization identification is yet another emerging trend in the discipline of Organizational Behavior. It is defined as a perceived unity with the feeling of belonging to an organization (Ashton and Mael 1989; Shen 2014). The concept stems from social identity theory which suggests that people categorize themselves and others into social groups in order to develop a positive self-esteem (Shen 2014). An organization's conformity to social norms may help the employees relate and belong to the organization as well as build a positive self-esteem. (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Shen 2014). Under various components of the institutional theory, the regulative and normative structures and activities forces organizations to adhere to social norms (Scott 1995, Shen 2014). Adhering to social norms and taking up Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) helps employees identify with the organization and is considered a positive influence on various employee behaviors (Rupp et al., 2006, Shen 2014). Practitioners as well as researchers can study the correlation between Organizational Identification, Corporate Social Responsibility and employee engagement. The positive correlation can be enhanced if the factors involved in the equation are studied carefully.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

The term Organizational Citizenship Behavior was coined by Bateman and Oregan (1983). Though there were studies prior to coining of the term that observed employee's willingness to cooperate in the workplace (Katz and Kahn 1966, Lanndon, Venus et al., 2018). Organizational Citizenship Behavior is the work-related cooperation offered by an employee beyond his work obligations. Organizational Citizenship Behavior has been explored in various disciplines and contexts lately. Research in the domain has shown a strong relationship between individual level outcomes (e.g. managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria) as well as organizational-level outcomes (e.g. productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover) with Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Podsakoffet al. 2009; Lanndon,Venus et al., 2018).

Further research in this area can help researchers, practitioners and policy makers understand the individual as well as group level outcomes associated with the concept. Thus understanding of Organizational Citizenship Behavior in its entirety can help resolve important issues of workplace deviance and employee commitment.

Discussion and Conclusion

There seems to be no doubt that the future of workplaces will uphold major challenges pertaining behavior at individual, group and organizational level. The study delves into research of such patterns at workplaces. The period from 1990- 2019 has been selected for study because of the significant growth rate associated with the discipline during this time. The period has observed major growth in research literature and emerging concepts such as Communication Relationship Satisfaction (CRS), Organization Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Attachment Theory and others. The vast array of topics covered under Organizational Behavior does not make it possible to study the entire discipline since 1990 in a single study. Hence the study limits to understanding and analyzing trends in Organizational Behavior since 1990. This Systematic Literature Review did not place any limitation on the publication year of journal articles; however, evolution of some significant trends (Such as Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Identification, Attachment Theory etc) in Organizational Behavior took place post 1990. There are a large number of research papers and materials available for study under the well-establish discipline of Organizational Behavior. Due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria used for the screening of the papers, there is a possibility of missing out on some important research work or papers.

This acts as one of the major limitations of the study. Researchers or practitioners can identify the papers that have not been covered under the study to further conduct a research on them. The sub-area wise (motivation, leadership etc) segregation of literature is on the basis of availability of papers used for the study. This makes it difficult to observe trends such as growth in a particular sub-area over the last decade. The limitations mentioned above can serve as a base for future research.

Despite these limitations, our review contributes to practice by focusing exclusively on individual, group and organizational behavior pertaining future of workplaces. This helps practitioners understand how recent trends in Organizational Behavior can form a basis of future challenges at workplaces. This will not only help develop competent and strategically flexible workplaces but also to develop an efficient policy framing guidelines. We hope this contribution inspires more research on developing trends in Organizational Behavior that will define future of workplaces.

Sidebar

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kalwani, S., Mahesh, J. (2020). Trends in organizational behavior: A systematic review and research directions. Journal of Business and Management, 26(1), March, 40-78. DOI: 10.6347/JBM.202003_26(1).0003.

Acknowledgment

I would like to express my gratitude towards the esteemed faculty members of Department of Management, BITS Pilani for their constant guidance and support. Also my sincere thanks to my colleagues for their support.

About the Author

Shilpi Kalwani·

Department of Management,

Birla Institute of Technology and Science,

Pilani, Rajasthan (India)

Country: India

Tel.: [phone]

E-mail: [email protected]

Jayashree Mahesh

Department of Management,

Birla Institute of Technology and Science,

Pilani, Rajasthan (India)

Country: India

Tel.: [phone]

E-mail: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

Shilpi Kalwani is currently a Research Scholar in the Department of Management of Birla Institute of Tech. & Science. (BITS), Pilani. She has completed her MBA from ICFAI Business School, Hyderabad Campus. A full-time PhD research scholar at BITS Pilani with prior corporate experience of working as a Business Analyst with a Fortune 500 Company. A TEDx Speaker, Author, and a Life Coach due to the right blend of required skills and opportunities. Her research areas are Human Resources and Organizational Behavior.

Dr. Jayashree Mahesh is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management of Birla Institute of Tech. & Science. (BITS), Pilani. She has completed her PhD from BITS-Pilani, Pilani Campus. The title of her thesis is 'Indian' Management Practices in the I.T. Sector - An Empirical Investigation. She has more than 10 years of teaching experience in BITS. She has a wide experience in teaching HR and Communication related courses. Her research interests are in the area of Management Practices, Cross Cultural Management, Indian Management and Culture. She is a member of Academy of Management and INDAM (an affiliate of AOM)

References

References

Aguinis, H., Simonsen, M. M., & Pierce, C. A. (1998). Effects of nonverbal behavior on perceptions of power bases. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(4), 455-469.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in Organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-374.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in Organizational Behavior research. Journal of Management; 28(3), 307-338.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Humphrey, R. H., & Huy, Q. N. (2017). Integrating emotions and affect in theories of management. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 175-189.

Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 236-251.

Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080-1109.

Bonaccio, S., O'Reilly, J., O'Sullivan, S. L., and Chiocchio, F. (2016). Nonverbal behavior and communication in the workplace. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1044-1074.

Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. (1994). The effect of organizational culture on communication and information. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6), 807-828.

Bruce J. Avolio; William L. Gardner (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 315-338

Carnes, C. M., Xu, K., Sirmon, D. G., & Karadag, R. (2019). How competitive action mediates the resource slack-performance relationship: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 57-90.

Carnes, C. M., Xu, K., Sirmon, D. G., & Karadag, R. (2018). How competitive action mediates the resource slack-performance relationship: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 57-90.

Cascio, W. F., and Montealegre, R. (2016). How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 349-375.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082-1103.

Clark, M. A., Robertson, M. M., & Young, S. (2018). "I feel your pain": A critical review of organizational research on empathy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 166-192

Cooper, H. M. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 3-9.

Donia, M. B. L., Johns, G., Raja, U., & Khalil Ben Ayed, A. (2017). Getting credit for OCBs: potential costs of being a good actor vs. a good soldier. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(2), 188-203.

Eldor, L. (2016). Work engagement. Human Resource Development Review, 15(3), 317-339.

Ferris, G. R., Ellen, B. P., McAllister, C. P., & Maher, L. P. (2019). Reorganizing Organizational Politics research: A review of the literature and identification of future research directions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6(1), 299-323.

Furnham, A., Eracleous, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24 (8), 765-779

Götz, M., Bollmann, G., and O'Boyle, E. H. (2018). Contextual undertow of workplace deviance by and within units: A systematic review. Small Group Research, 50(1), 188-203

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5-6), 356-365.

Hiller, N. J., Sin, H. P., Ponnapalli, A. R., & Ozgen, S. (2019). Benevolence and authority as weirdly unfamiliar: A multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165-184.

Hjerto, K. B. (2017). Burning hearts in conflict: new perspectives on the intragroup conflict and team effectiveness relationship. International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(4), 536-536.

Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2016). Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 792-812.

Kudret, S., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2019). Self-monitoring personality trait at work: An integrative narrative review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 193-208.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321-349.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476.

Pandey, J. (2019). Factors affecting job performance: An integrative review of literature. Management Research Review, 42(2), 263-289.

Putti, J. M., Aryee, S., and Phua, J. (1990). Communication relationship satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 15(1), 44-52.

Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.

Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723-1746.

Smith, M. B., Hill, A. D., Wallace, J. C., Recendes, T., & Judge, T. A. (2018). Upsides to dark and downsides to bright personality: A multidomain review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 44(1), 191-217.

Swab, R. G., & Johnson, P. D. (2019). Steel sharpens steel: A review of multilevel competition and competitiveness in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 147-165

Upasna A. Agarwal, Vishal Gupta, (2018). Relationships between job characteristics, work engagement, conscientiousness and managers' turnover intentions: A moderated-mediation analysis. Personnel Review, 47(2), 353-377

Weikamp, J. G., and Göritz, A.S. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction: The impact of occupational future time perspective. Human Relations, 69(11), 2091-2115.

Youssef, C. M., and Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774-800.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology, 33(3), 371-399.

(ProQuest: Appendix omitted.)