Research in HR1

CONTENTS
OVERVIEW
Joseph J. Martocchio and Gerald R. Ferris vii
THE IMPACT OF TEAM FLUIDITY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
AND PRACTICE
Brian R. Dineen and Raymond A. Noe 1
MENTORING RESEARCH: A REVIEW AND DYNAMIC

PROCESS MODEL
Connie R. Wanberg, Elizabeth T. Welsh and Sarah A. Hezlett 39
THE IMPACT OF TELECOMMUTING DESIGN ON SOCIAL

SYSTEMS, SELF-REGULATION, AND ROLE BOUNDARIES
David G. Allen, Robert W. Renn and Rodger W. Griffeth 125
RESEARCH ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: A CRITICAL

REVIEW AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Jing Zhou and Christina E. Shalley 165
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK-FAMILY HUMAN

RESOURCE PRACTICES AND FIRM PROFITABILITY:
A MULTI-THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
Michelle M. Arthur and Alison Cook 219
TOWARD UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING

STEREOTYPICAL BELIEFS ABOUT OLDER
WORKERS’ ABILITY AND DESIRE FOR LEARNING
AND DEVELOPMENT
Todd J. Maurer, Kimberly A. Wrenn and Elizabeth M. Weiss 253
v
vi
CURRENT DIRECTIONS AND ISSUES IN PERSONNEL

SELECTION AND CLASSIFICATION
Walter C. Borman, Jerry W. Hedge, Kerri L. Ferstl,
Jennifer D. Kaufman, William L. Farmer and
Ronald M. Bearden 287
APPLYING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO

ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
Kennon M. Sheldon, Daniel B. Turban, Kenneth G. Brown,
Murray R. Barrick and Timothy A. Judge 357
BEYOND SOCIAL EXCHANGE: NEW DIRECTIONS FOR

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR THEORY
AND RESEARCH
Kelly L. Zellars and Bennett J. Tepper 395
ABOUT THE AUTHORS 425

OVERVIEW
We are pleased to present nine papers on long-standing foundation and emerging

topics in the human resources management field. All papers are uniquely innovative
contributions to our knowledge base. The papers are also interesting from a social
science standpoint because a number of commonly shared assumptions have been
challenged somewhat. In other words, the set of papers provides conceptual insights
that will leave us thinking about each topic a little bit differently. For the purposes
of this overview, we have categorized the papers into two broad categories: model
building and literature reviews that chart future directions for researchers.
Model building blends knowledge of appropriate literatures with researchers’
insights about specific topics. The first paper focuses on team fluidity and its
implications for HRM. Dineen and Noe point out that past research involving
turnover in work teams has largely focused on turnover as a dependent variable.
With the growing trend towards more fluid, project-based teams, the effects
of team membership changes on team processes and outcomes are in need
of theoretical development and systematic study. Building on previous work
by others (e.g. Arrow & McGrath, 1995; Marks, Mathieu & Zacarro, 2001),
Dineen and Noe develop a framework for understanding the effects of the rate of
membership change, or team fluidity, on emergent states and processes in teams.
They: (a) discuss the theoretical underpinnings of team fluidity; (b) review past
team research involving turnover; (c) make theoretically-grounded propositions
about the effects of team fluidity on emergent states and process variables, as well
as additional propositions about boundary conditions; (d) discuss implications
for human resource management practices; and (e) identify methodological
challenges, including measurement issues, in studying team fluidity.
Organizations have become increasingly interested in developing their human
resources. One tool that has been explored in this quest is mentoring. As a result,
there has been a surge in mentoring research, and an increase in the number of
formal mentoring programs implemented in organizations. Wanberg, Welsh and
Hezlett provide a survey of the empirical work on mentoring that is organized
around the major questions that have been investigated. Then they present a
conceptual model, focused on formal mentoring relationships, to help understand
the mentoring process. The model draws upon research from a diverse body
of literature, including interpersonal relationships, career success, training and
vii
viii OVERVIEW
development, and informal mentoring. These authors also discussed various

critical next steps for research in the mentoring domain.
As more companies and employees become involved in telecommuting,
researchers and managers will need to understand the effects of this relatively new
working arrangement on the work perceptions and behaviors of the individual
telecommuter. Allen, Renn and Griffeth point out that the extant empirical
literature provides mixed results and is limited by a lack of theory. Consequently,
neither researchers nor managers can rely on this literature for clear direction
on how telecommuting will likely affect individual telecommuters. The authors
present a multi-dimensional framework of telecommuting design, and focus on
how telecommuting design might affect the telecommuter’s work environment and
outcomes through its effects on the social system of the telecommuter, autonomy
and self-management opportunities and requirements, and role boundaries,
particularly in terms of the work and non-work interface. Their goal is to provide
a framework to assist managers and researchers in systematically addressing
questions of how to design telecommuting arrangements to maximize their
potential benefits while minimizing their potential drawbacks.
The examination of contextual factors that enhance or stifle employees’ creative
performance is a new but rapidly growing research area. Theory and research in
this area has focused on antecedents of employee creativity. Zhou and Shalley
review and discuss the major theoretical frameworks that have served as conceptual
foundations for empirical studies. These authors also provide a review and critical
appraisal of pertinent empirical studies. They proposed interesting possibilities
for future research directions, and addressed implications of this body of work for
human resource management.
Few studies have investigated the relationship between work-family human
resource practices and firm-level outcomes. Several organizational studies have
addressed the antecedents to firm adoption of work-family initiatives; however,
the majority of work-family research investigates the relationship between work-
family practices and individual-level outcomes. The paper by Arthur and Cook
offers a critical analysis and synthesis of the extant work-family literature. They
also integrated some of the organizational learning research on firm commitment
to work-family policies and the human resource model. They conjecture that
the level of firm commitment moderates the relationship between work-family
policies, the human resource model, and firm performance. Several propositions
for future work-family research are presented.
Maurer, Wrenn and Weiss present a model of stereotypical beliefs that older
workers have difficulty learning and developing and are not motivated to learn.
Three categories of antecedents of the stereotypical beliefs are addressed: Expe-
rience with stereotype-consistent behaviors and promulgation of the stereotype
Overview ix
by others, perceived learning and development inhibitors internal to the older

worker, and perceived learning and development inhibitors external to the older
worker. Potential consequences of the stereotypical beliefs for older workers
and employing organizations are also explored. The proposed model provides a
framework to help guide future research on this topic and also some suggestions
for managing a work place where these beliefs might exist.
Switching focus somewhat, literature reviews help researchers to take stock of
our extant knowledge base on particular topics. Well written literature reviews also
give us pause to recognize the gaps in our knowledge and plot out directions for
further research. Borman and his colleagues (Hedge, Ferstl, Kaufman, Farmer &
Bearden) offer a contemporary view of state-of-the science research and thinking
done in the areas of selection and classification. They take as a starting point the
observation that the world of work is undergoing important changes that are likely
to result in different occupational and organizational structures. In this context,
they review recent research on criteria, especially models of job performance,
followed by sections on predictors, including ability, personality, vocational
interests, biodata, and situational judgment tests. Borman and his colleagues also
discuss person-organization fit models, as alternatives or complements to the
traditional person-job fit paradigm.
Sheldon, Turban, Brown, Barrick and Judge argue that self-determination theory
(SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) provides a useful conceptual tool for organizational
researchers, one that complements traditional work motivation theories. Toward
this end, the authors review SDT, showing that it has gone far beyond the “intrinsic
versus extrinsic motivation” dichotomy with which it began. Then they show
how the theory might be applied to better understand a variety of organizational
phenomena, including the positive effects of transformational leadership, the
nature of “true” goal-commitment, the determinants of employees’ motivation to
learn, and the positive impact of certain human resource practices. The authors
note that SDT might yield significant new understanding of work motivation, and
suggest opportunities to refine the theory for research on work-related phenomena.
Virtually all research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is rooted
in a social exchange based view of citizenship performance. Zellars and Tepper
recognize the significant role exchange motives play in citizenship performance.
However, they perceive what amounts to a preoccupation with and over-reliance
on social exchange processes in extant OCB theory. Zellars and Tepper endorse
the goals of improving the prediction of citizenship performance and advancing
human resource management. Toward this end, they outline several new directions
for OCB theory and research.
In the closing section of this Overview, I wish to recognize Jerry Ferris. In
the Volume 21 Overview, Jerry announced that he would retire from his role as
x OVERVIEW
editor, and pass along the torch to me with the completion of this volume. I wish
to congratulate Jerry on his outstanding contributions to RPHRM. Jerry Ferris and
Ken Rowland founded this series more than 20 years ago; and after Ken retired
in 1992, Jerry served as sole editor for the past ten years. Both Jerry and Ken
possessed keen insight when they anticipated a need to offer HRM researchers
an outlet for high-quality, monograph-length literature reviews and conceptual
models. Now, more than twenty-two years later, the series continues to thrive. I
have had the privilege to witness Jerry take pride in RPHRM and his exercise of
exemplary standards. Thanks to Jerry, the series is on solid ground. I look forward
to continuing his fine tradition. Best wishes, Jerry!
Joseph J. Martocchio
Gerald R. Ferris
Series Editors
THE IMPACT OF TEAM FLUIDITY AND
ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Brian R. Dineen and Raymond A. Noe
ABSTRACT
Past research involving turnover in work teams has largely focused on
turnover as a dependent variable. With the growing trend towards more
fluid, project-based teams, the effects of team membership changes on
team processes and outcomes are in need of theoretical development
and systematic study. Building on previous work by others (e.g. Arrow &
McGrath, 1995; Marks, Mathieu & Zacarro, 2001), we develop a framework
for understanding the effects of the rate of membership change, or team
fluidity, on emergent states and processes in teams. Specifically, we: (a)
discuss the theoretical underpinnings of team fluidity; (b) review past team
research involving turnover; (c) make theoretically-grounded propositions
about the effects of team fluidity on emergent states and process variables
as well as additional propositions about boundary conditions; (d) discuss
implications for human resource management practices; and (e) identify
methodological challenges, including measurement issues, in studying team
fluidity.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 22, 1–37
Copyright © 2003 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22001-6
1
2 BRIAN R. DINEEN AND RAYMOND A. NOE
INTRODUCTION
The growth of teams in organizations is an established and continuing characteristic
of contemporary business enterprise (Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Lawler, Mohrman
& Ledford, 1995). The academic literature on teams in organizations has been
expansive, with notable reviews outlining the progress in understanding teams
(e.g. Bettenhausen, 1991; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Milliken
& Martins, 1996). As teams and organizations evolve, changes in the makeup of
teams and team tasks continue. For example, teams must now manage a wider range
of interdependencies, constituents, and social linkages (Ancona & Caldwell, 1998;
Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Also, the fluidity of teams has increased, with members
rotating in and out on a “project” or “as-needed” basis (Arrow & McGrath, 1995;
Campion, Papper & Medsker, 1996; Townsend, DeMarie & Hendrickson, 1998).
Two developments that have led to increased fluidity are the rise in contingent
work arrangements (e.g. contract work) and a labor market that allows skilled
employees to shop their services among organizations to obtain more desirable
working arrangements (Muoio, 2000). Virtual teams are especially likely to be
fluid in the sense of rotating membership and participation (Guzzo & Dickson,
1996; Kristof, Brown, Sims & Smith, 1995; Saunders & Ahuja, 2000). In fact,
some researchers assert that a lack of fluidity in teams can be detrimental to team
outcomes (e.g. Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). The present paper attempts to address
some of these issues by examining the influence of team fluidity on team processes,
emergent states and outcomes. Team fluidity is defined as the rate of change in team
membership over time.
Although progress in research on teams has been unmistakable, this research
has largely overlooked the potential effects of fluidity on team processes and per-
formance. For example, most work has relied on teams composed of the same
members throughout the period of study, with no changes in team membership
(e.g. Gersick, 1988; Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998; Watson, Kumar & Michaelsen,
1993). As Arrow and McGrath (1993) note, other researchers have controlled for
or otherwise eliminated “participant mortality,” treating it as a problematic source
of variation in team studies. The result of treating participant mortality as error
variance in teams research is that most of what we know about teams is based on
a static model of team membership. We lack an understanding of how changing
membership affects team processes, emergent states, and outcomes.
A number of researchers, led by Arrow, McGrath and associates (1991, 1993,
1995, 2000) have made strides towards addressing the issue of membership
dynamics in teams. Specifically, these researchers have begun to study member-
ship history and change, answering calls by others who have previously raised
the issue (e.g. Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Smith, Smith, Olian, Sims, O’Bannon &
The Impact of Team Fluidity and Its Implications 3
Scully, 1994; Ziller, 1965). In doing so, they have called into question well-
accepted models of team stage development which rely on stable membership over
time (e.g. Tuckman, 1965). Also, they have begun to differentiate between effects
of voluntary versus involuntary membership change (Arrow & McGrath, 1995;
Gruenfeld, Martorana & Fan, 2000). Most of these studies, however, have only
looked at outcome variables such as team performance, while excluding emergent
states such as team flexibility or process variables such as communication or
conflict (e.g. Argote, Insko, Yovetich & Romero, 1995; Goodman & Leyden,
1991). Others (e.g. O’Connor, Gruenfeld & McGrath, 1993) have examined
process variables by manipulating team membership change only at a single point
in time instead of measuring change over time, or rate of member change.
This paper contributes to the team literature by proposing how team fluidity
affects team processes as well as team emergent states. Specifically, we focus
broadly on: (a) the theoretical underpinnings of team fluidity; (b) past team
research involving turnover; (c) theoretically-grounded propositions about the
effects of team fluidity on certain process variables and emergent states as well as
additional propositions about boundary condition effects; (d) implications of team
fluidity for human resource management (HRM) practices; and (e) a discussion of
some methodological challenges and future research directions. While recognizing
the distinction often drawn by researchers, we follow Guzzo and Shea (1992) in
treating the terms “group” and “team” interchangeably for purposes of this work.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Several theoretical perspectives are relevant to understanding how changing
team membership affects team processes and emergent states. First, Arrow and
McGrath’s (1995) membership dynamics framework provides several general
predictions about the nature and effects of group membership changes. Although
not addressing relationships between membership change and specific process
variables, they do differentiate between standing and acting groups (i.e. the entire
group versus the part of the group actually present at a given point in time), types
of work groups (i.e. task forces, teams, or crews), and outcome variables such as
the well-being, support, and production of members and groups. They theorize
that direction and magnitude of member change, locus of initiation of change, and
the temporal patterning of change will differentially affect outcomes. We focus
specifically on ongoing teams that experience periodic changes in team member
makeup. Team process variables are of interest to us, in line with traditional
input-process-output models of team performance (e.g. Guzzo & Shea, 1992;
Hackman, 1987). In addition, consistent with recent work by Marks, Mathieu and
Zaccaro (2001), we examine team emergent states and how they might be affected
by team fluidity.
Ancona and Caldwell (1998) adopted a theoretical stance that is similar to
that of Arrow and McGrath (1995) in their conceptual article pertaining to team
composition. Specifically, they pose three questions about team composition
pertaining to different potential outcomes. These questions address whether
members are assigned to a team for its entire life or for only part of a project,
on a part- or full-time basis, and whether the team is comprised of everyone
necessary to make decisions or whether the team relies on outside “experts” to
facilitate these processes. Their basic recommendation, although not empirically
substantiated, is to have a team comprised of a “core” set of unchanging members,
with a “periphery” of rotating team members.
Both the similarity/attraction (Byrne, 1971) and social identity (Tajfel & Turner,
1986) theories are also relevant to discussions of team fluidity. Potential benefits as
well as drawbacks of similarity in terms of team membership are likely to manifest
themselves in more stable teams, whereas more fluid team members may have a
difficult time feeling a sense of identity or attraction based on similarity. That
is, ingroup/outgroup boundaries (Tajfel, 1982) may be harder to ascertain in more
fluid teams. This becomes even more difficult when trying to become familiar with
new team members who come from outside the organization compared to those
who migrate from within another part of the organization.
Sociotechnical theory (e.g. Rousseau, 1977; Trist, 1981) also lends itself to
the present discussion. Sociotechnical theory posits that optimization of both the
social and technical sides of the work environment leads to high performance and
positive social experiences at work (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). That is, an organization
must account for both the technical and social sides of work when designing work
interventions, and attempts to optimize one at the expense of the other will result
in a decrement to the whole (Trist, 1981). It is plausible that the stability of work
groups may influence the social side of work (e.g. cohesiveness), while having
direct effects on the technical side of work as well (e.g. flexibility, creativity).
Another important theoretical perspective that is germane to our discussion of
team fluidity is a social networks perspective. Because of its vast scope, we do not
intend to conduct a thorough review of the social networks literature, but rather
we will touch on how a social networks perspective might introduce important
boundary conditions in developing propositions about the effects of team fluidity
on team process variables. At its core, a social networks perspective suggests
that process and performance in groups is at least partially associated with the
patterns of relationships that exist in the group (Brass, 1995; Granovetter, 1973).
For example, some groups are more tightly linked and exhibit a high degree of
closeness centrality (Freeman, 1979), whereas others experience looser ties among
members. Other groups have a greater mix of central members with several links
to other members, as well as members who are more peripheral and have fewer
and/or weaker ties to fellow group members. Importantly, as Brass (1995) notes,
“If any aspect of the network changes, the actor’s relationship within the network
also changes.” (p. 44). Thus, there are clear implications of team fluidity on the
overall social network that exists in the team. We specifically address the expected
differences in effects when a more centrally close versus peripheral member of the
team leaves or is replaced.
Finally, regarding the discussion of team process variables and how team fluidity
may affect such variables, Marks et al. (2001) have developed a temporally based
framework and taxonomy of team processes. Essentially, these scholars discrimi-
nate between team processes and emergent states. Emergent states are “properties
of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team
context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (p. 357). Team cohesiveness is a good
example of an emergent state that evolves, or emerges over time, but is not an ac-
tion the team engages in. Alternatively, team processes are defined by Marks et al.
(2001) as “. . . acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and
behavioral activities directed toward organizing task work to achieve collective
goals” (p. 357). For example, team communication is a team process because it
represents an action that a team engages in. Marks et al. (2001) further differentiate
between various types of team process variables. Specifically, they discuss transi-
tion, action, and interpersonal processes. Transition processes are posited to occur
when a team is in transition between tasks. For example, goal specification and
planning represent processes engaged in at this stage. In more fluid teams, it might
be the case that transition processes occur more frequently than in more stable
teams as teams realign themselves around new members and need to reorient them-
selves to new or ongoing tasks. Action processes occur as a task is accomplished
and include such activities as monitoring and coordination. Finally, interpersonal
processes occur across both transition and action phases of team cycles and include
actions such as conflict management, motivation and confidence building, and
affect management.
APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF

TURNOVER IN TEAMS
Turnover in teams is a frequently studied topic in the organizational literature (e.g.
Milliken & Martins, 1996; O’Reilly, Caldwell & Barnett, 1989; Wiersema & Bird,
1993) with myriad antecedents identified. The effects of turnover as an independent
variable, however, are studied less frequently. It is important to differentiate fluidity
from more traditional indices of turnover. Whereas turnover traditionally accounts

only for those members who permanently leave the team, fluidity subsumes not
only these individuals, but also individuals who may be absent from an acting team
for a period of time, only to return to the team at a later date. This point is relevant to
the distinction drawn by Arrow and McGrath (1995) between standing and acting
groups. The standing group is composed of all members “who share an explicit
and ongoing set of relations both with the group and with other members” whereas
the acting group “consists of all persons involved in a particular work session or
other group interaction” (p. 377). For example, if a member is still a part of the
team, but only attends weekly meetings every other week, there is fluidity in the
team. However, this situation would not be reflected in traditional turnover indices.
Research on the effects of turnover as it has traditionally been assessed in teams
is mixed. Some research suggests that continually bringing new members into a
group can be disruptive and lower performance (e.g. Ancona & Caldwell, 1998;
Argote et al., 1995). Less familiarity of members, a by-product of turnover, has
been shown to be related to decreased productivity (see Goodman & Leyden, 1991).
Goodman and Leyden (1991) also posit that this effect would likely be enhanced for
more complex work. Finally, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Sego, Hedlund, Major and Phillips
(1995) concluded that instability in decision-making team membership disrupts a
leader’s ability to develop effective weighing schemes (i.e. dyadic sensitivity) for
each member’s input to the decision. This effect is stronger when attrition takes
place in teams that are already highly familiar, supporting the proposition made by
Arrow and McGrath (1995) that effects of membership change would be stronger
in groups with greater prior membership continuity.
However, other researchers believe that turnover has a negligible or even a
positive influence on team process and outcomes. Guzzo and Dickson (1996)
state that, “turnover is usually thought of as dysfunctional for team effectiveness,
though it is possible that the consequences of losing and replacing members could
work to the advantage of teams in some circumstances” (p. 312). Similarly, Arrow
and McGrath (1995) note that neither continuity nor changes in membership
can necessarily be considered desirable or undesirable. Campion et al. (1996)
found that team member permanence was not significantly related to process
characteristics or effectiveness. In her study of turnover’s effects on organizational
learning, Carley (1992) also found inconclusive results, and suggested differences
in organizational structure as a possible explanation. For example, she suggested
that turnover would exhibit different effects in a hierarchical versus team-based
organizational structure. Hinsz, Tindale and Vollrath (1997) suggest that group
learning may not be dependent on specific group members. That is, group learning
may still occur in the presence of member turnover insofar as it is likely that
turnover brings more perspectives to bear on a task or problem-solving situation.
There is little continuity in findings that attempt to relate turnover in teams

to team outcomes such as productivity, effectiveness, or overall performance. To
systematically study the effects of team fluidity, researchers need to open the
“black box” and look more closely at process issues and emergent states instead
of focusing directly on performance outcomes. The propositions presented below
provide the basis for researchers to empirically study the influence of team fluidity
on team processes and emergent states.
A DYNAMIC APPROACH: TEAM FLUIDITY

A framework for understanding team fluidity is presented in Fig. 1. As shown in
the model, we propose that team fluidity has effects on emergent team states, as
well as transition, action, and interpersonal processes in teams. In line with the
plethora of prior research linking process variables to performance (for reviews,
see Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Guzzo & Shea, 1992), we include performance
outcomes that reflect production, well-being, and support (Arrow & McGrath,
1995). However, we make no specific predictions regarding the cumulative effects
of process variables and emergent states on performance due to the differential
effects those variables are likely to have. Furthermore, we do not include specific
production outcomes, but instead recognize that the importance of various out-
come indices (e.g. quality, efficiency, net profits) will vary by organization or team.
An important part of the model is the feedback loop from processes, emergent
states, and performance outcomes to team fluidity. This illustrates the dynamic
nature of the model and recognizes previous research that has linked a number of
these outcomes to subsequent turnover (for a review, see Griffeth & Hom, 1995).
Temporal aspects of team dynamics have received increased attention from
researchers (e.g. McGrath, 1991; Saunders & Ahuja, 2000). However, most
prior studies that have looked at turnover’s effects on teams have done so by
focusing on researcher-induced member change at a single point in time (e.g.
Arrow & McGrath, 1993; Gruenfeld et al., 2000; Schopler & Galinsky, 1990).
These studies, although providing important contributions, only examine turnover
dichotomously (i.e. teams either have or do not have an instance of turnover).
Ziller, Behringer and Jansen (1961) were among the first to suggest the importance
of rate of member change in their work on open versus closed groups. More
recently, Arrow and McGrath (1995) recognized the need in proposing that both
magnitude and direction of membership change matter and that the impact of
change will depend on frequency of change. Further, as Arrow, McGrath and
Berdahl (2000) write, “a group’s ability to adapt to change will be affected by the
rate and frequency of change . . .” (p. 197).
8
BRIAN R. DINEEN AND RAYMOND A. NOE
Fig. 1. Relationships Between Team Fluidity, Team Emergent States and Processes, and Performance.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEAM FLUIDITY AND

EMERGENT STATES AND PROCESS VARIABLES
Figure 1 shows the relationship between team fluidity and emergent team states as
well as transitional, action, and interpersonal processes. Although not necessarily
comprehensive in terms of all possible states and/or processes, our discussion is
meant to be illustrative of some of the factors thought to be essential in considering
the effects of team fluidity. That is, our purpose is not to provide a comprehensive
treatment of all possible emergent states and transitional, action, and interpersonal
process variables and how they are affected by team fluidity. Rather, we introduce
the reader to the concept of team fluidity and provide a sampling of proposed
effects from these various categories.
Team Emergent States
Emergent states in teams are thought to evolve as a function of team context, inputs,
processes, and outcomes. Thus, they rely on some type of prior interaction among
team members. Social networks (Brass, 1995; Granovetter, 1973) and symbolic
interactionist approaches (Joyce & Slocum, 1984) might be used to discuss how
various states in teams emerge. As shown in Fig. 1, the fluidity of a team is likely to
affect the development and maintenance of various states in those teams. Among
the states that might be affected, Marks et al. (2001) mention collective efficacy,
situational awareness, and cohesiveness. We discuss the probable effects of team
fluidity on two of these suggested states, as well as a third emergent state, team
flexibility.
Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy is defined as the group’s shared belief in its ability to carry out
courses of action required to attain given levels of performance (e.g. Bandura, 1997;
Chen & Bliese, 2002). A primary antecedent of collective efficacy is team history
(Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson & Burr, 2000). Knowledge
of past success is likely to increase a team’s sense of efficacy for future events.
A key element of this knowledge is familiarity among team members. Moreover,
success is framed in terms of who was present during that success. Also, collec-
tive efficacy is framed in terms of current team makeup. In other words, a team
feels efficacious or non-efficacious based on its current member makeup. There is
inherent uncertainty surrounding introduction of new team members in terms of
their personalities, performance potential, and fit with teammates, and the team’s
collective sense of identity is likely to be lessened. Furthermore, the makeup of

the team and longevity of teammates is uncertain. For example, a team may have a
“star player,” but not know how long she will stay given a high rate of turnover in
the team. This uncertainty, characterized by high team fluidity, is therefore likely
to reduce a team’s collective efficacy.
Ziller (1965) proposed an important concept related to collective efficacy,
which he termed the New Year’s Eve phenomenon. The concept refers to people’s
tendency to view New Year’s as a “fresh start,” and experience reinvigoration
towards goals, especially given a less-than-successful year gone by. Basically,
if one has had a successful past, then change will lower collective efficacy and
stability will increase it. On the other hand, change might increase efficacy for
future success if the past has been less than successful, whereas stability might
decrease it. For example, a baseball team may have knowledge of a prior World
Championship, but may not experience collective efficacy for future champi-
onships since most of the players have switched teams. Or a baseball team that is
coming off a disappointing season may experience increased collective efficacy if
a number of new players have been brought onboard for the new season. This phe-
nomenon, while compelling, was explained in the context of an isolated change in
membership, with a clear past and future frame (e.g. last baseball season, the next
season). It is unclear whether or not it would manifest in more fluid teams, and in
fact, Campion et al. (1996) found a positive but non-significant (0.14) correlation
between team member permanence and team potency (a construct similar to
collective efficacy). However, on the whole, it seems as if the lack of knowledge of
newer teammates would stunt any increase in collective efficacy, and most likely
reduce it.
Proposition 1. Team fluidity is negatively related to collective efficacy in a

team.
Team Flexibility
Team flexibility refers to the ability of team members to perform tasks inter-
changeably. In more flexible teams, team members can more easily substitute for
each other (Campion et al., 1996), and better adapt to a changing environment.
Many contemporary work arrangements call for greater flexibility to meet in-
creased performance and efficiency demands (Townsend et al., 1998). Oftentimes
managers cite increased flexibility as a reason for rotating team members among
teams. It seems intuitive that a team more used to changes in membership will
be more flexible and open to change in general. Ziller (1965) recognized this,
stating, “strategic membership changes can be made with greater ease in groups
which experience membership changes routinely” (p. 175). Moreover, the benefits
of rotating members among different teams are well recognized by knowledge

transfer researchers (e.g. Argote, Ingram, Levine & Moreland, 2000).
However, the potential for team members to interchangeably perform tasks is
likely to suffer as team fluidity increases. For example, Campion et al. (1996)
found that teams with more permanent members tended to be more flexible.
This makes sense when one considers that more familiar team members have a
chance to cross-train and learn each other’s tasks, whereas team members who
are relatively new or expect to turn over more quickly are less likely to learn
teammates’ tasks. Furthermore, team members are likely to adapt more easily to
changing circumstances in the environment if they know how teammates are likely
to react. Such knowledge grows out of stability and familiarity among members.
The concept of shared mental models has been developed to describe this
familiarity amongst team members that is thought to promote predictability and
coordination (e.g. Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin,
Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In addition, sociotechnical theory suggests that
the technical and social sides of work must be aligned for maximum performance
(Trist, 1981). However, it appears that increased fluidity is likely to diminish both
technical (e.g. flexibility) and social conditions within the team.
Proposition 2. Team fluidity is negatively related to team flexibility.
Cohesiveness
Team cohesiveness is another emergent state that is likely affected by team fluidity.
Although often pitted as the counterpart of conflict, cohesiveness and conflict are
distinct (Pelled, 1996). Through stable team membership, team members tend to
develop similar schemata based on similar past events and experiences. Such sim-
ilarity should enhance cohesiveness among team members (Michel & Hambrick,
1992). This follows directly from the similarity/attraction paradigm (Byrne,
1971).
In their discussion of team composition, Ancona and Caldwell (1998) note
that underbounded teams (i.e. teams without stable boundaries) may have
trouble developing cohesiveness. Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams and Neale (1996)
reviewed research suggesting that teammates that are more familiar with one
another are more likely to exhibit higher levels of cohesiveness. Furthermore, a
number of studies have examined a proxy for familiarity and stability, team tenure.
For example, O’Reilly et al. (1989) found that heterogeneity in team tenure was
negatively related to team cohesiveness. However, Smith et al. (1994) found no
association between team tenure and social integration, and Riordan and Shore
(1997) found no relationship between similarity in tenure and cohesiveness. It
should be noted, though, that tenure was measured as time in present position
(Smith et al., 1994) and time in organization (Riordan & Shore, 1997) rather than
time in the team in these studies, possibly explaining the discrepant results.
Proposition 3. Team fluidity is negatively related to team cohesiveness.
Transitional Processes
Transitional processes are posited to occur when a team is in transition between

tasks. Marks et al. (2001) list mission analysis formulation and planning, goal
specification, and strategy formulation as key transitional processes. It can be
argued that a common thread running through these various transitional processes
is a need for creativity in the team. For example, in formulating strategy, creativity
may enhance the team’s chances of realizing the best possible approach.
Team Creativity
Research generally supports the idea that creativity in teams evolves from an
availability of a variety of perspectives among team members. For example, the
team diversity literature generally acclaims diversity as leading to greater creativity
(e.g. Nemeth, 1986), although it also tends to lead to greater conflict (Pelled,
Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999). Beyond the effects of diversity, however, team fluidity
adds another important factor that may enhance creativity. New members entering
a team might not only be diverse, but more importantly are likely to arrive from a
former organizational or team situation, with its related ideas. This gives the team
a “boundary spanning” advantage. That is, the team gains not only a new team
member, but also that person’s past experiential knowledge (Ancona & Caldwell,
1998). Thus, the team benefits not only from the new member, but also from all of
the prior experiences and interactions of that member as well.
One of the earliest studies that linked changes in team membership to creativity
grew out of Ziller and associates’ (1962, 1965) open versus closed group theory.
Specifically, Ziller, Behringer and Goodchilds (1962) found that groups expe-
riencing membership changes were more creative than stable groups. However,
this study included only one membership change per group, and thus was not
concerned with differences in rate of member change. Similarly, Stein (1982)
reviewed literature that suggested that older more established groups were lower
in creativity. However, it should be emphasized that team tenure level only serves
as a proxy for team fluidity.
The literature suggests that team members tend to be on “better behavior” and
more inhibited in the presence of strangers (Gruenfeld et al., 2000; O’Connor et al.,
1993; Shah & Jehn, 1993). That is, people may not be as comfortable expressing
disagreement either when they are relatively new to a team, or when they relate
to other members who are relatively new (Gruenfeld et al., 1996). In fact, a sense
of “false cohesiveness” may prevail, whereby members go out of their way to
maintain good relations while getting to know one another (Longley & Pruitt,
1980). Social facilitation or evaluation apprehension dynamics also may underlie
a tendency towards inhibition in teams consisting of relatively unfamiliar members
(Zajonc, 1965).
However, the tendency towards greater evaluation apprehension or social
facilitation effects (Gruenfeld et al., 1996; Zajonc, 1965) in the presence of
strangers is more likely to result in the face of conflict rather than creativity.
Although similar effects could inhibit creativity in relatively unfamiliar teams, this
is unlikely because creativity carries more of a positive, acceptable meaning than
conflict, and therefore should be more accepted by team members. For example,
a newcomer advancing a novel pattern of ideas or thoughts that increases overall
team creativity is much less likely to meet resistance than a newcomer who directly
instigates conflict with currently existing ideas in the team. Therefore, evaluation
apprehension effects should be minimal in the case of creative contributions.
Proposition 4. Team fluidity is positively related to team creativity.
Action Processes
Action processes occur as a task is accomplished and include such activities as

monitoring and coordination. To effectively monitor and coordinate activities, it is
likely that communication with internal and external sources is of prime importance
to teams.
Internal Communication
Communication has been defined as “the transfer of information, ideas, under-
standing, or feelings” (cf. Pelled, 1996, p. 620). Communication is generally
recognized as a precursor to effectiveness in teams (e.g. Katz, 1982), although some
suggest that highly effective teams require less communication because members
can “anticipate” each other or share mental models (Klimoski & Mohammed,
1994). Several studies have examined internal communication in the context of
team stability. For example, Campion et al. (1996) failed to find a relationship
between a measure of team member permanence and internal team communica-
tion. Mathieu et al. (2000) found that shared team- and task-based mental models
related positively to team process, operationalized in terms of strategy formulation
and coordination, cooperation, and internal communication. Katz (1982) showed
that teams with longer average tenure exhibited higher levels of communication
with internal members. Finally, Zenger and Lawrence (1989) demonstrated that
shared experience in working together makes communication easier among team
members. These findings likely stem from either a familiarity or lack of familiarity
with team member communication habits. Such habits are likely more difficult to
ascertain when team membership is more fluid (Hightower, Sayeed, Warkentin &
McHaney, 1998).
External Communication
Researchers also are recognizing the importance of boundary spanning, or

interteam relationships and communication (e.g. Ancona & Caldwell, 1998).
External communication refers to communication that occurs with outside teams
or constituents. Teams with a higher level of fluidity likely consist of members
who bring more outside linkages to the team. According to the social networks
literature (e.g. Brass, 1995; Granovetter, 1982), this might result in a situation
whereby the team gains “strength through weak ties.” That is, external constituents
are less likely to know one another, creating a low density, high diversity network
that is rich in non-redundant information. Although few studies have specifically
addressed this issue, Katz (1982) showed that teams with lower average tenure
tended to communicate more with outside constituents. Based on work reviewed
above in the areas of internal and external communication, we posit:
Proposition 5a. Team fluidity is negatively related to internal team communi-
cation level.
Proposition 5b. Team fluidity is positively related to external team communi-
cation level.
Interpersonal Processes
Finally, interpersonal processes occur across both transition and action phases
of team cycles and include actions such as conflict management, motivation and
confidence building, and affect management. We specifically address the first of
these as an example of the potential effects of team fluidity.
Task Conflict
Conflict in teams has generally been treated as containing task – and relationship-
related elements (e.g. Pelled, 1996; Simons & Peterson, 2000). Recently,
Jehn (1997) differentiated between task content conflict (i.e. what to do) and task
process conflict (i.e. how to do it); however we develop propositions related to the
more general two-factor taxonomy. First, task conflict arises when team members
disagree about the nature and process of accomplishing tasks (Pelled, 1996). For
example, a team of software designers may disagree about whether or not to add a
specific feature to a software package, and if so, how to go about doing it. Gener-
ally, such conflict is linked to higher performance because members are forced to
consider more alternatives and think through those alternatives more thoroughly
(e.g. Pelled et al., 1999). An antecedent of task conflict that might derive from
team fluidity is informational diversity, or the diversity in viewpoints and ideas
that exist within a team (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). Also, O’Connor et al.
(1993) suggest that increased stress may result from membership change, leading
to greater conflict. They do not differentiate between task and relationship conflict,
however, in making this argument.
Some studies have found that team member changes might lead to less task
conflict. For example, we earlier reviewed studies showing that team members
tend to be on “better behavior” and more inhibited in the presence of strangers
(e.g. Gruenfeld et al., 2000; O’Connor et al., 1993). That is, people may not be
as comfortable expressing disagreement either when they are relatively new to a
team, or when they relate to other members who are relatively new (Gruenfeld
et al., 1996). This sense of “false cohesiveness,” whereby members go out of
their way to maintain good relations while getting to know one another (Longley
& Pruitt, 1980), may complement social facilitation or evaluation apprehension
dynamics that also may underlie a tendency towards inhibition in teams of relatively
unfamiliar members (Zajonc, 1965). The degree to which this effect manifests will
likely depend on when task conflict is measured, and we address measurement
issues later in the paper. However, given the fact that more fluid teams will generally
consist of individuals who are newer to the team, the effect is more likely to occur
in this type of team than in a more stable team.
Arguments linking greater informational diversity to greater task conflict
are logical, but contradicted by evidence that informational diversity may not
translate into conflict over use of that information in less familiar teams. That
is, the tendency for newcomers holding diverse information to be on “better
behavior” and a desire to “fit in” should lead to less task conflict. Recent work
by Noe, Colquitt, Simmering and Alvarez (2003) might shed some further light
on this apparent controversy. In discussing the creation of intellectual capital
in teams, Noe et al. suggest constructive controversy (i.e. task conflict) as an
important element of intellectual capital creation. Further, in discussing the likely
effects of team design characteristics on intellectual capital creation, they suggest
that a moderate level of instability is likely to be optimal in fostering creative
controversy. Too much stability may lead to stagnation and tendencies towards
groupthink (Janis, 1972), whereas too much instability creates a constant stream
of newcomers who are likely to exhibit evaluation apprehension early on and shy
away from engaging in conflict with other team members regarding the task. This
suggests a curvilinear relationship between fluidity and task conflict.
Proposition 6. The relationship between team fluidity and task conflict is curvi-
linear, such that task conflict is greatest when there is a moderate level of fluidity.
Relationship Conflict
Relationship conflict arises as a result of disagreements over non-task related
issues. Generally, such conflict is detrimental to team functioning (e.g. Jehn et al.,
1999). Further, Meyerson, Weick and Kramer (1996) note that temporary teams,
which are more similar to highly fluid teams than stable teams, rarely exhibit
dysfunctional team dynamics (e.g. relationship conflict) since they do not have the
time to do so. Arrow and her colleagues (2000) also recognize that members of
less stable teams know that they probably will only be working together for a short
time, and thus will avoid bothering with relationship conflict. Also, the evaluation
apprehension and social facilitation arguments advanced in the preceding section
may deter relationship conflict.
Despite arguments that members of changing teams may not bother with
relationship conflict, Arrow et al. (2000) also recognize that high rates of member
turnover translate into a situation where team members are “out of sync” with
each other in terms of development stage. This, in turn, might create relationship
conflict as members interact using different frames of reference. For example, a
more tenured member may become impatient with a newcomer who is trying to
become familiar with team norms. Supporting this suggestion, Pelled et al. (1999)
found that tenure diversity was positively associated with emotional conflict.
Also, whereas it might be true that members will not bother with conflict if they
expect their or their teammates’ tenure to be temporary, the very opposite could
also be true. That is, a person may express relationship conflict knowing that they
will not have to work with the others on the team for very long. Furthermore,
heterogeneity in values has been linked to relationship conflict (e.g. Jehn et al.,
1999). In line with ingroup/outgroup distinctions (Tajfel, 1982), it is likely that a
more stable team (i.e. more familiar members) will experience more of a “melding
of common values” over time, whereas a more fluid team will continue to
experience changing value structures. Thus, more relationship conflict is likely to
manifest. Finally, according to the similarity/attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971),
such differences may make teammates appear more unattractive, furthering the
potential for relationship conflict to develop.
Proposition 7. Team fluidity is positively related to relationship conflict in a

team.
Identification of Potential Boundary Conditions
Task interdependence and team size are potential boundary conditions of some of
the relationships proposed in the model shown in Fig. 1. Task interdependence and
team size are likely to affect the relationship between fluidity and team processes
because they each relate to how much interaction takes place among individual
members. In a large team, for example, interactions likely involve subsets of the
team instead of the entire team.
Task Interdependence
Task interdependence refers to the degree of interaction and cooperation required
among team members to accomplish their tasks. Ziller (1965) is among the
researchers who suggest that the optimum rate of team membership change
might depend on task demands. We propose that higher task interdependence
will accentuate the relationship between team fluidity and three of the team
process/emergent state variables described earlier.
Team collective efficacy is highly dependent on knowledge of how team
members are likely to perform (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Above we described how
this knowledge base is reduced in a more fluid team. Such a reduction most
likely leads to a decrease in collective efficacy for more fluid teams. In more
task interdependent teams, such an effect is likely to be more profound in that
knowledge of how team members are likely to perform is more critical. This
makes a lack of such knowledge equally critical, and is likely to lead to an
accentuated decrement in collective efficacy. Thus, whereas we predict a negative
relationship between fluidity and collective efficacy in general, teams that are
more task interdependent are likely to exhibit a stronger negative relationship
between fluidity and collective efficacy in particular.
Proposition 8a. The negative relationship between team fluidity and collective
efficacy will be moderated by task interdependence, such that the relationship
will be stronger in more task interdependent teams.
The curvilinear relationship between team fluidity and task conflict is also likely
to be accentuated in a more task interdependent team. For example, the inhibition
felt by new team members (Gruenfeld et al., 2000) is likely to be greater if forced
to work closely with unfamiliar team members. Similarly, the “false cohesiveness”
effect whereby members go out of their way to maintain good relations (Longley &
Pruitt, 1980) may be greater when members know they must work more closely on
tasks. On the other hand, at higher levels of task interdependence, the informational
diversity accompanying moderate levels of fluidity should enhance task conflict to
an even greater degree.
Proposition 8b. The curvilinear relationship between team fluidity and task
conflict will be moderated by task interdependence, such that the relationship
will be stronger in more task interdependent teams.
The positive relationship between team fluidity and relationship conflict is also
likely to be accentuated in more task interdependent teams. Relationship conflict
often grows out of values differences (Jehn et al., 1999) and team members being
“out of sync” developmentally with one another (Arrow et al., 2000). In a more
task interdependent team, such differences are easier to uncover and more likely to
manifest as members interact more frequently in performing tasks. Thus, all teams
should exhibit a positive relationship between fluidity and relationship conflict.
However, the fluidity-relationship conflict association should be greater in more
task interdependent teams.
Proposition 8c. The positive relationship between team fluidity and rela-
tionship conflict will be moderated by task interdependence, such that the
relationship will be stronger in more task interdependent teams.
Task interdependence is likely to attenuate the relationships between team flu-
idity and three other process variables/emergent states. First, task interdependence
is likely to attenuate the negative relationship between team fluidity and team
cohesiveness. We proposed that team fluidity would be negatively associated with
cohesiveness based on the premise that changing teams would have members
who were not as familiar with each other as in more stable teams. In teams
performing a highly interdependent task, however, familiarity should be facilitated
more quickly, easing the negative effects of changing membership. In fact, there
potentially could be greater cohesiveness on a more fluid team performing a
highly interdependent task than on a stable, yet relatively independent team. Thus,
whereas we predict a negative relationship between fluidity and cohesiveness
for all teams, we predict that the fluidity-cohesiveness relationship will be less
negative for teams performing highly interdependent tasks.
Proposition 8d. The negative relationship between team fluidity and team
cohesiveness will be moderated by task interdependence, such that the
relationship will be weaker in more task interdependent teams.
Similarly, the negative relationship between team fluidity and team flexibility
should be attenuated in more task interdependent teams. Although rapidly
changing team membership precludes cross-training and skill sharing among

teammates, task interdependence more readily exposes teammates to one another’s
tasks and skill-sets. This likely facilitates cross-fertilization of skills and subse-
quent flexibility despite changing membership. Whereas changing membership
is likely to diminish such cross-fertilization, increased task interdependence will
counteract this effect, making the fluidity-flexibility relationship less negative.
Proposition 8e. The negative relationship between team fluidity and team
flexibility will be moderated by task interdependence, such that the relationship
will be weaker in more task interdependent teams.
Finally, the negative relationship between team fluidity and internal communi-
cation also is likely to be attenuated in more task interdependent teams. Greater
interdependence is likely to lead to greater information exchange as a necessity
for accomplishing tasks in close proximity. While it is certainly true that changing
membership is likely to impair the formation of “mental models” or anticipatory
reactions among more familiar teammates (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994),
high task interdependence should facilitate information transfer even among
relative strangers, as the task necessitates increased intrateam communication.
Thus, the fluidity-internal team communications relationship should be similar
to the previous two relationships described above (e.g. fluidity-flexibility and
fluidity-cohesiveness).
Proposition 8f. The negative relationship between team fluidity and internal
team communication will be moderated by task interdependence such that the
relationship will be weaker in more task interdependent teams.
We make no specific propositions regarding the last two process variables,
external communication and team creativity. Such variables are largely orthogonal
to task interdependence.
Team Size
When studying team fluidity’s effects on team process and emergent state variables,
a logical boundary condition to consider is team size. Specifically, the relationships
between team fluidity and team process and emergent state variables are likely to
be attenuated in larger teams. Colquitt, Noe and Jackson (2002) suggest that this
results from decreased psychological bond strength between team members. More
specifically, higher levels of team fluidity likely reduce the bond strength among
members, which in turn reduces the effects that fluidity exhibits on emergent states
and process variables. Therefore, we propose that the effects of fluidity on given
process and emergent state variables will be in a similar direction among all teams,
but will be relatively stronger in smaller teams.
Proposition 9. The relationship between team fluidity and all of the proposed
team process variables will be moderated by team size, such that the relationships
will be stronger in smaller teams.
Other Potential Boundary Conditions

Arrow and McGrath (1995) have suggested several other contingent factors that
may differentially influence the relationships we have proposed. The relative
standing of those in a team who leave is likely to influence the proposed relation-
ships differently. Losing and replacing the two highest-ranking people in the team
should be different than losing and replacing the two lowest members. Related to
these suggestions is the notion of social network position or closeness centrality.
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate two scenarios that are likely to impact emergent states
and process variables differently. In Fig. 2, two central team members (A and
B) leave during a month period, whereas in Fig. 3, two peripheral members of
the team network (I and J) leave. In Fig. 2, it is likely that the effects of fluidity
on emergent states and process variables are greater compared to the scenario
shown in Fig. 3. For example, the loss of two long-standing “opinion leaders” in a
self-managed work team is different than the loss of two “outsiders” who have only
recently joined that team. Of course, there are other aspects of the social network
that should be considered, such as the overall density of the network (Brass,
1995), and the effects of fluidity in dense and loosely-connected team networks.
Another point to consider is that different patterns of fluidity are likely to exhibit
different effects on teams. For example, losing and replacing one member a month
for four months might lead to certain process effects, whereas turning over four
members at once at the end of four months might lead to others. Also, the timing
Fig. 2. Central Members Leave a Team.

Fig. 3. Peripheral Members Leave a Team.
of fluidity is potentially important. Membership change just before a big team

project deadline is likely to differ from member changes just after completion of a
project. We make no specific propositions concerning the preceding possibilities,
but reiterate Arrow and McGrath’s (1995) suggestion that these issues guide future
team dynamics research.
IMPLICATIONS OF TEAM FLUIDITY FOR HUMAN

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Few studies have directly investigated how to staff, train, manage performance, and
compensate individuals in fluid teams. As noted previously, most of the HRM liter-
ature assumes that team membership is stable. Team fluidity is especially an issue
in virtual organizations. Most work within a virtual organization is project-based,
control and authority resides within team members, the success of the organization
is dependent on collaboration and cooperation, the work environment is flexible,
dynamic, and fluid, and work is conducted across time and space (Ellingson &
Wiethoff, 2002). Below we discuss the implications of team fluidity for HRM
practices and identify important research questions.
Staffing
A wide range of individual characteristics and skills have been suggested as

predictors of team effectiveness including cognitive ability, Big Five personality
factors (openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness,

neuroticism), conflict resolution, risk-tolerance, and collaborative problem
solving (e.g. Ellingson & Wiethoff, 2002; Stevens & Campion, 1994). In a
study of how team member ability and personality related to differences in team
effectiveness, Barrick, Stewart, Neubert and Mount (1998) found that teams with
higher cognitive ability and conscientiousness were better performers than teams
that were lower in cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Moynihan and Peterson
(2001) identified three approaches that have been used to understand the team
member personality-team performance relationship. Personality is believed to
influence team processes either universally across all teams, contingently by task
or organizational culture, and configurationally by taking into account the integra-
tion of team member personality traits (Moynihan & Peterson, 2001). Moynihan
and Peterson (2001) found support for all three approaches. For example, the
configuration approach to personality in teams showed that team configurations
that are high and homogeneous on levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
openness to experience, and heterogeneous on extroversion lead to positive team
processes and outcomes. The configuration approach to studying personality in
teams research assumes it is either the similarity or dissimilarity of complementary
traits within a team that influence performance. Whereas these approaches have
received support, they do not account for the existence of team fluidity and it
would be interesting to see how the personality configurations of the teams relate
to team effectiveness in more fluid teams. For example, are teams with more
variability in personality traits better able to absorb and utilize the skills of a new
team member than teams more homogeneous in traits that are joined by a team
member whose standing on a personality trait is different from the rest of the team?
Klimoski and Jones (1995) make an important observation in noting that the
traditional staffing model ignores team life-cycle issues. For example, a team
having difficulty may seek to add members that bring new interpersonal and task
specific skills to a team. These skills might not have been initially identified in an
analysis of the team task. The selection process for a team that is forming likely
relies more on the knowledge, skills, and abilities requirements uncovered in a
job and task analysis. As interpersonal processes unfold in the team, however,
the need for certain types of interpersonal skills might only then become salient.
Klimoski and Jones (1995) suggest that to aid in the selection of new team
members, assessment procedures that include employees as observers could be
used to identify stable and emergent team staffing requirements. Assessment
could be in the form of an assessment center or structured interview of team
members. Also, specific KSAs could be identified that are more important in a
fluid team arrangement as opposed to a more stable team. For example, there is a
growing literature base that examines adaptability as an important KSA given the
changing nature of work and the employment contract (e.g. LePine, Colquitt &
Erez, 2000; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan & Plamondon, 2000). We further develop the
idea of adaptability in fluid teams in our discussion of performance management.
Performance Management
Team effectiveness is usually evaluated by looking at team outcomes such as

customer service, productivity, quality, or innovativeness. In fluid teams, the
importance of team members being able to work effectively despite membership
changes is key. Underlying the ability to deal with changes in team membership
is the concept of adaptability. Pulakos et al. (2000) developed a taxonomy of
adaptive performance. They identified eight dimensions of adaptive performance
including handling emergencies or crisis situations, work stress, solving problems
creatively, dealing with uncertain and unpredictable work situations, learning work
tasks, technologies, and procedures, and demonstrating interpersonal adaptability,
cultural adaptability, and physically-oriented adaptability. They developed an
instrument, the Job Adaptability Inventory (JAI), which can be used to evaluate
team member performance, diagnose the adaptability requirements of jobs, and
help in training team members in appropriate adaptive responses. To improve
the effectiveness of selection of members to fluid teams, studies are needed to
identify how individual differences relate to each of the dimensions of the JAI.
Another important consideration in managing the performance of fluid team
members is in actually assessing performance of those team members. A useful
example to illustrate this point is in conducting 360-degree performance appraisals,
which consist of the combined evaluations of superiors, subordinates, peers, and
sometimes customers and other outsiders. It is again often assumed that in carrying
out such appraisal processes, the members of the group or team in question are
stable, and can thus provide accurate appraisals of a member because they have
consistently been around that individual. Such is not always the case in more
fluid teams; therefore, determining the best sources of appraisal information is an
important area for research.
Team Training
Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas and Volpe (1995) suggest that in teams where
turnover is rapid (such as may be the case in fluid teams), task-specific competen-
cies are critical and team-specific competencies are less important. Task-specific
competencies include understanding the roles and role significance of different
positions on the team, skills in leadership or team management, feedback and

performance monitoring, and coordination. They suggest that in these situations
appropriate training strategies include task simulation, cross-training, guided task
practice, role-playing and passive demonstration.
In a lab experiment, Marks, Sabella, Burke and Zaccaro (2002) examined
the role of three different types of cross-training in developing shared team
interaction models, coordination, and performance in action teams. Action teams
require more specialized skill sets, rely more heavily on coordination, perform
in less familiar and more challenging environments, and may be temporary.
Shared mental models are believed to have a direct effect on team coordination
and backup processes that lead to performance. In teams, shared mental models
represent knowledge and understanding of the team’s purpose and characteristics,
connections among team member actions, and the roles and patterns required by
team members to successfully complete collective action. These models directly
relate to Cannon-Bowers et al.’s (1995) idea of task specific competencies. The
types of cross-training examined included position clarification (training designed
to raise awareness about team members jobs through lecture or discussion),
position modeling (training involving both verbal discussion and observation
of team members’ roles) and position rotation (provides team members with
experience carrying out team members duties through taking on their role). The
results suggest that the two more in-depth types of cross-training created more
shared team interaction knowledge among team members, but positional rotation
was not necessary to obtain this effect. More research on cross-training and the
other strategies suggested by Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) is needed; of particular
interest are studies that identify whether or not less intensive training (such as
positional clarification) can help develop shared mental models in fluid teams.
Creation of Intellectual Capital
Intellectual capital is created through the combination and exchange of existing

intellectual resources including tacit and explicit knowledge. Combination refers
to the connection of elements previously unconnected or the development of novel
ways of combining elements. For example, in crafting a new marketing campaign,
one team member might provide first-hand knowledge of the general educational
level of a targeted geographic area, whereas another might lend technological
knowledge of the product to the prediction of whether it will be suited to individuals
residing in that geographic area. Exchange refers to social interaction between
individuals through teamwork, collaboration, and sharing. Nahapiet and Ghoshal
(1998) model the creation of intellectual capital. They propose that structural,
cognitive, and relational dimensions of social capital influence the combination and
exchange of intellectual capital, which directly affects intellectual capital creation.
Trust, norms, obligation, and identification are believed to be critical elements of
relations needed for combination and exchange to occur.
In teams that are charged with developing intellectual capital, the level of
fluidity might work to the detriment of building trust and identification within the
team. Indeed, Noe et al. (2003) posit that membership stability is an important
team design characteristic when considering the development of intellectual
capital, and that the relationship between membership stability and intellectual
capital creation is likely to be complex. Periodic changes in the basic composition
of the team can introduce new sources of individual intellectual capital, but may
also detract from the team’s intellectual capital, particularly when the departing
member(s) possessed tacit knowledge. New members or new configurations
of existing members should prevent the group from stagnating. This should be
particularly true for teams who institutionalize explicit member knowledge (i.e.
create a “team memory”), which can outlast individual members.
However, there is certainly a point at which membership instability will become
counterproductive. Too much variation in either the standing or acting group will
result in a situation where intellectual capital must repeatedly re-emerge in the
new collective, as members must first decide “what they know” before concerning
themselves with improving on that level of knowledge. In sum, Noe et al. (2003)
suggests that there may be a threshold level of fluidity such that a lack of fluidity
causes a team to stagnate in terms of task conflict (i.e. constructive controversy) and
creativity but too much fluidity interferes with the development of team knowledge
structures.
Compensation
In teams that experience fluidity, forms of compensation that reward flexibility

and cooperation should be considered (see Heneman, Tansky & Tomlinson, 2002).
Team fluidity has implications for base pay, incentives, and indirect rewards. Base
pay is the amount of wages or salary provided to employees for their services.
Person-based pay approaches focus on the competencies of the job incumbent
rather than the job. Competencies include interests, attitudes, knowledge, skills,
and abilities. In a broadbanding pay system there are a small number of pay grades
but large pay ranges within and between pay bands. In broadbanding systems there
is more room to reward individual differences that relate to fluid team success (e.g.
team process factors, contributions to team task, seniority) than in traditional pay
systems that have many narrow pay grades.
Many organizations use incentive plans that include cash bonuses that are
linked to employee, team, business unit, or organizational performance. In teams,
and especially fluid teams, incentive distribution should include an individual
component as well as a team component. The team component would be based
on the degree to which the team meets objective performance outputs (such as
quality, sales, reduced scrap, etc.). The individual component would be based on
a subjective evaluation (ratings) of how the individual behaviors contributed to
team accomplishment. That is, both objective performance measures as well as
subjective performance measures should be used in team incentive systems.
Subjective 360-degree evaluations based on self, manager, and other team
members can provide a comprehensive evaluation of team members’ “soft skills”
(e.g. communication, cooperation, information sharing), although the potential
pitfalls of 360-degree appraisals in fluid teams as discussed earlier should be
considered. Also, team members should receive incentives for team outputs that
are commensurate with their contribution in helping the team realize the output.
This should be the case both for team members who are currently on the team as
well as those who have left the team. A critical task in determining incentive pay
in fluid teams is determining the contribution levels of those who quickly move
in and out of a team as it completes various phases of a project. For example,
Team Member A might only be on the team for one week, but might make the
most substantial contribution, whereas Team Member B might only contribute
incrementally, but do so over a period of a year. Such nuances will need to
be considered by compensation researchers and practitioners.
Indirect rewards involve recognition and development. Recognition involves
praise, gifts, awards, and time-off. Recognition confers status to members of fluid
teams for individual contributions to team success as well as overall team per-
formance. It may also be an important form of social capital because recipients
become more visible to influential people in the organization. Being a member of
a fluid team may also be rewarding to an individual if it is part of the individual’s
development plan. Job experiences are one type of employee development activity.
McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott and Morrow (1994) identified five different types of
job demands that require employees to stretch their skills (e.g. forced to learn a
new skill, apply skills and knowledge in a new way, and master new experiences).
These demands include making transitions, creating change, having a high level of
responsibility, being involved in a non-authority relationship, and facing obstacles.
Membership in a fluid team may provide an opportunity to deal with all of these
job demands.
Research has not adequately addressed issues of team compensation. For exam-
ple, research is needed on the effectiveness of different combinations of individual,
team, and higher-unit performance based pay. Also, researchers should examine
how compensation systems interact with other human resource systems (Heneman,
Ledford & Gresham, 2000) in the context of a fluid team-based organization.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN STUDYING

TEAM FLUIDITY
Certain methodological issues should be considered when studying the effects
of team fluidity on team emergent states and processes. These include the mea-
surement of fluidity, the measurement of interrater agreement versus reliability,
measuring outcome variables, and potential reverse causality issues involving
fluidity.
One of the most vital tasks researchers face is establishing a means of assessing
and quantifying the level of fluidity in a team. For example, a team of eight members
who experience the replacement of four of those members in two weeks is likely to
differ from a similar team experiencing four replacements over a year. Traditional
turnover indices only consider those members who permanently leave the team.
Alternatively, fluidity can include shifts in membership that are temporary or only
occur across the boundary between the standing and acting team. And, while our
current measures of turnover seem inadequate from a conceptual standpoint, some
of the existing turnover indices are inadequate from a methodological standpoint
as well. For example, Carley (1992) defines the rate of turnover as:
1
,
(number of periods/number of members turned over)
or one divided by the mean number of periods between exits of team members.
Selection of a “period” is arbitrary (i.e. the measurement is relative to the period
chosen). However, Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken (2003) review fundamental
problems with usage of ratio measures such as this. Specifically, one could arrive
at a correlation between this index that is driven by number of periods, number of
members who left the team, or the ratio of the two. Without decomposing the ratio
there is no way to tell which of the three potential drivers is acting. Although the
scope of this paper does not allow us to develop a specific fluidity measure, we
encourage researchers to begin addressing this task.
In addition to objective measures of fluidity, recent work in the areas of relational
demography and person-organization fit suggests the importance of considering
perceived indices of fluidity in teams. That is, although objective measures of
team membership changes are likely to relate to team processes and emergent
states as we have suggested, team members’ perceptions of the amount of fluidity
in the team might be an important predictor as well. Riordan (2000) distinguishes
between actual and perceived demographic similarity in her review of the rela-
tional demography literature and notes that “the use of both actual and perceived
measures of demographic characteristics can dramatically increase the amounts of
variance explained in outcome measures” (p. 160). For example, Cleveland and
Shore (1992) found that variance explained rose from 0.01 to 0.58 when including
a measure of perceived age in addition to actual age, and Riordan (1997) found
only small correlations between actual and perceived measures of demographic
characteristics such as age, gender, and race. Also, similar differences in variance
explained between actual and perceived measures of person-organization fit have
been found in recruitment research (e.g. Dineen, Ash & Noe, 2002; Judge & Cable,
1997).
Interrater agreement is considered to be a necessary part of conducting teams
research. Interrater agreement refers to a common perception among team
members concerning a construct of interest, and is often measured through the
use of indices such as r(wg) (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1984). In most traditional
team studies in which members of the team stay together for the duration of
the study, achieving an acceptable level of agreement among raters is common.
However, studies that assess fluidity may encounter difficulties in achieving
interrater agreement. Consider cohesiveness as an example. It is likely that some
level of cohesiveness exists in a team. However, team members are likely to
derive their “ratings” of cohesiveness from different frames of reference when
their team tenures differ. For example, a longer tenured member may take into
account feelings he has had over the last few months, whereas a new member
may only be able to reference the five days she has been on the team.
Related to this, Klein, Conn, Smith and Sorra (2001) found that a primary
antecedent of within-group agreement was the degree of social interaction in the
group, although they were not able to rule out reverse causation as an explanation
for this result. Indeed, social interaction may tend to be less in more fluid teams
without established patterns of interaction. Also, Dansereau, Yammarino and
Kohles (1999) suggest that teams can move between levels of analysis depending
on their current state. For example, a highly tenured, cohesive team may be studied
at a team level of analysis, but transform to an individual level of analysis following
a rash of member replacements. Such movements between levels may potentially
affect a researcher’s ability to accurately measure team member agreement.
One possible remedy may be to utilize an additive composition model to in-
dicate that a higher-level construct is simply a summation of lower level units,
regardless of the variance among those units (Chan, 1998). For example, indices
of cohesiveness in teams could be operationalized as the “total amount” of felt
cohesiveness on the team, regardless of the variance in cohesiveness perceptions.
Other researchers have made similar use of Chan’s composition typology in team
research (e.g. Colquitt et al., 2002). A second possible remedy may be to rely
more heavily on reliability indices rather than agreement indices when making
aggregation decisions. Whereas agreement requires that all actors rate an item
the same (e.g. a “3” on a 5-point scale), reliability requires only consistency in
responses by raters (Bliese, 2000). That is, as long as responses are consistently
different, reliability still exists. For example, if Rater A only uses 1–3 on a 5-point
scale, whereas Rater B only uses 3–5, but they do so consistently, reliability exists.
ICC(1) and ICC(2) are common reliability indices that might be more useful in
assessing the potential for aggregating fluid team constructs given the potential for
differing frames of reference among team members. Clearly these issues demand
greater attention, and researchers need to carefully consider aggregation issues in
examining team fluidity because a lack of agreement does not necessarily mean
a lack of reliability or the absence of a construct, but rather might result from
the level of team fluidity and differing frames of reference brought to a team by
changing members.
Another methodological concern has to do with properly measuring outcomes
of team fluidity. Specifically, whereas team fluidity might be conceived of as
exits/entrances during a specified period of time, the proper measurement of out-
comes (e.g. cohesiveness or collective efficacy) is less clear. For example, should
researchers measure cohesiveness once at the end of the period in question? Or
should it be measured multiple times at specified time points? Although specific
measurement details are beyond the scope of this paper, one potential avenue
might be to pursue the use of time series data. This strategy has a long history of
use in economics, but only recently has been used in teams research (e.g. Sawyer,
Latham, Pritchard & Bennett, 1999). Another possible approach is to measure
team fluidity over a specified period of time, while also measuring process and
emergent state variables at the beginning and end of the period, noting any changes
in those variables during that time period (see Neuman, Bolin & Lonergan, 2000).
As illustrated in Fig. 1, a third important consideration when examining team
fluidity is that there may be reciprocal effects between fluidity and emergent
states, process or performance variables. For example, as previously described,
team fluidity is likely to lead to increased relationship conflict in teams. However,
it has also been suggested that relationship conflict leads to voluntary turnover
(i.e. increased fluidity) as well (e.g. Pelled, 1996). Similarly, a sense of decreased
collective efficacy could lead to greater fluidity, just as fluidity is likely to relate
to decreased collective efficacy. Also, performance is likely to have a reciprocal
effect on fluidity, although the direction of this effect is uncertain. For example,
Griffeth and Hom (1995) reviewed studies that attempted to link performance
to subsequent turnover, noting divergent results across these studies. Despite
meta-analytic results that have demonstrated an overall negative relationship
between performance and subsequent turnover (cf. Griffeth & Hom, 1995),
these authors concluded that the relationship is likely mediated by a number of
subprocesses. Separating these effects is a considerable challenge for researchers,
but it is especially important as team membership becomes more fluid. As a start,
researchers should endeavor to engage in more longitudinal studies in order to
parse out reciprocal effects (e.g. Neuman et al., 2000).
Finally, in addition to the reciprocal effects described above, we recognize that
other antecedents to team fluidity likely exist on both a macro and micro level. For
example, the labor market is likely to affect fluidity on a large scale, with increased
fluidity predicted during a “tight” labor market (i.e., organizations are experiencing
a shortage of skilled employees so team members have job opportunities readily
available in other organizations). Organizational structure or norms may influence
the extent to which teams are more fluid versus stable. Also, the extent to which
an organizational workforce is diverse has been shown to relate to turnover (e.g.
O’Reilly et al., 1989; Wiersema & Bird, 1993). Although a comprehensive treat-
ment of team fluidity antecedents is beyond the scope of this paper, these examples
highlight the importance of considering them in future research.
FUTURE RESEARCH
To gain a better understanding of the relationship between team fluidity and team
processes, emergent states, and outcomes, research should address the propositions
presented in this paper and seek to develop additional propositions. In addition,
there are other areas of research on team fluidity that warrant attention. First, as
noted at the beginning of the paper, the virtual environment is gaining recognition
as a viable means of team collaboration. Research should specifically address any
differences that might exist between a virtual and traditional team environment
when team fluidity increases. As Townsend et al. (1998) note, virtual teams are
generally more fluid, so studying the effects of fluidity in virtual teams may be
even more vital. Also, because virtual teams are often composed of members from
functionally diverse backgrounds, the effects of fluidity should be examined in
parallel with functional diversity as well as other types of diversity. For example,
it might be the case that the effects of fluidity are attenuated in an already-diverse
team, such that the introduction of new members is not as much of a “shock” as if
might be in a more homogeneous team.
Second, with an increasing trend towards fluidity comes a concomitant need
to effectively staff work teams on a continual basis. Following research on under-
and over-staffed groups (Cini, Moreland & Levin, 1993), researchers should
investigate staffing issues in more fluid teams, with a focus on what, if any,
individual difference variables might help predict success when working in a

more fluid team. For example, we mentioned adaptability characteristics earlier
(Pulakos et al., 2000), but urge scholars to continue to uncover additional charac-
teristics that might be important for newcomers to fluid teams as well as current
members.
Next, we echo Arrow and colleagues’ (2000) call for more qualitative research
that attempts to break down the complex effects of team fluidity. One possible
approach is naturalistic observation (Whitley, 1996), whereby the researcher
observes and records process phenomena over time. Researcher involvement
could vary on a continuum from direct participation as an acting member of a team
to passive observer of team behavior. In addition, diaries, behavioral checklists,
and palm pilots can be used in time sampling studies designed to collect data
from team members as processes occur (e.g. Williams & Alliger, 1994). Such
research would likely help direct future empirical investigations of team fluidity
and uncover the most important variables in need of study. Time sampling studies
could also help to confirm whether transition processes occur more frequently in
teams experiencing high levels of fluidity.
Finally, as suggested by Arrow and McGrath (1995), the effects of temporary
fluidity should be examined independent of more permanent member change. For
example, changes in membership in which a team member leaves the team for
good and is replaced by another are likely different from temporary absences of
team members who are periodically not present but remain part of the standing
team. Both situations are forms of team fluidity, but likely differ in their effects on
process and emergent state variables. Gruenfeld et al. (2000) studied the influence
of changing group members on the production and transfer of knowledge and
experience. They measured the influence of itinerant group member’s unique
knowledge and experience on the team the member temporarily visited and the
team they returned to. Itinerant group members refer to individuals who span team
boundaries for the purpose of importing or exporting group knowledge. They
tested hypotheses related to the direct and indirect influence of itinerants on team
members (e.g. convincing the team to accept ideas or advice). Also, they tested
hypotheses related to social perceptions of itinerants. For instance, itinerant mem-
bers’ involvement in and contribution to group activities should be greater in the
group of origin than in the temporary group. The results suggested that the direct in-
fluence by iterant members was reduced after they changed groups and had unique
knowledge to share. Their unique ideas were used as often as those of indigenous
members. Consistent with expectations, indirect influence by itinerant members
was greater after they returned to their group of origin. These findings are an
example of the ongoing work that needs to occur as we continue to examine fluidity
in standing and acting teams.
CONCLUSION
The use of teams has grown considerably in organizations, with a paralleled growth
in research aimed at increasing their effectiveness. A growing characteristic of
teams is their enhanced fluidity, or likelihood of turning over members throughout
their existence. Research has not been as quick to study this phenomenon, and this
paper is a step towards fostering such investigation. By delving into the “black box”
of team processes and emergent states resulting from team fluidity, researchers
can begin to understand some of its complex effects. In doing so, they can more
readily begin to predict performance outcomes and better inform both research
and practice.
In closing, we recognize that Arrow and McGrath (1995) raise a compelling
question in asking when exactly a group “ends” and a new group “begins.” Consider
a manufacturing team. At any given organization that has used manufacturing
teams for a prolonged period, membership changes are inevitable. For example,
such a team in 1970 is certainly different from the same team in 2003. Yet, when
did the team “change?” When the supervisor left? When the last round of layoffs
hit? The boundaries are unclear. For many teams or groups of people, change
is a gradual, evolving process. For other teams, however, change is more rapid,
such as a virtual team with members who might come and go by the week or
even day. Charting the effects of team fluidity is necessary if we are to accurately
measure present-day real-life team dynamics. Doing so seems especially timely
given current business trends and more fluid team arrangements.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Jason A. Colquitt for his helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier
version of this paper.
REFERENCES
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1998). Rethinking team composition from the outside in. In: M. A.
Neale, E. A. Mannix & D. H. Gruenfeld (Eds), Research in Managing Groups and Teams
(Vol. 1, pp. 21–38). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organiza-
tions: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 82, 1–8.
Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A. A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects
of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25, 512–529.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Membership matters: How member change and continuity affect
small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334–361.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework.
In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17,
pp. 373–411). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation,
coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
377–391.
Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to
be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345–381.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregations and analysis. In: K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds), Multilevel Theory,
Research, and Methods in Organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on Human Resource Management. In: G. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 13, pp. 39–79). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics
and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and
establishing team training requirements. In: R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas & Associates (Eds), Team
Effectiveness and Decision-Making in Organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Carley, K. (1992). Organization learning and personnel turnover. Organization Science, 3, 20–46.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels
of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-
and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
549–556.
Cini, M. A., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses to prospective
and new group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 723–734.
Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. M. (1992). Self- and supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 469–484.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of
procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. C. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudi-
nal perspective: Some implications for theory building. Academy of Management Review, 24,
346–357.
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction: Person-organization fit
in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 723–734.
Ellingson, J. E., & Wiethoff, C. (2002). From traditional to virtual: Staffing the organization of the
future today. In: R. L. Heneman & D. B. Greenberger (Eds), Human Resource Management in
Virtual Organizations (pp. 141–177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1,

215–239.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development.
Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41.
Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 578–586.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–
1380.
Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In: P. V. Marsden & N.
Lin (Eds), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 105–130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (1995). The employee turnover process. In: G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland
(Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 13, pp. 245–293).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and
decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1–15.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P. V., & Fan, E. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest
members? Direct and indirect influence in dyadic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 82, 45–59.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance
effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In:
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In: J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 96–107.
Heneman, R. L., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Gresham, M. T. (2000). The changing nature of work and its
effects on compensation design and delivery. In: S. L. Rynes & B. Gerhart (Eds), Compensation
in Organizations (pp. 195–240). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heneman, R. L., Tansky, J. W., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2002). Hybrid reward systems for virtual organiza-
tions: A review and recommendations. In: R. L. Heneman & D. B. Greenberger (Eds), Human
Resource Management in Virtual Organizations (pp. 245–262). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Hightower, R. T., Sayeed, L., Warkentin, M. E., & McHaney, R. (1998). Information exchange in virtual
work groups. In: M. Igbaria & M. Tan (Eds), The Virtual Workplace (pp. 199–216). Hershey,
PA: Idea Publishing Group.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as
information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multi-
level theory of team decision making: Decision performance in team incorporating distributed
expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater reliability with
and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field
study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44, 741–763.
Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. (1984). Collective climate: Agreement as a basis for defining aggregate
climate in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 721–742.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organizational
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of
within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied
Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training require-
ments. In: R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas & Associates (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision-Making
in Organizations (pp. 292–332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental models: Construct or metaphor? Journal of
Management, 20, 403–437.
Kristof, A. L., Brown, K. G., Sims, H. P., Jr., & Smith, K. A. (1995). The virtual team: A case study
and inductive model. In: M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds), Advances in
Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Knowledge Work in Teams (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Lawler, E. E., III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1995). Creating high performance organiza-
tions: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune
1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of
general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology,
53, 563–594.
Longley, J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1980). A critique of Janis’ theory of groupthink. In: L. Wheeler (Ed.),
Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy
of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on
team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3–13.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence
of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
273–283.
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the developmental
components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544–560.
McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group
Research, 22, 147–174.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In: R. M.
Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research
(pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management team character-
istics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 9–37.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the mul-
tiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21,
402–433.
Moynihan, L., & Peterson, R. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of
personality in organizational groups. In: B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds), Research in Organizational
Behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 327–378). New York: JAI Press.
Muoio, A. (2000, June). How to play the talent game. Fast Company, 362–371.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review,
93, 23–32.
Neuman, G. A., Bolin, A., & Lonergan, J. M. (2000). Models of team performance: What’s the real
effect of team processes on team performance? Paper presented at the 2000 annual conference
for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Noe, R. A., Colquitt, J. A., Simmering, M. J., & Alvarez, S. A. (2003). Knowledge management:
Developing intellectual and social capital. In: S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt & A. S. DeNisi (Eds),
Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competitive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective
Human Resource Management (pp. 209–242). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O’Connor, K. M., Gruenfeld, D. H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). The experience and effects of conflict
in continuing work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 362–382.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration,
and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process
theory. Organization Science, 7, 615–631.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis
of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
1–28.
Peterson, E., Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of
shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 3, 296–316.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace:
Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
612–624.
Riordan, C.M. (1997). Advancing relational demography theory: A construct validity study of three
measures of demographic similarity. In: L. N. Dosier & J. B. Keys (Eds), Academy of Manage-
ment Best Paper Proceedings.
Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions, and
new directions. In: K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management (pp. 131–173). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical
examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
342–358.
Rousseau, D. M. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction, and
motivation: A synthesis of job design research and sociotechnical systems theory. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 18–42.
Saunders, C. S., & Ahuja, M. K. (2000). A framework for understanding temporal issues of virtual
teams. Paper presented at the 2000 annual conference of the Academy of Management.
Sawyer, J. E., Latham, W. R., Pritchard, R. D., & Bennett, W. R., Jr (1999). Analysis of work group pro-
ductivity in an applied setting: Application of a time series panel design. Personnel Psychology,
52, 927–967.
Schopler, J. H., & Galinsky, M. J. (1990). Can open-ended groups move beyond beginnings? Small
Group Research, 21, 435–449.
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances: The interaction of
friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149–166.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Jr, Sims, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top
management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication.
Stein, M. I. (1982). Creativity, groups, and management. In: R. A. Guzzo (Ed.), Improving Group
Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 127–156). New York: Academic Press.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork:
Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 533–550.
Tajfel, H. (1982). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33,
1–39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel &
W. G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the
workplace of the future. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17–29.
Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework and an action
research program. Toronto, Ontario: Quality of Working Life Centre.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 590–602.
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Principles of research in behavioral science. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Publishing Co.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group hetero-
geneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 996–1025.
Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work –
family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837–868.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age
and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32,
353–376.
Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 164–182.
Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Goodchilds, J. D. (1962). Group creativity under conditions of success
or failure and variations in group stability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 43–49.
Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Jansen, M. J. (1961). The newcomer in open and closed groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 55–58.
MENTORING RESEARCH: A REVIEW
AND DYNAMIC PROCESS MODEL
Connie R. Wanberg, Elizabeth T. Welsh and

Sarah A. Hezlett
ABSTRACT
Organizations have become increasingly interested in developing their

human resources. One tool that has been explored in this quest is mentoring.
This has led to a surge in mentoring research and an increase in the number
of formal mentoring programs implemented in organizations. This review
provides a survey of the empirical work on mentoring that is organized around
the major questions that have been investigated. Then a conceptual model,
focused on formal mentoring relationships, is developed to help understand
the mentoring process. The model draws upon research from a diverse body
of literature, including interpersonal relationships, career success, training
and development, and informal mentoring. Finally, a discussion of critical
next steps for research in the mentoring domain is presented.
INTRODUCTION
Mentoring refers to a one-on-one relationship between a less experienced (i.e.
protégé) and a more experienced person (i.e. mentor), and is prototypically
intended to advance the personal and professional growth of the less experienced
individual (Mullen, 1994). Mentoring relationships can be “informal” in nature,

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22002-8
39
40 CONNIE R. WANBERG, ELIZABETH T. WELSH AND SARAH A. HEZLETT
having developed naturally between two individuals, or they can be “formal” in na-
ture, likely the consequence of an assigned pairing of a mentor and protégé within
an organization. Due to increasing interest in leveraging human and social capital
within organizations, informal and formal mentoring have gained the attention of
academicians and practitioners as potentially critical developmental tools.
Research on mentoring has surged in the past decade, creating the need for a thor-
ough review of the literature. The intent of this review is to: (1) provide a survey of
empirical work on mentoring that is organized around the major questions that have
been investigated; and (2) extend current understanding of mentoring relationships
via an integrative, conceptual model. The first portion of the review consequently
addresses the question “where are we now?,” and describes research priorities for
the areas discussed. The second portion of the review presents a dynamic frame-
work for understanding and examining formal mentoring relationships. Our review
complements Noe, Greenberger and Wang (2002), who described the evolution of
the concept of mentoring, theoretical frameworks that have been used in studying
mentoring, methodological and measurement issues pertaining to mentoring
research, and attachment theory as a framework for examining mentoring.
MENTORING RESEARCH: WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Our review focuses on published, under review, and in press research on “tradi-
tional” mentoring within the workplace (Noe et al., 2002). Articles for this review
were identified through searches of ABI/Inform, Econlit and PsychInfo databases
(through December, 2002), along with queries of mentoring researchers. Studies
focusing on the mentoring of students are not comprehensively summarized,
but are discussed as needed to call attention to research questions, methods, and
results that may be fruitful to pursue in work settings. The results of our literature
search indicated the majority of the research on mentoring in the workplace has
been published within the last 25 years. Although a diverse array of issues have
been examined, empirical work has been concentrated in five major topic areas:
(1) outcomes of mentoring; (2) the role of diversity (especially gender and race)
in mentoring; (3) the role of other individual characteristics in mentoring; (4)
dynamics of mentoring relationships; and (5) formal mentoring programs. We
begin this section with a brief discussion of the concept of mentoring, then review
each of these five major topic areas in turn.
The Concept of Mentoring
A number of authors have proposed typologies differentiating “traditional” (one-

on-one, hierarchical mentoring) from other supportive workplace relationships,
Mentoring Research 41
such as peer mentoring and developmental networks (Eby, 1997; Higgins & Kram,
2001; Missirian, 1982; Shapiro, Haseltine & Rowe, 1978; Whitely & Coetsier,
1993; Whitely, Dougherty & Dreher, 1991). Looking across these typologies,
dimensions on which traditional mentoring relationships have been distinguished
from other developmental relationships include the power of the more senior
person, the emotional intensity of the relationship, the hierarchical distance
between the participants, the social origins of the relationship, and the amount
and focus of assistance provided by the more senior person. Despite differences
between models and typologies of developmental relationships, it is generally
agreed that mentoring is the most intense and powerful one-on-one develop-
mental relationship, entailing the most influence, identification, and emotional
involvement.
The characteristics of mentoring relationships that contribute to participants’
development typically have been referred to as mentoring functions. Two broad
categories of mentoring functions are widely recognized: career and psychosocial.
Career functions are conceptualized as those mentoring functions that aid career
advancement. They may include challenging assignments, coaching, exposure,
protection, and sponsorship. Psychosocial functions help build a sense of identity,
competence, and effectiveness. They may include acceptance, counseling, friend-
ship and role modeling. These mentoring functions originally were identified in
qualitative research (Kram, 1985b), and have been regularly used in subsequent
quantitative research. More detailed descriptions of the functions, along with
sample items from the three most well-known instruments regularly used to
measure multiple mentoring functions (Ragins, 1999), are presented in Table 1.
Other established instruments yield an overall index of mentoring functions
(Dreher & Ash, 1990) or solely assess career functions (Whitely, Dougherty &
Dreher, 1992).
There are two areas of uncertainty regarding how best to represent the construct
space of mentoring functions. One area of ambiguity is how many distinct
dimensions of mentoring functions there are. Research on the dimensionality of
mentoring functions has been clouded by the use of principal components analysis,
which does not permit strong inferences about underlying, latent structures.
Results of exploratory factor analyses have been mixed, with some supporting
a two-function model (e.g. Noe, 1988a) and others suggesting a three-function
model. Several three-factor solutions suggest role-modeling should be viewed
as a distinct mentoring function, rather than as an aspect of the psychosocial
mentoring function (Barker, Monks & Buckley, 1999; Burke, 1984; Ochberg,
Tischler & Schulberg, 1986; Scandura, 1992; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). Other
studies support alternate three dimensional solutions (Steinberg & Foley, 1999;
Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Two separate sets of confirmatory factor analyses,
each based on data collected with different instruments, also have supported
42
Table 1. Mentoring Functions, Definitions, and Sample Scale Items.
Function Definition Sample Scale Items
CONNIE R. WANBERG, ELIZABETH T. WELSH AND SARAH A. HEZLETT

Career functions
Sponsor Actively supporting an employee for lateral transfers My mentor helps me attain desirable positions (MRI)
and promotions Mentor gave you assignments or tasks in your work that
prepare you for an administrative position (MFS)
Protect Shielding an employee from damaging contact with My mentor shields me from damaging contact with
key senior figures in the organization important people in the organization (MRI)
Mentor helped you finish assignments/tasks or meet
deadlines that otherwise would have been difficult to
complete (MFS)
Exposure Giving an employee assignments that provide My mentor helps me be more visible in the organization
contact with key senior figures (MRI)
Mentor helped you meet new colleagues (MFS)
Challenging assignments Helping an employee prepare for greater My mentor gives me tasks that require me to learn new
responsibility by providing challenging work and skills (MRI)
feedback that encourages skill development Mentor gave you assignments that present opportunities to
learn new skills (MFS)
Coacha Sharing advice, information, and ideas that help an My mentor suggests specific strategies for achieving career
employee attain objectives and achieve recognition aspirations (MRI)
Mentor has shared history of his/her career with you (MFS)
Psychosocial functions
Friendship Sharing informal social experiences My mentor is someone I can trust (MRI)
Counseling Using active listening to enable an employee to My mentor guides my professional development (MRI)
explore personal concerns about self and career My mentor has demonstrated good listening skills in our
conversations (MFS)
Acceptance/Confirmation Conveying positive regard My mentor sees me as being competent (MRI)
My mentor has conveyed feelings of respect for me as an
individual (MFS)
Mentoring Research
Socialb Participating in informal social activities one-on-one My mentor and I frequently socialize one-on-one outside
outside of work the work setting (MRI)
Parentb Construing the relationship as a parent/child My mentor is like a father/mother to me (MRI)
relationship
Role modelingc Serving as a model for an employee to emulate My mentor represents someone who I want to be (MRI)
I admire mentor’s ability to motivate others (MFQ)
Notes: MRI = Mentoring Role Instrument (Ragins & McFarlin, 1990); MFS = Mentoring Functions Scale (Noe, 1988a); MFQ = Mentoring Func-
tions Questionnaire (Scandura, 1992; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). Unless otherwise noted, functions were identified and defined by Kram
(1985b).
a Items measuring coaching are part of the psychosocial scale of the MFS.
b Social and parenting are mentoring functions that were proposed by Ragins and McFarlin (1990), drawing on observations made by Kram (1985b).
c Some factor analytic results suggest this is a third mentoring function, distinct from career and psychosocial mentoring.
43
different models (Scandura & Williams, 2001; Tepper, Shaffer & Tepper, 1996).
Overall, the bulk of the evidence indicates that there are at least two distinct
mentoring functions (career and psychosocial), but is less clear on whether a third
dimension is needed to adequately represent the construct space.
A second area of uncertainty about the construct space of mentoring functions
involves whether specific, narrow mentoring functions are facets of psychosocial
or career mentoring functions. For example, Kram’s (1985b) classification of
coaching as a career function and friendship as a psychosocial function has been
followed in the development of some measures of mentoring functions (e.g.
Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). In contrast, guided by the results of an exploratory
factor analysis, Noe (1988a) included items assessing coaching in his measure
of psychosocial mentoring and dropped items measuring friendship due to small
loadings. Additional facets of psychosocial mentoring also have been proposed
and studied (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). While there
is general agreement and support for the functions that a mentor may provide,
these differences might be kept in mind during the review as the exact content of
“psychosocial” or “career” mentoring may differ across studies.
Researchers have begun to consider how mentoring relates to constructs from
other streams of research (e.g. McManus & Russell, 1997). This is an important
step in enhancing our understanding of the nomological network in which men-
toring is embedded. Most empirical work in this area has focused on exploring
how mentoring differs from supervision and leadership. Two distinct lines of
research have been pursued, one comparing mentoring with “typical” supervisory
relationships (Burke, McKenna & McKeen, 1991; Fagenson, 1994; Horgan &
Simeon, 1990b; Tepper, 1995) and one examining the relationship between
leader behaviors and mentoring functions (Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Scandura
& Schriesheim, 1994; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000a; Thibodeaux & Lowe, 1996).
This work has been supportive of mentoring as distinguishable from supervision
and leadership.
Another question relevant to the construct of mentoring that has attracted
attention concerns possible differences in the nature of formal and informal men-
toring. Early researchers were skeptical about the potential of formal mentoring
relationships (see, for example, Kram, 1985a). Recent evidence provides more
optimistic conclusions (Ragins, Cotton & Miller, 2000). Nevertheless, formal and
informal mentoring relationships do differ in significant ways (Ragins & Cotton,
1999). For this reason, as well as because of the recent interest and enthusiasm for
formal mentoring programs among organizations, studies explicitly considering
formal mentoring are discussed separately in our review.
As a last overall observation, definitions of mentoring have been criticized
for being inconsistent (Carden, 1990; Chao, 1998; Pollock, 1995). This criticism
is valid. It is unquestionable that it would be useful for researchers to agree

on a consistent definition of mentoring to use when asking participants if they
have had a mentor. However, we wish to note there is a high consistency in
the literature in regard to the general concept of mentoring, the more general
understanding of what is meant by a traditional mentoring relationship. Progress
has been made in conceptually differentiating mentoring from other kinds
of developmental relationships and in empirically distinguishing mentoring
from supervision and leadership. Additional clarity about the construct of
mentoring can be achieved through further research on how best to represent
the construct space of mentoring functions, and, as will be seen later in this
review, by more carefully distinguishing between informal and formal mentoring
relationships.
Mentoring Outcomes
Whether mentoring and its associated functions impact work- and career-related
outcomes has been a major focus of mentoring research. Indeed, we identified one
meta-analysis (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima, 2002) and over 90 studies that
have examined outcomes of mentoring. To characterize the individual studies,
we coded each of them in terms of their focus, methodology, type of mentoring
examined, source of data, and sample size (see Table 2). This analysis shows that
most studies have focused on outcomes for protégés, rather than on outcomes for
mentors or organizations. Furthermore, most studies have used cross-sectional
survey research methods and have relied almost exclusively on self-report data.
While the range of sample sizes is quite broad, from 22 to 2,321, most of the
studies have had sample sizes of more than 100 participants.
In contrast to the precise categorizations on the dimensions of focus, method-
ology, source of data, and sample size, we were only able to categorize with
certainty one in three studies in terms of type of mentoring examined (i.e. formal
or informal). We were unable to categorize many studies because the authors
did not explicitly distinguish between formal and informal relationships in
the instruments or instructions provided to study participants. Without explicit
instruction, respondents may have referred to either an informal or a formal
mentoring relationship when answering questions about that relationship. This is
a measurement issue that should be remedied in future studies.
In the rest of this section, we review the current understanding of mentoring
outcomes based on the studies reported in Table 2 that have either focused on
informal mentoring or have not differentiated between outcomes for informal and
formal mentoring. As mentioned earlier, studies that have explicitly examined
Table 2. Characteristics of Empirical Studies Examining Mentoring Outcomes.

Category % Number
Focusa
Protégé outcomes 96 92
Mentor outcomes 13 12
Organization outcomes 3 3
Type of mentoring
Formal only 9 9
Informal only 11 11
Both, separated 8 8
Both, not separated 5 5
Unspecified 66 63
Research methoda
Survey 93 89
Interview (Qualitative) 8 8
Experimental 2 2
Research design
Cross-sectional 88 84
Longitudinal with two waves 9 9
Longitudinal more than two waves 3 3
Data sourcesa
Self-report only 81 78
Dyad 10 10
Other (files, co-workers, etc.) 10 10
Sample sizeb
Less than 100 17 16
100 to less than 300 49 47
300 to less than 500 17 16
More than 500 17 16
a Does not add to 100% as studies may be categorized in more than one way.
b Does not add to 100% as one study did not provide sample size. Mean sample size = 324.
formal mentoring programs are reviewed separately in a later section of this

paper. A caveat to the current section is that to the extent that some research has
mixed individuals with informal and formal mentoring relationships, we can only
report the outcomes of mentoring in general (regardless of relationship type). It
is notable, however, that research on frequencies of mentoring type is suggestive
of the idea that most of the mentoring relationships reported in studies with a
formal/informal mix are informal in nature (e.g. Day & Allen, 2002; Godshalk &
Sosik, 2000; Ragins & Cotton, 1999).
Protégé Outcomes
A fundamental, salient question in the mentoring literature has been whether
mentoring relationships lead to positive outcomes for the protégé, such as higher
salary and increased job satisfaction. The research in this area is fairly consistent
in finding that there is an association between being a protégé and favorable
outcomes. We provide a survey of this available evidence, then propose that an
important next step for this literature is to attend more closely to internal validity
issues in order to determine to what extent positive outcomes for the protégé can
be uniquely attributed to mentoring as opposed to other factors.
Correlational relationship results. A narrative summary of the over 90 studies

that have examined protégé outcomes is difficult. Fortunately, a meta-analysis on
protégé outcomes was recently conducted (Allen, Eby et al., 2002),1 providing
an overall synthesis of protégé outcome results across studies. The results of
this meta-analysis are informative. First, they demonstrate that despite the large
number of studies in this area, once the studies are categorized into specific rela-
tionships (e.g. mentoring-promotion, mentoring-job satisfaction), the number of
studies in each relationship cell is rather small. Second, the results are supportive
of positive benefits of mentoring. More specifically, they show that aggregating
across multiple studies, mentoring is positively related to both subjective and
objective outcomes for protégés.
First, when comparing individuals who had mentors to those who did not (Allen,
Eby et al., 2002), individuals with mentors had more positive subjective outcomes
including higher expectations for advancement, career satisfaction, job satisfac-
tion, career commitment, and intentions to stay at their organizations. Effect sizes
for these relationships were small (Cohen, 1988), but their confidence intervals did
not include zero. Individuals with mentors also had higher levels of compensation
(small effect size) and promotions (medium effect size) when compared to
individuals without mentors. The number of studies available in each relationship
cell was small, with findings based on a range of three (promotions) to ten (job
satisfaction) studies. An illustrative study that compared outcomes between those
with mentors and those without is that of Prevosto (2001). In a cross-sectional
study of 171 army reserve nurses, individuals with mentors reported higher job
satisfaction and intention to stay than individuals without mentors.
Allen, Eby et al. (2002) also examined the relationship between the amount of
psychosocial and career mentoring received by individuals and both subjective
and objective outcomes. Psychosocial mentoring had relationships that were small
in effect size with protégé career satisfaction, job satisfaction, intention to stay
with the organization, compensation, and promotions, and a relationship that was
large in effect size with mentor satisfaction. Parallel to the results for psychosocial
mentoring, career mentoring had relationships that were small in effect size with
protégé career satisfaction, job satisfaction, compensation, salary growth, and
promotions, and a relationship that was large in effect size with mentor satisfac-
tion. In general, relationships with the objective outcomes tended to be weaker
than relationships with subjective outcomes. The number of studies available
for each relationship meta-analyzed was small, ranging from 3 to 11. A recent
illustrative study is that of Seibert, Kraimer and Liden (2001), who found that level
of career sponsorship provided to the protégé (including sponsorship, exposure
and visibility, challenging assignments, and protection) was positively related to
protégé salary level, number of promotions, and career satisfaction in a sample of
university alumni.
Looking beyond the meta-analysis, other protégé outcomes have been studied
in a limited number of studies. Work-life balance has been studied in two samples.
In a sample of female lawyers, no relationship was found between being a
protégé and level of work-nonwork conflict (Wallace, 2001). Nielson, Carlson and
Lankau (2001) found a relationship between level of psychosocial support and
role modeling received and family interference with work, but not with work
interference with family. Procedural justice has also been studied within the
context of mentoring. For example, Scandura (1997) found that individuals
without mentors had lower levels of procedural justice (e.g. non-protégés were
less likely to report that “employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job
decisions made by the manager” p. 63) than individuals with mentors. Wallace’s
study compared protégé and non-protégé levels of procedural justice with similar
findings. Other outcomes that have been studied include job burnout (Fagan &
Walter, 1982) and organizational power (Fagenson, 1988). Fagan and Walter
(1982) found that individuals with more than one mentor experienced more
job burnout than individuals without mentors and those with only one mentor.
Fagenson (1988) reported that individuals who had a mentor reported more power
in their organization, including policy influence, access to important people and
resource power, than individuals who did not have a mentor.
Internal validity issues. Based upon positive empirical findings such as those just
reviewed, it seems safe to conclude that research has been supportive of positive
outcomes being correlated with both protégé status and the level of mentoring
functions received. However, it is common to see the causal assertion that men-
toring is a significant determinant of career success. Koberg, Boss and Goodman
(1998), for example, stated “Mentors have been shown to affect promotion and
compensation decisions and can influence career and organizational success”
(p. 59). Ragins and Scandura (1997) stated “Mentoring relationships have been
shown to be an important determinant in career success and advancement” (p. 945).
A detailed examination of studies on the effects of mentoring leads us to suggest,

however, that research that more closely examines the extent to which mentoring is
the unique driver of positive outcomes is needed. In order to more strongly estab-
lish the extent to which mentoring causally impacts career success, it is important
for research not only to demonstrate that there is a relationship between mentoring
and career success outcomes, but to show that mentoring precedes career success
outcomes in time and that alternative explanations for the positive outcomes have
been considered. Highly controlled experimental research designs where individ-
uals from large random samples are allowed versus not allowed to have mentors
are improbable, making this area of examination difficult.
Initial research on the temporal sequencing of mentoring and outcomes is
promising, although less than ten studies were found that analyzed whether
mentoring received at one point in time was correlated with outcomes at a later
point in time. As an illustration of this type of longitudinal research, Orpen
(1995) found that the level of career coaching reported by new workers at six
months of tenure was related to the number of promotions and salary growth over
their first four years. Donaldson, Ensher and Grant-Vallone (2000) found that
high quality mentoring relationships measured at Time 1 were correlated with
organizational commitment and self-reported level of organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCB) reported six months later. Silverhart (1994) found that new life
insurance agents who reported having a mentor in their agency during their first
few months of work were more likely still to be with the organization at the end
of the first year, to have sold more policies during that year, and to have higher
confidence in their ability to succeed. Finally, controlling for protégé gender,
race, firm tenure, and firm orientation activities, Higgins and Thomas (2001)
found that the organizational level of an individual’s set of developmental rela-
tionships measured at Time 1 was related to promotion to partner measured seven
years later.
While there is budding evidence that being a protégé precedes positive
outcomes, alternative or spurious explanations for the outcomes have not been
sufficiently examined. For example, while Dreher and Ash (1990) concluded
that individuals who reported receiving higher levels of mentoring had higher
levels of income (e.g. each unit of increase in mentoring was associated with an
increase in pay of $3,236), it is possible that only a small component of this higher
income should be attributed to the mentoring process. Although the researchers
statistically controlled for a number of demographic, career history, and situational
variables, it is possible that a substantial component of the income differential
was due to individual characteristics that were not examined, such as achievement
motivation, job performance, cognitive ability or emotional intelligence. Talented
individuals who possess drive and commitment to their profession, career, and
organization, and who are good at developing social networks may be both more
likely to get a mentor and to experience career success.
The well-established linkages between ability, conscientiousness, motivation,
and job performance (Sackett, Gruys & Ellingson, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998)
and between ability, motivation, and objective career success (Tharenou, 1997)
support the need for research that carefully examines the association of mentoring
to career success outcomes above and beyond protégé ability, motivation, and
other individual characteristics such as protégé personality and job performance.
Only one study focused on mentoring outcomes was found that controlled for
aspects of both protégé ability and motivation (Green & Bauer, 1995). These
authors observed a significant zero-order correlation between career mentoring
and publications, but this relationship was not significant in a multivariate context
where graduate student ability (i.e. verbal and quantitative GRE scores) and
commitment (i.e. toward the graduate program and to a research career) were
controlled. A minority of others have controlled only for aspects of ability (e.g.
Godshalk & Sosik, in press, through college GPA and GMAT scores; and Laband
& Lentz, 1995, through rankings of graduation status and LSAT scores) or
have included proxies for motivation such as work centrality, desire for upward
mobility, and number of hours worked per week (e.g. Aryee, Wyatt & Stone, 1996;
Johnson & Scandura, 1994; Wallace, 2001; Wayne, Liden, Kraimer & Graf, 1999;
Whitely & Coetsier, 1993; Whitely et al., 1991, 1992). Controls for other relevant
individual characteristics, such as job performance, that may be associated with
both the receipt of more mentoring and with career success have also been rare.
Another issue that limits the ability to understand the unique contribution of
mentoring to career outcomes is the literature’s reliance on protégé self-reports.
Single source methodology may inflate correlations. For example, it is possible
that individuals with high negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984) are both
more likely to report: (a) “no one has helped me with my career”; and (b)
“I dislike my job.” One of the few multi-source studies found that quality of
mentoring relationship was related to protégé self-reported level of OCB but
not to co-worker reported level of protégé OCB (Donaldson et al., 2000). We
recognize the value of self-report data and the argument that the self sometimes
is in the best position to report his or her own behavior or experience, especially
on subjective outcomes such as job, career, and life satisfaction; organizational
commitment; and intention to turnover (Howard, 1994), but additional sources of
information would contribute to the literature.
New areas of research. While the question of whether mentoring leads to positive
outcomes is the primary focus of the protégé outcome literature, recent research has
begun to address other questions. These include how (through what mechanisms)
the mentoring process impacts outcomes, how having more than one mentor might
impact outcomes, and what negative, rather than positive, experiences may occur
within mentoring relationships. To date, the mechanisms through which mentoring
works (i.e. whether there are any mediators or moderators between mentoring
and distal outcomes like job satisfaction) have not been well examined; very few
studies were found looking at this issue. Day and Allen (2002) examined whether
career motivation and self-efficacy mediated the relationship between mentoring
provided and protégé outcomes. They found that career motivation fully mediated
the relationship between career mentoring received and self-reported performance
effectiveness, but they found only partial support for self-efficacy as a mediator
of this relationship. In a second study, Lankau and Scandura (2002) found that
protégé learning mediated the relationship between mentoring functions and role
ambiguity and job satisfaction.
The impact of having more than one mentor on outcomes is also being
examined. While findings are mixed, it does appear that having a set of mentors is
related to a number of positive outcomes for protégés. For example, Higgins and
Thomas (2001) found that for intention to remain and work satisfaction, the quality
and character of lawyers’ multiple developmental relationships explained variance
above and beyond that explained by their primary mentor. Using the same sample,
Higgins (2000) found that more mentoring relationships and more mentoring
received were correlated with higher work satisfaction. Baugh and Scandura
(1999) found that number of mentors was related to enhanced career expectations,
and lower work role ambiguity. Finally, Peluchette and Jeanquart (2000) found that
early in faculty members’ careers having mentors from multiple sources was posi-
tively related to both objective and subjective career success and that in mid-career
it was related to objective success. However, Riley and Wrench (1985) did not
find a significant difference between female lawyers who had a group of mentors
and those who had not had mentors in terms of perceived success or satisfaction.
However, having a single, primary mentor may have some advantages over
having multiple mentors. For example, Baugh and Scandura (1999) found that
having more than one mentor was related to increased role conflict possibly due to
conflicting advice given by different mentors. Similarly, Fagan and Walter (1982)
found that having multiple mentors was related to higher job burnout for a sample
of police, nurses and teachers when compared to individuals without a mentor
and individuals with only one mentor. Higgins (2000) also found that having
one person who provided high levels of psychosocial support was more highly
related to work satisfaction than any other combination of number of mentors and
level of support. Finally, Riley and Wrench (1985) compared female lawyers that
reported receiving at least a given level of career mentoring from one mentor to
those that reported receiving at least that same level of career mentoring from two
or more supportive individuals. This study showed that the lawyers who received
support from two or more individuals had lower levels of general satisfaction than
those with one mentor.
Empirical research has also begun to attend more closely to the possibility
that negative experiences occur in mentoring relationships. Two empirical studies
were identified that explicitly examined negative or dysfunctional experiences of
mentoring. In a study of 50 faculty, graduate and undergraduate students where 26
reported some type of conflict or hurt resulting from their relationship with their
mentor (Kalbfleisch, 1997), 16 conflict events were identified and categorized
using factor analysis. This factor analysis found four types of conflict events:
disagreement (e.g. the mentor and protégé disagreed on ideas), embarrassment
(e.g. mentor embarrassed or criticized the protégé), negativity (e.g. mentor said the
protégé made the mentor look bad), and request (e.g. the mentor asked the protégé
for help on a project). Similarly, in a study of 156 protégés where 84 reported at least
one negative mentoring relationship, Eby, McManus, Simon and Russell (2000)
developed a taxonomy of negative mentoring experiences by performing a content
analysis of responses to questions about protégés most negative mentoring experi-
ences. The taxonomy consists of five broad categories including, from most to least
common, problems with mentor/protégé match (i.e. dissimilar values, working
styles and personalities), mentor distancing behavior (i.e. neglect of the protégé or
focus on outcomes for his/herself rather than for the protégé), mentor manipulative
behavior (i.e. use of inappropriate power, taking inappropriate credit, or deception
of the protégé), lack of mentor expertise (i.e. lack of interpersonal or technical
competence), and general dysfunctionality (i.e. the mentor had a negative attitude
and/or personal problems). While these categorizations are helpful, since both
studies found that over 50% of the participants reported having at least one neg-
ative experience or relationship at some time point (Eby et al., 2000; Kalbfleisch,
1997), they are only a starting point and research examining the antecedents
and the consequences of dysfunctional experiences in mentoring relationships
is still required.
Mentor Outcomes
Whether mentors receive positive outcomes from mentoring has also been a ques-
tion of interest. In their seminal book on adult development, Levinson, Darrow,
Klein, Levinson and McKee (1978) stated, “There is a measure of altruism in men-
toring . . . But much more than altruism is involved: the mentor is doing something
for himself. He is making productive use of his own knowledge and skill in middle
age. He is learning in ways not otherwise possible” (p. 253). Similarly, in her
well-known book on mentoring, Kram (1985b) suggested, “While helping a young
adult establish a place in the adult world of work, an individual benefits from
providing support and guidance. Through helping others, a mentor gains internal
satisfaction, (and) respect for his or her capabilities as teacher and advisor” (p. 3).
While positive outcomes have been proposed for mentors, only a few studies have
empirically examined these outcomes. From these studies it does appear that being
a mentor is related to positive outcomes, although the effect size is not known.
Studies on mentor outcomes have rarely focused on the types of outcomes
examined among protégés, such as to what extent mentoring leads to improved
mentor compensation and promotions. Only two studies with a total sample of less
than 500 individuals have examined these more distal types of outcomes. In the
first study, faculty indicated that being a mentor positively affected their career sat-
isfaction (Johnson, Yust & Fritchie, 2001). In the second, individuals who had been
mentors had higher levels of self-reported career success and career satisfaction,
as well as higher incomes (Collins, 1994). Limitations in this research are similar
to those within the protégé research, as we cannot separate the impact of men-
toring on these outcomes versus the impact of other, pre-existing characteristics
of the mentor.
Instead, studies on mentor outcomes have typically focused on documenting
“mentoring benefits,” and have found that mentors receive both intrinsic (e.g.
personal satisfaction when helping others) and extrinsic (e.g. more supporters in
the organization) benefits. From interviews with over 100 executives, Zey (1984)
recognized four categories of benefits that mentors receive: career enhancement,
intelligence/information, advisory role (where the protégé advises the mentor)
and psychic rewards. Similarly, from her interviews with mentors, Kram (1985b)
identified three categories of benefits for mentors: confirmation and support from
the protégé, intrinsic satisfaction for helping a younger person develop, and
recognition and respect from others. Expanding on these benefit categories, Allen,
Poteet and Burroughs (1997) distilled the benefits that 27 mentors reported during
interviews into four categories: builds a support network (e.g. develops close
relationships that may result in future benefit for the mentor), self-satisfaction
(e.g. a general satisfaction in helping others), job-related self-focused (e.g. helps
increase mentor’s learning, visibility, or recognition) and job-related other-focused
(e.g. helps to develop a competent workforce). These categories incorporate all
of the benefits discussed by Zey (1984) and Kram (1985b), and introduce one
category they did not identify, “job-related other-focused.”
Support for Allen, Poteet and Burrough’s (1997) categorization comes from re-
search that has looked at mentor benefits. Protégés have cited loyalty to the mentor
(Burke, 1984) and mentors have listed professional and personal support (Busch,
1985) as benefits for mentors engaged in mentoring, examples of Allen, Poteet and
Burrough’s (1997) “builds a support network” category. Protégés (Burke, 1984)
and mentors (Busch, 1985) listed a sense of pride in seeing individuals develop
as a benefit for mentors, and executives agreed mentoring was a “rewarding

experience” (Ragins & Scandura, 1999), examples of the “self-satisfaction”
category. Examples of the “job-related self-focused” category are found relatively
frequently in the mentoring literature. For instance, Burke (1984) found that
protégés mentioned “effectively performing subordinates . . . the perspective and
energetic drive of youth . . . and recognition by others for effective mentoring”
(p. 361) as benefits for mentors. In addition, Mullen and Noe (1999) found that
mentors and protégés agreed that mentors sought and received technical, referent
and normative information, job performance and social feedback from their
protégés, and Busch (1985) found that mentors believed that mentoring enhanced
their own careers by motivating them to keep up to date with their field. Finally,
Ragins and Scandura (1999) found that executives agreed that being a mentor
improved their job performance. No support for the “job-related other-focused”
benefit category was found, although this may be because these benefits are often
attributed to the organization rather than the mentor.
Allen, Poteet and Burrough’s (1997) also identified four negative aspects of
mentoring: time requirements, favoritism issues (e.g. it can feel uncomfortable
to pay special attention to one particular person), abusive relationships (e.g. the
protégé could use the relationship in a destructive fashion), and feelings of failure
if the relationship did not go well. These are similar to problems previously
identified by Zey (1984), although he also identified risk to the mentor’s reputation
and exposure of self (i.e. mentors must share their experiences including their
mistakes) as issues for mentors.
Based upon the small body of research that has examined the mentor’s perspec-
tive, it appears that mentors do receive benefits from being a mentor. However,
there also appear to be drawbacks to the relationship that must be considered.
Whether mentoring translates into outcomes for mentors similar to those examined
for protégés is not clear from the scant evidence currently available.
Organization Outcomes
The organizational outcomes of mentoring stem from mentor and protégé
outcomes. As such, outcomes relevant to the organization have received attention
at an individual level of analysis via the research focused on protégé and mentor
outcomes. Very little attention has been given to mentoring at an organizational, or
aggregate, level of analysis, however. For example, do companies where mentor-
ing is frequent have higher retention rates? Are these companies more successful
by other measures? Zey’s (1984) interviews with over 100 executives provide an
important preliminary insight into possible organizational level outcomes. Based
on the interviews, Zey (1984) identified seven organizational outcomes of mentor-
ing: employee integration, reduction in turnover, organizational communication,
management development, managerial succession, productivity and socialization

to power.
Research Priorities: Mentoring Outcomes

We see five critical priorities for research on mentoring outcomes. First, and
foremost, researchers must differentiate between individuals with formal and
informal mentors in their research. To the extent that formal mentoring is different
from informal mentoring, outcomes may be biased or unclear when individuals
with both types of mentors are included in a study without distinction. Second,
future research on mentoring outcomes should carefully examine the extent
to which mentoring contributes to career success outcomes above and beyond
pre-existing protégé characteristics. Both longitudinal research and the careful
use of relevant control variables will be useful in this regard.
Third, more research examining the mechanisms through which mentoring
is related to positive outcomes is required. The mentoring literature would
benefit from a clearer delineation of factors that mediate the relationship between
mentoring received and more distal outcomes, such as increased compensation or
promotions. We will propose a framework of proximal and distal outcomes in the
second half of this paper. This progression of “digging deeper” into a criterion
space is almost identical to that which has occurred in the socialization literature
after Saks and Ashforth (1997) made a similar call for the distinction between prox-
imal and distal outcomes of socialization and the understanding of the mediational
paths.
A fourth area where more work is needed is in the area of mentor and organiza-
tional outcomes. For example, little is currently known about what work-related
outcomes, such as improved job performance, if any, that mentors receive from
mentoring. In addition, research that examines exactly what organizations gain
from mentoring and the size of that gain is needed, with careful attention paid
to levels of analysis issues. Finally, continued research examining the impact of
multiple mentors and possible negative experiences that stem from mentoring
would also be highly useful.
Mentoring and Diversity
Diversity and mentoring have been the focus of considerable research attention.
In this section, research on the role of gender and race in mentoring is reviewed,
combining findings from research focused on protégés, mentors, and dyads to
address critical questions raised in the literature. In a following section, we
expand this discussion into a deeper understanding of underlying individual and
job/career history characteristics of the protégé and mentor that are associated
with mentoring received.
Mentoring and Gender

Driven by the search to understand the glass ceiling phenomenon in organizations,
mentoring and gender have received substantial attention. Indeed, our literature
search identified over 50 articles and two recent, comprehensive reviews (O’Neill,
2002; Ragins, 1999) on this topic. The logic underlying the possible connection
between mentoring and the glass ceiling is that women may be at a disadvantage
in their careers in comparison to men if they are less likely to obtain a mentor, or
if when they are mentored, the nature of that mentoring is different and leads to
different outcomes. Compelling questions have been investigated in this literature,
including: (1) do women report having had fewer mentors than men?; (2) when in
a mentoring relationship do women receive different types or levels of mentoring
than men?; and (3) do women reap fewer benefits from mentoring than men?
An initial question is whether women are less likely to have mentors than men.
One proposition is that women may encounter more barriers to obtaining a mentor
than men and may, therefore, be less likely to have a mentor (Noe, 1988b; Ragins,
1989). However, Ragins’ (1999) conclusion, based on her recent review in this
area, is that most research has found that women are as likely to report that they
have had a mentor as men. Ragins’ conclusion has been supported by research
that has become available since the writing of her review (e.g. see Hubbard &
Robinson, 1998; McGuire, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Witt Smith, Smith &
Markham, 2000). For example, in a study of administrators at institutions of higher
education, women actually were more likely to have had a mentor early in their
career than men (Hubbard & Robinson, 1998).
A second salient question in this literature addresses whether women who
are in a mentoring relationship receive different amounts or kinds of mentoring
than men. Differences may occur because women require different functions to
succeed in organizations or because women are more likely to be in cross-gender
relationships and, given the dynamics of these relationships, less mentoring
may be provided (Ragins, 1997). Research in this area has not been definitive
(Ragins, 1999). For example, some studies have found that women receive
different amounts of career-related mentoring than men, with some finding that
women receive less than men (Koberg, Boss, Chappell & Ringer, 1994; McGuire,
1999) and one finding that women receive more than men (Sosik & Godshalk,
2000b), while others have not found a difference (Burke, 1984; Burke, McKeen
& McKenna, 1990; Noe, 1988a; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins & McFarlin,
1990; Scandura & Williams, 2001; Thomas, 1990; Turban & Dougherty, 1994;
Witt Smith et al., 2000). In addition, some studies have found that women receive
higher levels of psychosocial mentoring than men (Burke, 1984; McGuire, 1999;
Noe, 1988a), while others have not found a difference (Koberg et al., 1998; Ragins
& McFarlin, 1990; Scandura & Williams, 2001; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000b;
Thomas, 1990; Turban & Dougherty, 1994; Witt Smith et al., 2000). Finally, one
study found that women receive more role modeling than men (Sosik & Godshalk,
2000b), while others have not found a difference (Burke, 1984; Ragins & Cotton,
1999; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990; Scandura & Williams, 2001).
Because of these conflicting findings, research has examined whether there are
moderators to the relationship between protégé gender and mentoring received.
Specifically, are there certain conditions under which women receive different
types or levels of mentoring when compared to men? Initial research suggests
that the gender of the mentor, the duration of the relationship, and who initiated
the relationship show promise for further investigation. For example, Sosik and
Godshalk (2000b) found that female protégés with male mentors reported more
career development functions than female protégés with female mentors, and
Ragins and Cotton (1999) found that female protégés with female mentors tended
to engage in more social activities with their mentor than did female protégés with
male mentors. Turban, Dougherty and Lee (2002) found that the duration of the
mentoring relationship moderated the level of functions received when comparing
mixed gender and same gender dyads in a graduate school setting. Specifically,
same gender dyads when compared to mixed gender dyads initially had higher
levels of exposure, visibility and sponsorship, psychosocial mentoring, and
protection. As the relationship progressed, however, the levels of these functions
increased in mixed gender dyads to the point that higher levels were eventually
found in mixed gender dyads than in same gender dyads. Finally, Scandura and
Williams (2001) found that who initiated the relationship moderated the quantity of
mentoring received when comparing male and female protégés. Female protégés
reported more mentoring than male protégés when either the mentor or both the
protégé and the mentor initiated the relationship, but less when the protégé initiated
the relationship.
A third important question is whether women reap fewer objective or subjective
work-related outcomes from mentoring (e.g. job satisfaction, promotions) than
men. Most of the research to date has not found differences between outcomes for
male and female protégés (Ragins, 1999). Research is suggestive of the possibility,
however, that mentor gender may be important to consider. For example, Ragins
and Cotton (1999) found that having prior male mentors was related to higher
compensation levels. Similarly, two studies found that female protégés with male
mentors earned significantly more (Wallace, 2001) or had higher career attainment
scores, a combination of compensation and position prestige (Bahniuk, Hill &
Darus, 1996), than female protégés with female mentors.
The combination of mentor gender with mentor race has also found to be
associated with protégé compensation. Dreher and Cox (1996) and Dreher
and Chargois (1998) found that protégés with Caucasian male mentors were
compensated more than individuals without mentors, but that there was no
statistical difference between protégés with other types of mentors and individuals
without mentors. These results are supported by a study of health care executives
which found that protégés with white male mentors had higher salaries than
protégés with other types of mentors (Weil & Kimball, 1996).
A strong caveat to this discussion is that studies examining compensation did
not consider other important explanatory variables in their analyses. One possible
explanation for the difference between having a male and a female mentor may be
that female mentors are, on average, at lower levels of the organization than male
mentors given that women are under-represented at senior organizational levels
(Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). The organizational level of mentors
likely impacts the amount of power that mentors have and their ability to influence
outcomes and provide rewards, like compensation, for their protégés, so it is an
important variable to control for when looking at differences in compensation.
Only one study (Dreher & Cox, 1996) partially considered this explanation,
although they looked at the difference in levels between the protégé and the
mentor, rather than the absolute level of the mentor.
In conclusion, it does not appear that women report having had fewer mentors
than men. In contrast, we cannot definitively answer whether women in mentoring
relationships receive different amounts or kinds of mentoring functions than men
because of inconsistent research findings. Finally, the answer to whether women
gain fewer benefits than men from mentoring is unclear. It does appear that there
may be a difference between compensation for protégés based upon the gender or
the race and gender of the mentor, but we do not know why this occurs or whether
there are differences for other outcome variables.
Mentoring and Race

Paralleling the impact of the glass ceiling in organizations for women, few mi-
norities hold top positions in organizations (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission,
1995). This has led researchers to ask questions (similar to those asked for
gender and mentoring) about the role of mentoring and career success among
minorities in organizations. Critical questions that have been posed include: (1)
do minorities report having had fewer mentors than Caucasians?; (2) when in
a mentoring relationship do minorities receive different amounts or kinds of
mentoring than Caucasians?; and (3) do minorities reap fewer career-related
benefits from mentoring than Caucasians? While there has been considerable
research dedicated to understanding the relationship between mentoring and
gender, less research has focused on mentoring and race. We found less than 20
empirical studies looking at race, compared to over 50 looking at gender.
One basic question is whether minorities are less likely to have a mentor
than Caucasians. Most studies have found that minorities are not less likely than
Caucasians to have a mentor (Dreher & Cox, 1996; Greenhaus, Parasuraman &
Wormley, 1990; McGuire, 1999; Mobley, Jaret, Marsh & Lim, 1994; Steinberg &
Foley, 1999; Thomas, 1990; Witt Smith et al., 2000). The samples from these stud-
ies were quite diverse, including MBA alumni (Dreher & Cox, 1996), managers
(Greenhaus et al., 1990; Thomas, 1990), managers and non-managers (McGuire,
1999), Army personnel (Steinberg & Foley, 1999), professionals (Mobley et al.,
1994) and university faculty (Witt Smith et al., 2000), lending generalizability
to the conclusion. However, one study did find that African-American public
accounting employees were less likely to have informal mentors than Caucasians
(Viator, 2001b). There are two possible explanations for this finding. First, as
suggested by the author, this may be a special case due to the extreme lack of
African-Americans at senior levels in public accounting firms. Second, given that
this study distinguished between formal and informal mentors and found that
African-Americans were more likely to have formal mentors than Caucasians
but less likely to have informal mentors, this finding may reflect the lack of clear
delineation between formal and informal mentors in the majority of the literature.
A second important question is whether minorities report receiving different
types and levels of mentoring functions. In terms of overall levels of mentoring
received, we can not draw any conclusions as there has been little research
focused on this question and results to date have been inconsistent. While two
studies found that African-Americans and Caucasians received similar amounts
of mentoring (Blake-Beard, 1999; Steinberg & Foley, 1999), one study found that
minorities received less mentoring (Cox & Nkomo, 1991).
In terms of specific mentoring functions received, studies have generally found
that minorities do not report less career mentoring than Caucasians. The majority
of the studies that have investigated the amount of career functions received
by protégés have either found no difference between Caucasian and African-
American protégés (Thomas, 1990; Viator, 2001b) or no difference between
homogeneous dyads and heterogeneous dyads, regardless of the gender-race mix
(Witt Smith et al., 2000). In fact, one study found that minorities actually received
more career mentoring than Caucasians (Koberg et al., 1994).
It is not clear whether there is a difference in terms of psychosocial mentoring
received, because research results are varied. Two studies found that minorities
reported receiving either less psychosocial support (Koberg et al., 1998) or less
social support (Viator, 2001b) than Caucasians, but Thomas (1990) found that
protégé race was not related to receipt of psychosocial mentoring. At the dyad
level, two studies have found that protégés in same race dyads reported higher
levels of psychosocial functions than protégés in cross race dyads (Koberg et al.,
1998; Thomas, 1990). These findings are supported by Viator’s (2001b) results that
African-American mentors provided more social support and role modeling than
other mentors to African-American protégés. However, Witt Smith et al. (2000)
did not find any difference in the amount of psychosocial support reported in dyads
that were homogeneous in terms of gender and race compared to heterogeneous
dyads.
A final critical question is whether minorities receive fewer objective or
subjective work-related outcomes from mentoring than Caucasians. Similar to
the finding for gender and mentoring, research is suggestive of the possibility
that the combination of mentor race and gender may be important to consider. As
discussed above, studies have found that Caucasian male mentors are associated
with higher compensation for protégés, when compared to protégés with other
types of mentors and to individuals without mentors (Dreher & Chargois, 1998;
Dreher & Cox, 1996; Weil & Kimball, 1996). A caveat to these findings is
that we cannot assume a causal relationship as the studies did not control for
important alternative explanatory variables, such as the mentor’s level in the
organization.
Race differences in other objective and subjective outcomes have been
examined in a limited number of studies, yielding inconsistent results. In an
analysis of university faculty, mentoring was significantly related to subjective
outcomes of intent to turnover and affective commitment for Caucasians (Witt
Smith et al., 2000) but not for minorities. However, in a study that looked at
networking groups and African-American MBA alumni, Friedman, Kane and
Cornfield (1998) found that having a mentor was significantly related to career
optimism for these African-Americans. In addition, Blake-Beard (1999) found
that for satisfaction with career progress, which was associated with mentoring,
there was no significant difference between Caucasian and African-American
female protégés.
In conclusion, it does not appear that minorities report having had fewer
mentors than Caucasians, although minorities may have had fewer informal
mentors. In terms of amounts or kinds of mentoring, it appears from a limited
number of studies that there may be no difference between Caucasians and
minorities in the level of career-related mentoring reported, although results for
psychosocial mentoring are mixed and so no conclusion can be drawn. Finally, the
answer to whether minorities gain fewer benefits than Caucasians from mentoring
is unclear. It does appear that there may be a difference between compensation
for protégés based upon the race and gender of the mentor, but we do not know
why this occurs or whether there are differences for other outcome variables.
Research Priorities: Mentoring and Diversity

Diversity has primarily been examined in terms of gender and race in the mentoring
literature. While other types of diversity may be interesting to study, including age
and sexual orientation, more mentoring research examining gender and race is still
necessary. For mentoring and gender, targeted research is needed that focuses on
whether there is a link between gender and outcomes such as compensation, and
why such linkages may occur. More research on moderators of gender/mentoring
relationships is especially appealing. Are there situations or conditions under
which one gender receives less mentoring than another? When conducting this
research, potentially confounding factors that correlate with gender, and may be
the underlying cause of any differences that might be found, must be carefully
considered. For example, as O’Neill (2002) stated in her review of gender and
race in mentoring, “what appear(s) to be stereotypical gender differences may
be misleading when the mentor’s gender is confounded with other factors, such
as rank” (p. 7).
Given the paucity of research on mentoring and race, the first and most
important research priority is more research. Questions requiring further research
include whether minorities receive equivalent mentoring to Caucasians, and
whether the outcomes of mentoring are different for minorities and Caucasians.
In this context, researchers must attend to three critical issues. First, researchers
must differentiate between formal and informal mentoring. It is possible that the
proportion of formal mentoring relationships to total mentoring relationships is
higher for minorities than for Caucasians and this difference may distort empirical
results. Second, it is important that racial groups in addition to African-Americans
be examined. Most research to date has studied African-Americans (Blake-Beard,
1999; Bridges & Perotti, 1993; Cox & Nkomo, 1991; Dreher & Chargois, 1998;
Friedman et al., 1998; Greenhaus et al., 1990; Kalbfleisch & Davies, 1991;
Steinberg & Foley, 1999; Thomas, 1990; Viator, 2001b; Weil & Kimball, 1996).
Only one study was found that examined Asians (Goto, 1999), two looked at
minority groups separately (Dreher & Cox, 1996; Koberg et al., 1998) and two
used a variety of groupings depending on the analysis being conducted (Turban
et al., 2002; Witt Smith et al., 2000). Some studies combined different minorities
into one group (see Koberg et al., 1994; McGuire, 1999; Mobley et al., 1994;
Turban et al., 2002; Witt Smith et al., 2000). Although we recognize the difficulty
of finding sufficient samples of minorities to study, it should be recognized that
the experiences of minority groups may not be similar. Finally, when conducting
this research, potentially confounding factors that correlate with race (e.g. orga-
nizational level of protégé), and may be the underlying cause of any differences
that might be found, must be carefully considered to help understand why any
differences appear.
Other Correlates of Mentoring
Researchers have investigated an informative array of protégé and mentor char-

acteristics as predictors of mentoring in addition to gender and race. Consistent
with other research on mentoring, more attention has been devoted to protégé
characteristics than mentor characteristics.
Protégé Characteristics
Knowledge of how protégé characteristics influence mentoring informs our under-
standing of the development and process of mentoring relationships. From a prac-
tical vantage point, this information may be useful in identifying employees who
will flourish as protégés or in assisting employees who may find it challenging to es-
tablish and maintain productive mentoring relationships. Questions about protégé
characteristics that have been investigated include: (1) what motivates individuals
to seek mentors?; (2) what characteristics do mentors seek in protégés?; (3) what
differentiates individuals who have mentors from those who don’t?; and (4) how are
protégé characteristics related to mentoring received? Table 3 provides examples of
the many protégé characteristics that have been studied across these four questions
and introduces the general rationale for considering each variable for inclusion in
the nomological network of mentoring. It should be noted that data for some of
these variables (i.e. demographics and job/career history) have been included as
control variables in several studies, rather than their being the focus of research.
Characteristics associated with motivation to seek mentors. Relatively little

research has been directed towards the first issue – understanding employees’
motivation to seek out mentors. Initial research indicated having a mentor was a
universal task of early adulthood (Levinson et al., 1978), suggesting there were not
individual differences in motivation to be a protégé. Darling (1986) reported being
surprised when her interviews with successful business people revealed that some
individuals were not interested in having a mentor. She determined individuals
without mentors often had childhood experiences with adults marked by a lack
of trust, respect, and/or relevance. Consistent with these findings, Kram (1988)
suggested a number of variables that might affect the kind of developmental
relationships individuals sought, including attitudes towards authority, conflict,
and intimacy; values about work and learning; and self-competence perceptions.
More recently, a few quantitative studies have investigated how personality traits,
demographic characteristics, and job/career history variables relate to motivation
to find a mentor.
Two studies were located that examined how personality traits are related to
behaviors directed towards initiating mentoring relationships (Aryee, Lo & Kang,
Mentoring Research
Table 3. Hypotheses on Protégé Characteristics and Mentoring: A Summary of the Informal Mentoring Literature.
Protégé Characteristic Hypothesis Sample Researchers Research Volumea
Competence Social exchange theory: Working with a more competent protégé has more Olian, Carroll and Giannantonio Small
short- and long-term benefits. (1993)
Personality traits
Negative affectivity Those high in negative affectivity will attempt to avoid the stress and tension Turban and Dougherty (1994) Minimal
likely to arise during the challenging opportunities provided by mentors.
Extraversion Due to their proactivity and sociability, those high in extraversion will be Aryee, Lo and Kang (1999) Minimal
more involved in mentoring relationships.
Self-monitoring High self-monitors will be more aware of the value of mentoring for career Turban and Dougherty (1994) Minimal
success.
Type A personality Their drive to excel will lead those with a Type A personality to have Aryee et al. (1999) Minimal
mentoring relationships.
Locus of control Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to perceive that they Colarelli and Bishop (1990) Minimal
can improve their skills.
Need for affiliation Mentoring relationships provide the opportunity to affiliate. Fagenson (1992) Minimal
Need for autonomy Protégés depend upon their mentors. Fagenson (1992) Minimal
Need for achievement Mentoring relationships are instrumental for achievement. Fagenson (1992) Minimal
Need for power Mentoring relationships are an avenue for attaining power. Fagenson (1992) Minimal
Femininity Data on mentoring and gender roles available from research on gender Kirchmeyer (1998, 2002) Minimal
differences in career progression.
Masculinity Data on mentoring and gender roles available from research on gender Kirchmeyer (1998, 2002) Minimal
differences in career progression.
Self-esteem Individuals high in self-esteem will have the confidence to handle the Turban and Dougherty (1994) Minimal
challenging opportunities provided by mentors.
Learning goal orientation Stronger learning goal orientation will be associated with greater appreciation Godshalk and Sosik (in press) Minimal
of mentor functions and enhanced motivation to learn from the mentor.
Attitudes Individuals whose work and careers are more important to their identity will Aryee, Wyatt and Stone (1996) Small
be more involved at work and in mentoring.
Demographics
Marital status Greater work-life conflict will limit married individuals’ capacity to Olian et al. (1993) Small
participate in mentoring relationships.
63
64
Table 3. (Continued )
Protégé Characteristic Hypothesis Sample Researchers Research Volumea
Education Education credentials may be used as a proxy for potential in allocating Whitely, Dougherty and Dreher Moderately large
scarce developmental resources. (1992)
Individuals with more education will be more involved in their jobs. Koberg, Boss, Chappell and
Ringer (1994)
Age Younger employees are less experienced and want more mentoring to address Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio and Large
feelings of insecurity. Ferren (1988)
Informal norms discourage older employees from being protégés. Whitely et al. (1992)
SES Perceived similarity encourages senior managers to work with protégés of Whitely et al. (1992) Small
higher SES.
Job/career history
Tenure Primarily studied as a control variable; by definition those with greater Fagenson (1989) Moderate
experience are less likely to need mentoring.
Organizational rank Negative, if the supply of mentors is smaller at higher levels. Whitely et al. (1992), Koberg Moderately large
Positive, if mentoring is a reward or if the need for mentoring is greater. et al. (1994)
Work experience By definition, less experienced employees should be more likely than those Olian et al. (1988) Moderate
with greater experience to be a protégé.
Continuity of work history Studied as a control variable. Dreher and Ash (1990) Moderate
Average hours worked Since it may be a proxy for drive to excel or job involvement, the same Whitely and Coetsier (1993), Small
arguments apply. Whitely et al. (1992)
a
This column is intended to provide readers with a sense of how much attention has been devoted to studying different characteristics, rather than give an exact count of
the number of independent samples. Categorization is based on the number of published studies on informal mentoring relationships that reported relationships between
the predictor variable and mentoring criteria: minimal (1–3 studies), small (4–9 studies), moderate (10–19 studies), moderately large (20–29 studies); large (30 or more
studies). A minimal number of studies included more than one independent sample; some samples were used in more than one study.
1999; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). Individuals with less negative affectivity,
greater extraversion, higher self-monitoring, a propensity towards Type A per-
sonality, and greater self-esteem were more likely to report performing behaviors
likely to lead to a mentoring relationship. Across the two studies, the relationship
between locus of control and initiating behaviors diverged. Multivariate analyses
suggested initiating behaviors mediate the relationship between personality traits
and mentoring received (Aryee et al., 1999; Turban & Dougherty, 1994).
A few studies have scrutinized how demographics relate to employees’
motivation to be a protégé. Based on one study, it appears that employees who
are not married put more effort into initiating mentoring relationships (Turban &
Dougherty, 1994). Evidence on whether education is associated with initiating be-
haviors is mixed, with no relationship reported in one study (Turban & Dougherty,
1994) and better educated individuals reporting more initiating behaviors in
another (Aryee et al., 1999). The relationship between age and motivation to
seek a mentor is also ambiguous. Age does not appear to be related to fears
about initiating a mentoring relationship, perceptions of others’ willingness to
provide mentoring, or concerns about how others’ view the relationship (Burke &
McKeen, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1991). However, despite experimental evidence
that younger individuals find having a mentor more appealing (Olian, Carroll,
Giannantonio & Feren, 1988), a single study found older employees report more
behaviors directed towards initiating mentoring relationships (Aryee et al., 1999).
This study also suggested SES is not related to initiating behaviors. Based on this
body of research, it is difficult to firmly connect many demographic characteristics
of employees with their motivation to have mentors.
Researchers also have explored the link between employees’ career or job history
variables and their motivation to be protégés. Ragins and Cotton (1991) found em-
ployees with more organizational tenure and higher rank perceived fewer barriers
to gaining access to mentors. On the other hand, neither tenure nor rank was asso-
ciated with fears about initiating relationships. Unexpectedly, a couple of studies
found work experience was not related to interest in having a mentor (Olian et al.,
1988) or attempts to initiate mentoring relationships (Turban & Dougherty, 1994).
In conclusion, preliminary evidence seems to suggest there are individual
differences in motivation to seek a mentor. Based on only single studies, some
employee attributes have not been linked to efforts to find a mentor (e.g. SES, work
experience). Other research has found personality traits (i.e. negative affectivity,
extraversion, self-monitoring, Type A personality, and self-esteem) and one
demographic variable (i.e. marital status) account for variance in behaviors
directed towards initiating informal mentoring relationships. Two studies suggest
these behaviors mediate the relationship between employee personality traits and
mentoring received.
Protégé characteristics sought by mentors. Researchers have devoted relatively

little attention to identifying the attributes mentors seek in protégés. Based on an
analysis of interviews with 27 mentors, Allen, Poteet and Borroughs (1997) iden-
tified six higher-order factors that attract mentors to protégés. Mentors look for
protégés who are competent, motivated, display a strong learning orientation, and
have certain personality traits (e.g. people-oriented, honest, confident, dependable,
patient, and flexible). In addition, employees who arouse mentors’ desire to
help and remind mentors of themselves are appealing as protégés. In a second
study, Allen and her colleagues (Allen, Poteet & Russell, 2000) found mentors
(particularly female mentors) were more likely to base their selection of protégés
on perceived ability and motivation than on perceived need for help. An exper-
iment supports the importance of employees’ competence in their attractiveness
to potential mentors. Bank managers anticipated greater rewards and indicated
greater interest in providing mentoring functions when a hypothetical scenario
described a high-performing, rather than a moderately-performing, potential
protégé (Olian, Carroll & Giannantonio, 1993). Another finding of this experiment
was that managers anticipated greater rewards and intended to provide more
career mentoring to married men and unmarried women.
Although there have been few studies conducted on the topic, ability and moti-
vation stand out as desirable protégé characteristics. Yet, mentors also seem to have
interest in working with protégés who need help, remind mentors of themselves,
have a strong learning orientation, and demonstrate key personality traits.
Characteristics differentiating employees with and without mentors. In attempting

to differentiate employees with and without mentors, researchers have investigated
a variety of variables. Factors that have not distinguished those with and without
mentors include early promotion rate (Fagenson, 1989), academic performance
in post-secondary school (Judge & Bretz, 1994; Laband & Lentz, 1995), LSAT
scores (Laband & Lentz, 1995), locus of control (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990), need
for affiliation, need for autonomy (Fagenson, 1992), femininity (Kirchmeyer,
1998, 2002), and career continuity (Judge & Bretz, 1994; Kirchmeyer, 1998). In
contrast, protégés appear to be higher on need for achievement, need for power
(Fagenson, 1992), and job involvement (Aryee & Chay, 1994). Job tenure may
have a weak, negative relationship with access to mentors (Judge & Bretz, 1994).
The relationship of masculinity – the constellation of attributes traditionally
comprising the male gender role (e.g. assertiveness, individualism, and instru-
mentality) – to having a mentor is unclear. Concurrent data suggests a positive
relationship, but longitudinal data indicates no relationship (Kirchmeyer, 1998,
2002). Evidence also is mixed regarding whether individuals with and without
mentors differ in terms of marital status (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990; Judge & Bretz,
1994; Kirchmeyer, 1998; Laband & Lentz, 1995), education (Colarelli & Bishop,
1990; Judge & Bretz, 1994; Lankau & Scandura, 2002), age (Broadbridge, 1999;
Colarelli & Bishop, 1990; Fagenson, 1989; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Nielson
et al., 2001; Ragins & Cotton, 1991; Ragins et al., 2000), SES (Dreher & Cox,
1996; Judge & Bretz, 1994), organizational tenure (Fagenson, 1989; Kirchmeyer,
1998; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Ragins & Cotton, 1991; Ragins et al., 2000),
organizational rank (Broadbridge, 1999; Fagan & Fagan, 1983; Fagan & Walter,
1982; Gaskill & Sibley, 1990; Ragins & Cotton, 1991; Ragins et al., 2000;
Steinberg & Foley, 1999; Viator & Scandura, 1991), work experience (Kirchmeyer,
1998; Laband & Lentz, 1995), and hours worked per week (Judge & Bretz, 1994;
Nielson et al., 2001).
In conclusion, demographic and job/career history variables do not consistently
seem to distinguish between employees with and without mentors. On the other
hand, a limited number of studies suggest protégés may differ from non-protégés
on a few personality traits (i.e. need for achievement and need for power), attitudes
(i.e. job involvement), and career/job history variables (i.e. job tenure).
Protégé characteristics and mentoring received. A relatively large proportion of

research on protégé characteristics has explored how these attributes relate to the
nature of mentoring received. A majority of these studies have been focused on
the level of mentoring functions received, but a few have investigated frequency
of mentor-protégé contact. Protégé attributes studied included individual differ-
ence variables, such as abilities, personality, and attitudes, as well as demographic
characteristics and job/career history variables.
The few studies examining the link between protégés’ competence and
mentoring functions received have obtained mixed results (Godshalk & Sosik, in
press; Mullen, 1998; Whitely et al., 1992). The inconsistencies may arise from
differences in how competency was conceptualized and measured. In one sample,
a moderate, positive correlation suggested protégés perceived as more competent
by their mentors tend to receive more mentoring functions (Mullen, 1998; Mullen
& Noe, 1999). In a second study, employees’ job search strategies – argued to be
an indicator of their interpersonal skills – were also positively and significantly
associated with career mentoring (Whitely et al., 1992), albeit weakly. On the
other hand, protégés’ scores on cognitive tests were not associated with mentoring
functions received (Godshalk & Sosik, in press).
Three studies examining the relationship between protégés’ personality traits
and mentoring functions received have found some meaningful relationships.
Higher protégé extraversion, greater self-esteem, less negative affectivity, and
Type A personality have been associated with receiving more of at least some
mentoring functions (Aryee et al., 1999; Turban & Dougherty, 1994). The
evidence on whether or not locus of control and self-monitoring are related to

mentoring functions has diverged across studies (Aryee et al., 1999; Turban &
Dougherty, 1994). Other traits, such as need for power, achievement, autonomy,
and affiliation were unrelated to mentoring functions and the frequency of mentor-
protégé interactions (Fagenson, 1992). In related research on mentoring and
individual differences, protégés higher on learning goal orientation received more
career, psychosocial, and role modeling functions (Godshalk & Sosik, in press).
A handful of studies have reported relationships between job attitudes and
mentoring received. Based on a single study, job involvement may have a
small, positive relationship with psychosocial functions (Koberg et al., 1998).
Four studies on the relationship between protégé attitudes (job involvement,
work centrality, and career identity salience) and career mentoring have yielded
diverging results (Aryee & Chay, 1994; Aryee, Wyatt & Stone, 1996; Cox &
Nkomo, 1991; Whitely et al., 1991).
More data are available on the relationship between demographic characteristics
and mentoring received. Based on five studies, it is unclear whether or not marital
status is related to the level of mentoring functions received (Burke & McKeen,
1996; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001; Turban & Dougherty,
1994; Whitely et al., 1991). A relatively large number of studies have investigated
the relationship between education and mentoring functions. Although there are
exceptions (e.g. Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000a, b), most
have found little relationship between protégés’ education level and the mentoring
functions they receive (e.g. Aryee, Wyatt & Stone, 1996; Lankau & Scandura,
2002; Lyness & Thompson, 2000; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993). This research,
however, often has been based on samples with restricted levels of education. One
study of more heterogeneous protégés reported education level had a small positive
relationship with psychosocial functions (Koberg et al., 1998). The relationship
between protégés’ age and mentoring functions has been studied relatively often,
but this research has yielded contradictory results. Although a number of studies
have found no relationship between age and mentoring functions (e.g. Blake-
Beard, 1999; Chao, 1997; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 1999; Scandura & Ragins, 1993),
at least five have reported older employees receive less of at least some mentoring
functions (e.g. Cox & Nkomo, 1991; Fagenson, 1992; Ragins & McFarlin, 1990;
Scandura & Williams, 2001; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000a). Several have indicated
the opposite (Aryee et al., 1999; Burke & McKeen, 1997). Note that if the
relationship between protégé age and mentoring functions received is, in fact,
curvilinear, the observed pattern of results might arise if the age ranges of protégés
varied across studies. Research on the relationship between age and the frequency
of mentor-protégé interactions also is divided (Fagenson, 1992; Mullen, 1998).
A few studies have examined how protégés’ SES relates to mentoring received.
Most (Aryee et al., 1999; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993; Whitely
et al., 1992), but not all (Blake-Beard, 1999), of this research suggests individuals
with higher SES receive more mentoring. In general, the relationships between
protégés’ demographic characteristics and mentoring received remain unclear.
A moderate proportion of the studies examining the question of how protégé
characteristics relate to mentoring received have scrutinized variables that are
a function of protégés’ job or career history. These variables include tenure,
rank, work experience, continuity of work history and average hours worked
per week. Research linking organizational tenure to mentoring functions has not
yielded completely consistent results. Although in more than half a dozen studies,
protégés’ organizational tenure has not been substantially associated with receiv-
ing mentoring (Aryee, Wyatt & Stone, 1996; Burke & McKeen, 1997; Fagenson,
1989; Koberg et al., 1994, 1998; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Lyness & Thompson,
2000), both significant positive and significant negative relationships have been
observed for at least some functions in other samples (Gilbert & Ivancevich, 1999;
Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Wayne et al., 1999). Among expatriates, assignment
tenure does not appear to be related to receiving mentoring (Bolino & Feldman,
2000). The relationship between protégés’ organizational rank and mentoring
functions also is unclear. A few studies have found protégés with higher rank
receive more career (Cox & Nkomo, 1991; Koberg et al., 1994; Whitely et al.,
1992) and psychosocial (Koberg et al., 1998) mentoring functions; others suggest
rank is unrelated to mentoring received (e.g. Bahniuk, Dobos & Hill, 1990; Bolino
& Feldman, 2000; Fagenson, 1992; Gaskill & Sibley, 1990; Ragins & McFarlin,
1990; Scandura & Ragins, 1993). One study of accountants found protégé rank was
unrelated to career mentoring, positively related to psychosocial mentoring, and
had a curvilinear relationship with role modeling (Barker et al., 1999). Research
relating work experience to mentoring functions also has been inconclusive.
Although the results of a few studies suggest protégés with more work experience
may receive fewer career mentoring functions (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Turban &
Dougherty, 1994; Whitely et al., 1992), more than half a dozen studies have found
no evidence that work experience is related to mentoring functions (e.g. Aryee,
Wyatt & Stone, 1996; Blake-Beard, 1999; Whitely et al., 1991). In two studies,
a positive relationship was reported between professional experience and career
mentoring (Higgins & Thomas, 2001; Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Although
most studies have found that continuity of work history is unrelated to mentoring
functions (e.g. Burke & McKeen, 1996; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Seibert, Kraimer
& Liden, 2001; Turban & Dougherty, 1994; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993), there are
exceptions suggesting those without career interruptions receive slightly more
career mentoring (Aryee, Wyatt & Stone, 1996). The results of a handful of studies
reporting relationships between the average hours protégés work each week and
career mentoring have been mixed (Aryee, Wyatt & Stone, 1996; Nielson et al.,
2001; Wayne et al., 1999; Whitely & Coetsier, 1993; Whitely et al., 1991, 1992).
In conclusion, a few studies have hinted at intriguing relationships between
mentoring functions received and several protégé characteristics, including
ability, personality, and learning orientation. Results regarding demographic
and job/career history variables and mentoring functions received have been
inconsistent. Differences in range restriction across samples may account for some
of the variability in these results. For example, studying a cohort of graduates
from one or two business schools constrains the possible values of education, and,
to a lesser extent related variables, such as age, tenure and work experience, atten-
uating correlations with mentoring functions. In future research, careful attention
to the impact of sampling procedures on range restriction may be helpful in
clarifying how demographic and job/career history variables relate to the nature of
mentoring received.
Mentor Characteristics
A comprehensive understanding of the role of mentor characteristics in mentoring
relationships would be of tremendous practical value, enabling protégés to seek out
effective mentors, permitting seasoned employees to assess their capacity to serve
as mentors, and informing organizations how to select and train mentors. However,
only a small proportion of the literature on mentoring has considered mentors’
attributes. Mentor characteristics studied have included competence (i.e. abilities,
knowledge, and skills), personality, self-esteem, demographics, and job/career
history variables, including past experiences in mentoring relationships. Table 4
provides an overview of hypotheses regarding these attributes. Key questions that
have been explored include: (1) what characteristics do protégés seek in mentors?;
(2) what affects experienced employees’ motivation to serve as mentors; and
(3) how do experienced employees’ characteristics relate to the mentoring they
provide? The following review is organized around these questions.
Mentor characteristics sought by protégés. The limited information available sug-

gests protégés consider a wide array of characteristics when seeking a mentor. From
surveys of retail managers, Gaskill (1991) concluded the characteristics protégés
seek in mentors include abilities (ability to develop subordinates, take risks, and
share knowledge), knowledge (related to the organization, individuals in the
organization, and to organizational power), personality traits (open-mindedness,
upwardly oriented), and job membership characteristics (high position in the
organization, rank/status in the organization, and respect from others). This infor-
mation may be weighed and combined in a complex fashion by employees seeking
mentors. In three experiments, Olian et al. (1988) provided undergraduates with a
Mentoring Research
Table 4. Hypotheses on Mentor Characteristics and Mentoring Provided: A Summary of the Informal
Mentoring Literature.
Mentor Characteristic Hypothesis Sample Researchers Research Volumea
Competence Experienced employees with better skills (e.g. interpersonal) will Olian, Carroll, Minimal
be more appealing as mentors because they will be better able to Giannantonio and Ferren
serve mentoring functions. (1988)
Personality traits
Negative affectivity Included as a control variable. Minimal
Positive affectivity Senior employees who tend to be in a good mood would be seen as Aryee, Chay and Chew Minimal
more approachable. (1996)
Self-monitoring Mentors high in self-monitoring will be more likely to seek Mullen and Noe (1999) Minimal
information from their protégés.
Locus of control Experienced employees with a more internal locus of control would Allen, Poteet, Russell and Minimal
be more likely to perceive they could have a positive impact on Dobbins (1997)
others’ professional growth.
Upward striving Due to identification with potential protégés’ desire to advance and Allen, Poteet, Russell and Minimal
the possibility of improving their own power, those higher in Dobbins (1997)
upward striving will be more willing to mentor others.
Altruism, helpfulness Being generous, kind, and helpful, those higher in altruism would Aryee, Chay and Chew Minimal
be more motivated to mentor. (1996)
Self-esteem/Career Individuals high in self-esteem and those who are experiencing Kram (1988), Aryee, Small
challenges fewer career challenges will have more psychological resources to Chay and Chew (1996)
devote to mentoring.
Learning goal Due to their own love of learning and mastery focus, those higher Godshalk and Sosik (in Minimal
orientation on learning goal orientation will provide more mentoring. press)
71
72
Research Volumea

Mentor Characteristic Hypothesis Sample Researchers
Demographics
Education Better educated individuals would be more qualified to serve as Allen, Poteet, Russell and Small
mentors and may have more familiarity with mentoring, leading Dobbins (1997)
them to feel more comfortable in the role.
Age Younger employees seek mentors; mid-career employees seek Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Moderate
protégés to gain a sense of fulfillment from teaching others. Levinson and McKee
Employees nearing retirement may be less interested in mentoring (1978)
as they begin to withdraw from work.
Job/career history
Tenure Employees with more tenure may feel more qualified to serve as Ragins and Cotton (1993) Small
mentors.
Organizational rank Employees higher in the organizational hierarchy are likely to have Ragins and Cotton (1993) Moderate
more experience and feel more comfortable as mentors.
Power More powerful senior employees would be sought out as mentors Olian et al. (1988) Minimal
because they would be able to help protégés’ careers more.
Span of control Included as a control variable or in exploratory study. Tepper, Brown and Hunt Minimal
(1993), Burke, McKeen
and McKenna (1993)
Experience in Those who have experienced the benefits of being a protégé and/or Ragins and Cotton (1993) Moderate
mentoring mentor will see providing mentoring as more valuable.
relationships
a This column is intended to provide readers with a sense of how much attention has been devoted to studying different characteristics, rather than give
an exact count of the number of independent samples. Categorization is based on the number of published studies on informal mentoring relationships
that reported relationships between the predictor variable and mentoring criteria: minimal (1–3 studies), small (4–9 studies), moderate (10–19 studies),
moderately large (20–29 studies); large (30 or more studies). A minimal number of studies included more than one independent sample; some samples
were used in more than one study.
transcript of an interaction between a manager and a subordinate and asked them

to rate how attracted they were to the manager as a mentor. Managers with stronger
interpersonal skills were seen as more appealing. Managers’ power, depicted in
terms of their involvement in the decision-making structure, only came into play
when manager’s interpersonal competence was moderate. When the manager had
strong interpersonal skills, involvement in the decision-making network did not
affect his or her attractiveness as a mentor. Contrary to the researchers’ prediction,
age did not affect the attractiveness of potential mentors. These preliminary
findings suggest further research on the characteristics of potential mentors –
particularly their skills and job membership characteristics – may be useful in
developing a better understanding of the development of informal mentoring
relationships.
Characteristics associated with motivation to mentor. In studying motivation to

mentor, researchers have examined personality, demographics, and job/career
history variables. Initial data suggest motivation to mentor is positively related
to some personality traits, including positive affectivity, (internal) locus of
control, upward striving, and altruism (Allen, Poteet, Russell & Dobbins, 1997;
Aryee, Chay & Chew, 1996). On the other hand, one study found organizational
self-esteem was not associated with the perceived appeal of providing mentoring
functions (Aryee, Chay & Chew, 1996). With regard to demographic variables,
supervisors with more education appear to perceive fewer barriers to mentoring
and have greater intentions to serve as a mentor than those with less education
(Allen et al., 2000; Allen, Poteet, Russell & Dobbins, 1997). Although age is not
related to perceived barriers to mentoring, older employees may be slightly less
likely to intend to serve as mentors (Allen et al., 2000; Allen, Poteet, Russell &
Dobbins, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1993). A similar pattern of relationships has
been observed for organizational tenure (Allen, Poteet, Russell & Dobbins, 1997;
Ragins & Cotton, 1993). In contrast, Ragins and Cotton (1993) found a very
weak, but significant, trend for employees at higher levels in the organizational
hierarchy to have greater intentions to mentor others. Higher ranking employees
also reported slightly fewer drawbacks in being a mentor than those at lower
levels. The size of this effect was small. Taken together, these results suggest
motivation to mentor is affected by a variety of individual difference variables.
One career history variable that has been prominent in the handful of studies
that have attempted to predict experienced managers’ motivation to mentor is
prior experience in mentoring relationships. Although there are exceptions (Olian
et al., 1993), most studies suggest experience in mentoring relationships fosters
more favorable views of being a mentor. Experience as a protégé, as a mentor, or
both has been associated with lower perceived costs of being a mentor and greater
intentions to mentor (Allen, Poteet, Russell & Dobbins, 1997; Olian et al., 1993;
Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Ragins & Scandura, 1999). The relationship between the
perceived costs of mentoring and intentions to mentor also appear to be moderated
by experience in mentoring relationships. Among those without experience in
mentoring relationships, intentions to mentor may not be related to perceived costs.
In contrast, among those with experience in mentoring relationships, executives
who perceived mentoring as having high costs had much lower intentions to men-
tor than those who perceived mentoring as having low costs (Ragins & Scandura,
1999). In addition to underscoring the importance of prior experience in mentoring
relationships, this research highlights the complexity of the construct of motivation
to mentor.
Implicit in researchers’ use of willingness or intentions to mentor as dependent
variables is the idea that these variables are important determinants of mentoring.
However, the one study that has tested this assumption found no relationship
between superiors’ willingness to mentor and subordinates’ reports of mentoring
functions received (Tepper, Brown & Hunt, 1993). Additional research should
be conducted to evaluate the generalizability of this finding and assess whether
motivation to mentor, in fact, mediates the relationship between the individual
differences of experienced employees and providing mentoring.
Mentor characteristics and mentoring provided. A handful of studies have investi-

gated relationships between the characteristics of experienced employees and the
mentoring they provide. In these investigations, the criteria used have included
serving as a mentor (vs. not), mentoring functions, and the frequency of mentor-
protégé communication. The predictors studied parallel those examined in research
on motivation to mentor. They are competence, personality, demographics, and
job/career history variables, including experience in mentoring relationships.
Despite descriptive research suggesting open-mindedness, patience, and
honesty are important traits for mentors to possess (Allen & Poteet, 1999;
Allen, Poteet & Burroughs, 1997; Gaskill, 1991), few studies have examined the
relationships among mentors’ stable individual differences and the mentoring they
provide. In the single study considering mentors’ cognitive ability, meaningful
relationships with mentoring functions were not observed (Godshalk & Sosik, in
press). With regard to personality, results have varied depending upon the traits
assessed. For example, Rotundo and Perrewé (2000) examined the relationship
between employees’ negative affectivity and their self-reported attempts to mentor
younger employees. Employees higher on negative affectivity were less likely
to provide mentoring, but these results were significant only for employees who
felt they were experiencing a career plateau (i.e. were unlikely to be promoted).
Mullen and Noe (1999) found neither mentors’ nor protégés’ ratings of mentors’
self-monitoring were related to career or psychosocial functions. In contrast,

Fagenson (1992) observed that mentors rated by their protégés as being more help-
ful communicated more frequently with their protégés and were seen as providing
more career, psychosocial, and role modeling functions (Fagenson, 1992).
In related research, a handful of studies have explored the premise that individu-
als faced with problems in their own careers are unlikely to have the psychological
resources to serve as mentors. The results of this research have been divided,
varying according to how “psychological resources” has been conceptualized and
measured. Two studies suggest employees with higher work-related self-esteem
are more likely to have protégés and serve both career and psychosocial mentoring
functions (Horgan & Simeon, 1990a; Mullen, 1998). On the other hand, studies
investigating career experiences suggest career satisfaction and perceptions of
experiencing a career plateau are unrelated to acting as a mentor. Career success
is related to serving as a role model, but not to career and psychosocial functions
(Burke, 1984; Campion & Goldfinch, 1983; Rotundo & Perrewé, 2000). Additional
research in this area would be helpful in clarifying how career challenges affect
mentoring. From a practical viewpoint, it would be worthwhile to know whether
managers must have positive career experiences in order to be effective mentors.
Preliminary research suggests mentors’ learning goal orientation may play a
role in the mentoring process. In a recent study, mentors’ learning goal orientation
was positively associated with psychosocial, career, and role-modeling functions
(Godshalk & Sosik, in press). Further research on this individual difference
construct should prove interesting.
Mentors’ demographic characteristics – specifically education and age – have
been more extensively studied than other mentor attributes. Four studies of the
relationship between mentor’s education level and mentoring provided were
located. The two studies examining the relationship of mentors’ education with the
frequency of mentor-protégé communication yielded diverging results (Fagenson-
Eland, Marks & Amendola, 1997; Mullen, 1998). There is little evidence that
education is related to mentoring functions served (Burke, McKeen & McKenna,
1993; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Mullen, 1998; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000b).
Mentor’s age has been scrutinized in a handful of studies, yielding a pattern of
results that is difficult to interpret. A study of water-management plant employees
indicated that older employees are more likely to report that they have tried to
serve as a mentor (Rotundo & Perrewé, 2000), but two studies have observed no
significant differences between the ages of those who act as mentors and those
who do not (Broadbridge, 1999; Campion & Goldfinch, 1983). Age appears to be
unrelated to how much mentors interact with their protégés (Fagenson-Eland et al.,
1997; Mullen, 1998). Some, but not all, studies have found older mentors provide
fewer psychosocial functions (Burke, 1984; Burke et al., 1993; Fagenson-Eland
et al., 1997; Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000b, in press). Most
studies have found no relationship between mentors’ age and other mentoring
functions (Burke, 1984; Burke et al., 1993; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Godshalk
& Sosik, 2000; Sosik & Godshalk, in press), although there are exceptions to
this trend (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000b). One study suggests mentors’ age is not
related to protégés’ perceptions of the relationship’s effectiveness (Godshalk &
Sosik, 2000). Restriction of range should be evaluated as a contributor to the
lack of observed relationships between mentors’ demographic characteristics and
mentoring provided.
A mélange of variables that are a function of senior manager’s career and job
history have been related to the amount of mentoring they provide. The small
number of studies investigating mentors’ tenure suggest job tenure is not associ-
ated with efforts to provide mentoring (Rotundo & Perrewé, 2000), career tenure
is unrelated to serving as a mentor (Campion & Goldfinch, 1983), organizational
tenure is not associated with mentor-protégé contact (Fagenson-Eland et al.,
1997), and job and organizational tenure are not substantially related to mentoring
functions (Burke et al., 1993; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997). In contrast, one study
found organizational tenure is positively related to employees’ efforts to provide
mentoring (Rotundo & Perrewé, 2000). From the handful of studies investigating
mentors’ organizational rank, it is unclear whether individuals at higher organiza-
tional levels are more likely to serve as mentors (Broadbridge, 1999; Steinberg &
Foley, 1999). Results generally suggest rank is unrelated to mentoring functions
(Burke et al., 1993; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000b),
although there are exceptions to this trend (Scandura & Viator, 1994; Struthers,
1995). One study was located on a related variable: mentors’ power (Fagenson,
1992). This study suggests protégés’ perceptions of their mentors’ influence are
negatively related to psychosocial functions, but unrelated to career functions,
role-modeling and communication frequency. Two studies considering mentors’
span of control yielded diverging results on how number of subordinates relates
to mentoring functions (Burke et al., 1993; Tepper et al., 1993).
Only a few studies have examined the relationship between experiences
in mentoring relationships and providing mentoring. Compared to employees
without mentors, those who have been protégés appear to be more likely to mentor
others (Campion & Goldfinch, 1983; Fagan & Fagan, 1983; Fagan & Walter,
1982). The results of one study suggest that this effect is ongoing. Managers
who had received mentoring were more likely than those who did not to mentor
more than one person (Broadbridge, 1999). There is also some evidence that
individuals who have participated in more mentoring relationships provide more
career functions to their current protégés. However, in the same study, experience
in mentoring relationships was not significantly associated with psychosocial or
role modeling functions (Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997). Although tentative, these

results suggest being a protégé may help prepare individuals to serve as mentors.
In conclusion, initial data suggest mentoring provided is positively associated
with mentors’ helpfulness, learning goal orientation, and past experience in
mentoring relationships. In contrast, research to date suggests general cognitive
ability, self-monitoring, education, and tenure may not account for meaningful
variance in mentoring functions.
Research Priorities: Other Correlates of Mentoring

The influence of individual characteristics other than race and gender in mentoring
relationships has received a modest amount of attention within the literature on
mentoring. More research has been dedicated to understanding the influence of
protégé characteristics than mentor characteristics. As a caveat, this research
has relied on cross-sectional, correlational methods. To the extent that protégé
and mentor characteristics are malleable, observed relationships may indicate
mentoring is a cause, rather than a consequence of these variables. Longitudinal
research in this area would be highly useful.
A few protégé characteristics stand out as meriting additional study. First, as
mentioned earlier, relatively little research has been devoted to understanding how
employees’ abilities and skills affect their experiences as protégés, particularly
the nature of mentoring functions they receive. Second, research on protégés’
personality traits has uncovered some thought-provoking relationships. As will be
discussed in more detail later, research examining whether proactive individuals
receive more mentoring will be informative. In addition, it is striking research has
generally not taken advantage of current models of personality being utilized in
research in work settings – specifically, the five factor model of personality and
related frameworks (Hough & Ones, 2001; Hough & Schneider, 1996; Schneider
& Hough, 1995). Studies examining individual traits from the five factor model
have yielded promising results.
There are also gaps in the mentor characteristics that have been examined. First,
empirical research on the cognitive attributes of mentors is lacking. Only one study
was located that attempted to assess mentors’ abilities (Godshalk & Sosik, in press).
Although substantial relationships between mentors’ self-reported scores on a
general test of cognitive ability and protégé reports of mentoring functions were not
observed, it seems likely that more specific mentor knowledge, skills, and abilities
affect their attractiveness and effectiveness as mentors. Second, it may be valuable
to investigate more systematically the effect of less stable mentor characteristics
on mentoring. Implicit in research on mentor’s self-esteem, career situation, job
stress, and number of subordinates is the idea that individuals whose resources,
whether psychological or temporal, are being stretched will be less willing and less
able to mentor others. To date, research on this topic has yielded mixed results. In
future research, it would be informative to clarify what hinders mentoring. Third,
research on some mentor demographics (e.g. marital status) and some predictor-
criterion combinations (e.g. the relationship between age and serving as a mentor)
is sparse. In the future, it would be informative to address these gaps, where there
is a theoretical reason to expect meaningful relationships. Finally, quantitative
research has not been directed towards understanding how interests and values
affect the decision to be a mentor and the mentoring functions served. It has been
argued that from the mentor’s perspective, the benefits of being a mentor include
helping others succeed and leaving a legacy. It seems likely that individuals whose
values or interests are not aligned with the benefits will not devote time and energy
to mentoring.
While most research has examined protégé or mentor characteristics as
predictors of the mentoring received in the relationship, an increased amount of
research with data collected from matched mentor/protégé pairs would also be
helpful. With the exception of research on diversity, most research has collected
data from only one member of the mentor/protégé dyad (for examples of other
exceptions, see Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Godshalk & Sosik, in press; Scandura
& Schriesheim, 1994; Wayne et al., 1999). There is a wealth of information that
could be gained from studying both members of the mentoring relationship, and
we urge research in this area to collect data from mentor/protégé pairs more
frequently. Analysis of dyads would allow us to delve into a deeper understanding
of mentoring relationships (Kashy & Levesque, 2000) and would help to decrease
mono-method bias concerns.
Based on prior theory and research, four categories of dyad characteristics
appear to be particularly promising foci for future research. First, the concept
of similarity underpins many of the arguments advanced for why mentoring
relationships composed of mentors and protégés of different genders or races
will be more challenging and less productive than those involving mentors and
protégés of the same race or gender (e.g. Dreher & Cox, 1996; Noe, 1988b).
Differences are thought to hamper mentoring relationships; similarity to facilitate
them. Protégé perceptions of similarity are positively associated with mentoring
functions (Burke et al., 1993; Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Nielson et al., 2001).
One of these studies also reported the correlation between mentor perceptions of
similarity to the protégé and protégé perceptions of similarity to the mentor was
only 0.22 (Ensher & Murphy, 1997). Clarification of what dimensions or attributes
affect protégés’ and mentors’ perceptions of similarity would be helpful.
A second important dyad characteristic to investigate is the pattern of protégé
and mentor personality traits. Research on other kinds of relationships suggests
that mentoring relationships may be affected by the combination of traits
demonstrated by mentors and protégés. For example, in a study of roommates,

mean levels of certain traits (extraversion and conscientiousness) were related to
conflicts about the relationship. Task-related conflicts, as well as the frequency
of conflicts, were associated with differences in extraversion (Bono, Boles, Judge
& Lauver, 2002). It seems likely that the interaction of protégé and mentor
characteristics will affect an array of relationships characteristics, such as those
specified in our conceptual model.
A third critical dyad characteristic may be the congruence between mentors’
and protégés’ approach to handling potentially sensitive issues. In a study of
cross-race work relationships, Thomas (1993) identified two strategies that
relationship participants used to handle the issue of race: denial/suppression
and direct engagement. When both parties in the relationship used the same
strategies, both career and psychosocial functions were present. In contrast, only
career functions were provided when the preferred style of the parties diverged.
Additional research on how styles or approaches to handling conflict affect
relationship characteristics and mentoring received would be valuable.
A final dyad characteristic that may be worthwhile to study further is whether or
not both members of the relationship work within the same organization. Mentors
who are external to the protégés’ organization may not be able to provide the same
kinds of support as those internal to the organization (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993;
Ragins, 1997, 1999). Based on this reasoning, protégés with “external” mentors
have occasionally been excluded from research studies (e.g. Ostroff & Kozlowski,
1993). Preliminary data supports this conclusion. For example, one longitudinal
study found new insurance agents with “internal” mentors had a higher first year
“survival” rate than those with “external” mentors. Of the survivors, those with
“internal” mentors also sold more policies (Silverhart, 1994). There is also some
evidence that internal and external mentors may differ in terms of the mentoring
functions they serve (Godshalk & Sosik, in press). More research is needed to
clarify how the employment of mentors and protégés with the same vs. different
organizations shapes relationship characteristics, mentoring functions, and –
ultimately – outcomes experienced.
Dynamics of Mentoring Relationships
A small body of research has been directed towards understanding the dynamics of
mentoring relationships. Two broad questions have been investigated. Researchers
taking a more “macro” view have asked: How do mentoring relationships evolve
over time? Those taking a more “micro” perspective have inquired: How do men-
tors and protégés interact with and influence each other?
Phases of Mentoring Relationships

Researchers addressing the first question have attempted to identify the phases
through which mentoring relationships progress. Based on interviews with mentors
and/or protégés (Kram, 1985b; Missirian, 1982; Phillips, 1978, cited in Carden,
1990; Pollock, 1995), several models describing the course of informal mentoring
relationships have been developed (Pollock, 1995). Although these models diverge
in some ways, all recognize a preliminary stage in which the mentor and protégé
meet and begin evaluating the possibility of having a relationship, an “active”
stage in which the mentor assists the protégé, and a termination phase in which the
mentor and protégé either transform the nature of their relationship or end it (Kram,
1985b; Missirian, 1982; Phillips, 1977, cited in Carden, 1990; Pollock, 1995).
Two studies have directly tested models of the phases of mentoring relation-
ships (Chao, 1997; Pollock, 1995). Both examined how career and psychosocial
functions varied across the phases of mentoring relationships. Each provided some
support for the idea that mentoring relationships have a preliminary initiation
phase before entering a more active phase. Career and psychosocial functions
increased as mentoring relationships progressed from the early to middle phase.
Contrary to the models of mentoring phases, neither study found evidence that
career and psychosocial functions decrease as mentoring relationships move from
the middle to late stages. However, both studies had methodological limitations
that made it difficult to observe changes in the later stages of mentoring relation-
ships. Chao (1997) pointed out the past-tense wording of the items in her study
may have led protégés in the later phases of mentoring relationships to respond
based on the mentoring functions they had experienced during the “height” of
their mentoring relationships. Pollock’s (1995) use of cut-scores to differentiate
individuals with and without mentors may have resulted in protégés in the late
stages of mentoring relationships being categorized as not having mentors.
Overall, there is relatively little empirical evidence with which to evaluate models
describing the phases of mentoring relationships.
Mentor-Protégé Interactions
Despite the fact that definitions emphasize mentoring as involving intense,
interpersonal relationships, research on how mentors and protégés interact is
limited. A handful of studies have illustrated the complexity of mentor-protégé
interactions, highlighting a number of ways in which protégés and mentors
influence each others’ perceptions, affect, and behaviors.
The work of several researchers indicates that the amount and kind of
ingratiation and influence tactics used by employees affect the mentoring they
receive. Judge and Bretz (1994) reported a small positive correlation between
supervisor-focused influence tactics and having access to a mentor. Supervisor-
focused influence tactics, such as praising one’s supervisor and agreeing with his
or her opinions, are directed towards improving the supervisor’s affect toward the
subordinate. Although significant, the relationship between job-focused influence
tactics and access to a mentor was weak. Job-focused influence tactics involve
self-promotional efforts aimed at making one appear more competent, such as
making others aware of job-related accomplishments. Consistent with these
results, employees in Hong Kong who used more ingratiation tactics reported
receiving more career mentoring (Aryee, Wyatt & Stone, 1996). Ingratiation
included four kinds of assertive behaviors used to gain the approval of those who
control significant rewards, including doing favors, conforming to the target’s
opinions, making positive evaluative comments about the target, and using
self-presentation to convince the target of the speaker’s competence. Note that
these behaviors reflect elements of both the supervisor-focused and job-focused
tactics studied by Judge and Bretz (1994). One study suggests that gender may
moderate the effectiveness of protégés’ influence tactics. According to the gender
congruency theory of power, women are perceived favorably when – congruent
with the gender stereotype of women – they use power indirectly (Tepper et al.,
1993). Consistent with this theory, Tepper and her colleagues observed women
who used weaker upward influence tactics received slightly more psychosocial
mentoring from their supervisors, while men who used stronger influence tactics
received more career mentoring. Taken together, these three studies indicate
that the receipt of mentoring is actively shaped by protégés’ use of influence
and ingratiation tactics.
One innovative line of inquiry has explored how protégés and mentors influence
one specific kind of behavior: information seeking. Mullen (1994) proposed that
mentors and protégés mutually seek a variety of information from each other,
including technical, referent, and normative information, along with performance
and social feedback. Mentoring functions, relationship closeness, method of
relationship initiation (mentor-, protégé-, or organization-initiated), contextual
variables, mentor characteristics, and protégé characteristics influence the extent
of information seeking. In a study of 161 mentors and 140 protégés from 17
organizations in the U.S., Mullen and Noe (1999) tested hypotheses derived from
this framework. Partial support was obtained. Based on information provided
by mentors, the results of a series of hierarchical regression analyses suggested
mentors’ information seeking was related to the extent to which the mentor was
influenced by his or her protégé, mentors’ perceptions of whether the protégé
thought information seeking was appropriate, perceived protégé competence, and
by career mentoring. On the other hand, based on similar analyses using data from
protégés, only perceptions of the appropriateness of information seeking were sig-
nificantly associated with information seeking. This thought-provoking research
tentatively suggests how mentors interact with their protégés may be shaped by
a variety of factors.
Other researchers have investigated the relationship between mentoring

functions and relationship characteristics, such as trust, reciprocity, and mentor-
protégé interdependence. In a study of 108 faculty mentors and 215 protégés who
were currently doctoral students or assistant professors in management, Young
and Perrewé (2000) found met expectations partially mediated the relationship
between mentoring functions and perceptions of relationship effectiveness and
trust. An interesting finding was that the mentoring function associated with
met expectations differed for mentors and protégés. Psychosocial support was
associated with protégés’ met expectations, while mentors’ met expectations
appeared to be driven by perceptions of the protégés responding appropriately
to career functions. In related research, positive associations between mentoring
functions and satisfaction with mentoring relationships have been reported in
other studies (Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Other researchers
have observed mentoring functions have moderate, positive relationships with
protégés’ perceptions of mentor-protégé reciprocity (Ensher, Thomas & Murphy,
2001) and with mentors’ reports of the extent to which their protégés influence
them – a measure of relationship closeness (Mullen, 1998; Mullen & Noe, 1999).
Allen, Day and Lentz (2002) found protégés’ interpersonal comfort with their
mentors was strongly and positively related to the mentoring functions they
reported receiving and their perceptions of the quality of their relationships. On
the other hand, Burke and McKeen (1997) reported emotional distance had a
small association with psychosocial functions and, at most, a weak association
with four career mentoring functions. Further research is needed to clarify how
mentoring functions and other relationship characteristics influence one another.
Research Priorities: Dynamics of Mentoring Relationships

Only a small amount of research has been directed towards understanding the
dynamics of mentoring relationships. Both “macro” and “micro” approaches have
been used, providing a preliminary understanding of how mentoring relationships
evolve and how mentors and protégé relate to one another. The “macro” research
suggests mentoring functions may not be constant over time, increasing from early
to middle phases of the relationship. As noted in our discussion of the role of gender
in mentoring relationships, how mentoring functions change over the duration of
the relationship may depend upon the characteristics of mentors and protégés
(Turban et al., 2002). Additional research on factors influencing the evolution of
mentoring relationships would be helpful. A particularly interesting question is
whether formal and informal mentoring relationships have similar phases.
The small number of “micro” studies have linked mentoring functions to
relationship characteristics and protégé influence tactics. An important theme of
this research is that the protégé is an active participant in mentoring relationships,
rather than a passive beneficiary of the mentor’s benevolent attention. Preliminary

evidence suggests mentors’ behaviors and views of their mentoring relationships
may be shaped by a variety of factors, including mentoring functions, protégé
behaviors, and protégé characteristics. Social psychological literature on relation-
ships can be used to contribute guiding frameworks and hypotheses to this line of
research. We provide examples of the application of the literature on relationships
to mentoring in our conceptual model introduced later in this review. In studying
mentoring dynamics from either a “macro” or “micro” perspective, research with
multiple time waves is critical.
Mentoring in the Context of Formal Mentoring Programs
Due to differences between informal and formal mentoring, and because formal
mentoring has gained the attention of organizations as a potential management
developmental tool, we discuss research on formal mentoring separately in this
section. We begin with a general overview, responding to two questions: (1) how
are formal and informal mentoring different?; and (2) how are organizations using
formal mentoring programs? We then provide a summary of available research on
formal mentoring programs.
Overview
According to Ragins and Cotton (1999), formal and informal mentoring relation-
ships differ according to three key dimensions: the initiation of the relationship, the
structure surrounding the relationship, and other aspects of the relationship. While
informal mentoring relationships develop naturally over time, formal mentoring
relationships are typically initiated through some type of organizational matching
process. While there are no structural rules governing informal relationships,
formal mentoring programs may include several elements of structure, such as sug-
gested guidelines about how often dyads should meet, suggestions about possible
topics to discuss, a goal setting process for the protégé, training sessions to prepare
both mentors and protégés for the experience, and a specified duration for the
relationship. Although some formal relationships may last longer, the minimum
duration as specified by the program is typically between 6 and 12 months.
Other aspects of the relationship may differ as well (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). For
example, because the relationship did not develop naturally, some formal mentors
may be less motivated to be in the relationship than informal mentors. Matches
of formal mentors with protégés may result in dyads from different functional
units, possibly impeding the ability of the mentor to fully provide assistance to
the protégé. Also, it is possible that some of the mentors identified do not have
appropriate coaching or communication skills. While a protégé would likely not

be naturally attracted to a mentor without good coaching or communication skills,
it is plausible that a mentor without these skills could be assigned in a formal
mentoring situation. Finally, because formal programs increase the visibility
of a mentoring relationship, mentors in a formal program may be less willing
than informal mentors to engage in mentoring that might be perceived by others
as favoritism.
While not all organizational mentoring programs have specified goals, a com-
mon goal of formal mentoring programs is to promote the careers, development,
and performance of protégés at a managerial level. While organizations turn to
an array of techniques to develop their leaders, including 360-degree feedback,
assessment centers, executive coaching, action learning, classroom training, and
e-learning (see, for example, McCauley & Hezlett, 2001), mentoring uniquely
involves the sharing of experience and information between current leaders and
future leaders. An accompanying goal for some of the formal programs focused
on careers, development, and/or performance is a desire to increase diversity
at higher levels of the organization by placing a program focus on women and
minorities (Douglas & McCauley, 1999).
Organizations also frequently use formal mentoring programs with new
hires (usually managers or college graduates) to give individuals a head start
in acquiring an understanding of the organization and how to best be effective
(Douglas & McCauley, 1999; Ragins et al., 2000). According to Chao, O’Leary-
Kelly, Wold, Klein and Gardner (1994), organizational newcomers encounter
a barrage of issues to learn about and do, including the need to: (1) learn job
tasks and responsibilities and become proficient on the job; (2) learn about
organizational politics, organizational goals and values, and the organization’s
history; (3) become familiar with the organization’s technical language, jargon,
traditions, customs, and stories; and (4) establish relationships with others within
the organization. While other means of socialization are available (e.g. formal
orientation training programs), mentoring is viewed by some organizations as an
effective means of assisting and developing new employees.
Formal mentoring programs vary in their quality, or the extent to which they are
planful efforts versus haphazard pretenses of a formal mentoring program (Single
& Muller, 2001). At the haphazard extreme, an organization might assign mentors
to protégés, have a social for the pairs to meet one another, and then passively
hope that the mentors and protégés will meet again to discuss something of an
unspecified nature. A more planful approach involves making careful matches of
mentors and protégés, making suggestions about how often mentors and protégés
should meet, conducting training to offer suggestions about what mentors and
protégés might discuss and how mentoring relationships work, conducting
follow-up checks to see how the relationship is working, and having mentors and
protégés develop objectives for the relationship (Gaskill, 1993; Newby & Heide,
1992; Tyler, 1998; Zey, 1985). Kram and Bragar (1992) suggest six components
that are essential to a high quality formal mentoring program: (1) specific
objectives and an identified target population; (2) a process to select and match
protégés with mentors; (3) an orientation that involves suggestions on maintaining
the relationship as well as expectation setting; (4) communication with involved
parties about the intent of the program; (5) a monitoring and evaluation process;
and (6) a coordinator to provide support to participants. The authors further
note that formal programs will be most effective when they are clearly linked to
business goals, when they are consistent with other human resources practices and
policies, and when they are implemented with “effectiveness rather than expedi-
ency in mind” (p. 228). Despite salient differences between informal and formal
mentoring (Ragins & Cotton, 1999) and the widespread use of formal mentoring
on the part of organizations (Barbian, 2002), two issues were apparent in our
review of the literature. First, a large proportion of researchers have not asked the
protégés in their studies whether their mentors were acquired naturally or instead
through a formal mentoring program. As mentioned earlier in this review, this
failure to assess the origin of mentoring relationships acts as a significant barrier to
the clear understanding of the effectiveness of formal and informal relationships.
Second, there is a striking dearth of research on formal mentoring. Our
review identified less than twenty-five empirical studies focused on the outcomes
associated with formal mentoring programs in organizations. Of these, almost
half were focused on peer mentoring or alternatively did not provide sufficient
methodological rigor, sample size, and/or measurement information to summarize.
The remaining thirteen studies provided information regarding three important
questions about formal mentoring programs in organizations. First, how do
outcomes for formal program participants compare to outcomes for individuals
without mentors? Second, how do outcomes for formal program participants
compare to outcomes for individuals with informal mentors? Finally, what does
empirical research suggest about the association between formal mentoring
program characteristics and program outcomes?
Formal Mentoring Versus No Mentoring

Four studies have compared the outcomes reported by individuals with formal
mentors to those of individuals reporting no mentor. The goal of these studies
has been to evaluate what formal mentoring programs can achieve in compari-
son to a person not having had a mentor. For example, Chao, Walz and Gardner
(1992) compared individuals with formal mentors to those without mentors on the
outcomes of organizational socialization, job satisfaction, and salary. Ragins and
Cotton (1999) compared individuals with formal mentors to those without mentors
on levels of compensation and promotion rates.
In the Chao et al. (1992) study, formal protégés reported more favorable
outcomes than employees without mentors on three dimensions of socialization
(understanding the goals/values of the organization, politics, and people). Formal
protégés did not differ from those without mentors on three other dimensions of
socialization (language, history, and performance proficiency) or on levels of job
satisfaction or salary. Ragins and Cotton (1999) found individuals with formal
mentors did not have higher levels of compensation or promotion rates than
individuals without mentors.
It is critical, when evaluating and interpreting these first two comparisons
between formal mentoring and no mentoring, to recognize that both studies
included individuals across a variety of organizations and that there was no
control for the quality or purpose of the formal mentoring programs that
were evaluated. Some participants were undoubtedly part of very high quality
mentoring programs, while others were likely involved in programs that did little
more that match individuals together and send them on their way with little or
no guidance. If there were more participants from haphazardly developed formal
mentoring programs than from carefully implemented programs, the results of
these studies may be biased toward portraying formal mentoring as less effective.
It is important, then, to interpret the Chao et al. (1992) and Ragins and Cotton
(1999) studies as comparisons of individuals in formal mentoring programs
in general (regardless of the quality or purpose of the program) to individuals
without mentors. We cannot generalize the results of these studies to a carefully
planned formal mentoring program without additional data.
Ragins et al. (2000) recognized the importance of taking into account the quality
and purpose of formal mentoring programs. Using the same sample as Ragins
and Cotton (1999), these authors found that individuals with satisfying formal
mentoring relationships (as opposed to unsatisfying or marginal) had higher
levels of career commitment, organizational commitment, and organizational
self-esteem than individuals without mentors.
In the only other study to date that has compared outcomes of formally
mentored individuals to those without mentors, Seibert (1999) noted that certain
types of people may participate (or be asked to participate) in formal mentoring
programs, making it difficult to compare participants to non-participants with a
non-experimental and/or cross-sectional examination. Using a quasi-experimental
design, Seibert (1999) examined the effectiveness of a formal mentoring program
for new employees at a Fortune 100 company by comparing 43 participants with a
control group of 18 individuals that had reported never having had a mentor. Partic-
ipants and control group members were assigned to their conditions by graduation
major and date; analyses showed no differences between the two groups at Time 1
of the study. One year later, the employees participating in the mentoring program
reported higher levels of job satisfaction than the non-participants in the control
group. There were no differences between the participants and non-participants
on organizational commitment, work-role stress, or self-esteem at work.
In conclusion, although few in number, studies comparing formal mentoring
to no mentoring have generally portrayed positive outcomes associated with
formal mentoring, including higher levels of socialization, career commitment,
organizational commitment, and organizational self-esteem. While one study
(Ragins & Cotton, 1999) did not portray positive outcomes, the outcomes
examined were limited and the quality of the participant’s programs was not
controlled. More controlled research involving random assignment of participants
to formal mentoring versus no mentoring would be useful in further comparing
the benefits associated with formal mentoring.
Formal Mentoring Versus Informal Mentoring

Three of the studies noted in the previous section (Chao et al., 1992; Ragins
& Cotton, 1999; Ragins et al., 2000) along with three additional studies (Allen,
Day & Lentz, 2002; Fagenson-Eland et al., 1997; Viator, 2001a) have compared
the outcomes received by protégés with informal mentors and those received by
protégés with formal mentors. The goal of these comparisons has been to evaluate
to what extent formal mentoring relationships can mimic the outcomes of informal
Allen, Day and Lentz’s (2002) study included 53 formal protégés and 65 infor-
mal protégés from two organizations. Although results showed that individuals
in formal and informal relationships had similar levels of interpersonal comfort
with their mentors, individuals in informal relationships reported higher levels
of career mentoring and higher quality mentoring relationships than individuals
in formal relationships. Controlling for length of mentorship, Chao et al. (1992)
also found that individuals in formal mentoring relationships reported receiving
lower levels of career-related mentoring functions than individuals in informal
While results from Allen, Day and Lentz (2002) and Chao et al. (1992) suggest
individuals in formal relationships receive lower levels of career functions from
their mentors, Fagenson-Eland et al. (1997) found whether the relationship was
informal or formal was not associated with the level of career functions reported
by protégés. Instead, formal protégés reported lower levels of psychosocial func-
tions than informal protégés in this study. Viator’s (2001a) analysis of multiple
subsamples showed that, in comparison to informal mentoring, formal mentoring
was less frequently associated with lower levels of role ambiguity, role conflict,
perceived environmental uncertainty, and turnover intentions. His conclusions,

however, should be accepted with caution. Specifically, the number of individuals
with formal mentors in some of his groups was extremely small (e.g. 14 senior
managers reported having formal mentors, and Viator analyzes female and male
senior managers separately, further reducing the sample size). Furthermore, his
results are difficult to interpret as several participants had both formal and informal
mentors.
Ragins and Cotton (1999) is the only study to date that has compared informal
and formal protégés on mentoring received at the specific function level, rather
than aggregating function subscales into the total of career-related functions
or the total of psychosocial-related functions. This is an important step toward
understanding the nature of the differences in mentoring between informal
and formal mentoring relationships. Formal protégés in this study reported
lower levels of mentoring in comparison to informal protégés on almost every
mentoring function (e.g. on the dimensions of sponsoring, coaching, protection,
challenging assignments, exposure, friendship, social support, role modeling, and
acceptance). No differences were found between formal and informal protégés on
the dimensions of parenting and counseling. Formal protégés also reported lower
compensation than individuals with informal mentors.
Again, as was the case with formal/no mentoring comparisons, these studies
have not controlled for the characteristics of the formal mentoring programs
or have not specified the characteristics of the formal mentoring programs that
were used in the comparisons. Although Ragins et al. (2000) did not compare
the functions received by individuals with informal mentors to those with formal
mentors, this study found that individuals with high levels of satisfaction with
their formal mentors did not differ from individuals with high satisfaction
with their informal mentors on all six outcomes in their study, including ca-
reer commitment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational
self-esteem, promotion satisfaction, intentions to quit, and procedural justice.
These authors concluded “. . . the view that informal mentoring relationships will
automatically be more beneficial than formal mentoring relationships is apparently
too simplistic; the level of satisfaction in a relationship appears to be the key
variable” (p. 1187).
In conclusion, studies comparing formal mentoring to informal mentoring
generally portray informal mentoring as more effective, although recent research
by Ragins et al. (2000) suggests that individuals with high levels of satisfaction
with their formal mentors did not differ in outcomes observed from individuals
with high satisfaction with their informal mentors. This result suggests that formal
mentoring relationships have the potential to reap the same benefits as informal
Program Characteristics
Three studies to date have directly addressed the relationship between formal
mentoring program characteristics and program outcomes. Ragins et al. (2000)
examined the hypothesis that formal programs that are designed to be most
similar to informal relationships would be the ones perceived as most effective.
Specifically, their hypothesis was that programs would be viewed as most effective
and would result in more positive career and job attitudes when: (1) participation
was voluntary; (2) mentors and protégés were allowed to participate in the
matching process; (3) the program was aimed at career development rather than
general job orientation; (4) guidelines for frequency of meetings were offered;
and (5) recognition for mentors was offered. Results showed that while programs
were perceived as marginally more effective if the mentor entered the program
voluntarily, protégé choice was not significantly related to perceived effectiveness.
The method of matching mentors and protégés was not predictive of perceived
effectiveness. Programs aimed at career development were associated with higher
levels of protégé satisfaction with opportunities for promotion, but the objectives
of the program had no relationship to the overall perceived effectiveness of the
program. Formal programs that offered guidelines for meeting frequency were
perceived as more effective than those without guidelines. Mentor recognition
was not related to perceived effectiveness or career outcomes for the protégé.
Viator (1999) examined the role of matching process, goal setting, and meeting
frequency guidelines in formal mentoring programs by surveying certified public
accountants working in large public accounting firms. Most protégés indicated
that their formal mentoring program had meeting frequency guidelines (69.2%)
and required the protégés to set goals and objectives (62.8%). Viator reported
that meeting more frequently and setting goals was related to higher protégé
satisfaction with the mentorship. His results showed variability in how protégés
were matched with their mentors, with 197 participants indicating they had input
into the selection of their mentor and 113 participants indicating no input. For
protégés indicating they had input, the type of input varied. For example, some
firms assigned the protégés a mentor from a “top choices” list; others surveyed
the protégé regarding needs and objectives. Protégés that were not allowed input
into the matching process were less satisfied with their mentors and were more
likely to report their needs were not met in comparison with protégés given input.
Results from Klauss (1981), although based on a very small sample size (n = 18),
similarly suggested participant input into the matching process was associated
with higher perceived relationship effectiveness.
Four additional studies, although not specifically focused on understanding
the role of program characteristics, highlight the importance of opportunity to
interact and frequency of meeting within the formal mentoring environment. In
Noe’s (1988a) study of 39 protégés and 43 mentors from a formal mentoring

program for educators, mentors spent an average of four hours with their one to
four protégés over a period of six months. More frequent meeting was related
to perceived quality of interaction with the mentor and higher psychosocial
benefits. Three primary barriers to interaction were identified: lack of time,
conflicting work schedules, and geographic separation. Studies by Heimann
and Pittenger (1996) and Orpen (1997), although based on small samples, also
suggest the importance of opportunity to interact and dyad relationship closeness
in a formal mentoring program. Finally, an investigation of 77 protégés starting
new businesses found that protégé perceptions of business success were predicted
by the frequency with which they had contact with their mentors and the level
of advice on legal, technical, financial, and marketing issues provided by their
mentors (Waters, McCabe, Kiellerup & Kiellerup, 2002).
In conclusion, research has suggested that formal program characteristics such as
frequency of meeting guidelines, specified program objectives, or participant input
into the matching process may be related to the outcomes of a formal mentoring pro-
gram and should be examined in future studies of formal mentoring. Specifically,
it is important both to understand the role of program characteristics in outcomes
achieved by formal programs as well as to control for the quality of programs
in research comparing formal mentoring to informal mentoring or no mentoring.
However, results on program characteristics are so preliminary, with few studies
having addressed this issue, that our understanding of the role of program charac-
teristics and other antecedents of effective mentoring outcomes is still very limited.
Research Priorities: Formal Mentoring

Continued research examining the benefits of formal mentoring are needed.
A primary need, however, is for researchers to make attempts to differentiate
between “quality” and more poorly planned mentoring programs when doing so.
Otherwise, the conclusion may be that formal mentoring programs do not work,
when actually it is simply that poorly planned mentoring programs do not work
but more organized, planful programs do work. To conduct these examinations, we
need a clearer idea of what constitutes a quality mentoring program. Furthermore,
a conceptual framework to guide examinations of formal mentoring is sorely
needed. In the next section, we attempt to provide such a framework to guide
future research on formal mentoring.
FORMAL MENTORING: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Research in the area of formal mentoring programs is at an exciting stage. A
small number of studies on formal mentoring have now been conducted and have
helped to develop a preliminary understanding of formal mentoring programs

and their outcomes. To assist further understanding of and research on formal
mentoring programs, we develop a conceptual model that allows us to suggest
propositions relevant to four salient questions. First, what outcomes might formal
mentoring programs achieve? Second, what is the nature of the mentoring that
occurs in a formal mentoring relationship? Third, what are the antecedents of
positive outcomes in a formal mentoring context? Finally, what is the process
through which formal mentoring leads to positive outcomes?
Our conceptual model was developed with reference to a diverse body of lit-
erature, including that on interpersonal relationships, career success, training and
development, and informal mentoring. The result of our efforts, shown in Fig. 1,
is applicable in informal, as well as formal contexts; a primary exception is the
box labeled “program antecedents,” surrounded by a double-dashed box. While
we hope that the model also extends research and thinking in the informal do-
main, due to the critical dearth of discussion and research on formal mentoring
programs in stark contrast to the widespread organizational use of these programs
(Barbian, 2002), we focus the following discussion of this conceptual model within
the formal mentoring context.
Mentoring Outcomes
We differentiate between two broad classes of formal mentoring outcomes. The

first are several distal outcomes that may be attained by the protégé, mentor, and
organization. The second are more proximal outcomes including protégé change
and satisfaction with the assigned mentor and the mentoring program.
Distal Outcomes
Findings from Ragins et al. (2000) suggest that, assuming individuals are in a
satisfactory relationship, formal mentoring has the potential to reap the same dis-
tal outcomes as informal mentoring. Following the example of Hunt and Michael
(1983), we conceptualize these outcomes at three levels of analysis: protégé out-
comes, mentor outcomes, and organizational outcomes.
At the protégé level, we conceptualize the formal mentoring process as a
potential means for advancing an individual’s career success. The career success
literature differentiates between extrinsic career success (represented by more
observable career achievement indices, such as promotions or ascendancy and
compensation level) and intrinsic success (represented by more subjective reports
of job satisfaction, career satisfaction and commitment, and life satisfaction) (see,
for example, Boudreau, Boswell & Judge, 2001; Judge, Cable, Boudreau & Bretz,
1995; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer &
Fig. 1. A Conceptual Process Model of Formal Mentoring.

Crant, 2001). The distinction clarifies that more promotions and higher
compensation are not the only route to success, and recognizes that some
individuals are more concerned with “psychological success,” or whether they
have lived a satisfying life (Hall & Mirvis, 1996).
Our model shown in Fig. 1 also portrays outcomes at the mentor and organiza-
tional level. The processes and specific means by which mentors benefit from the
formal mentoring process are not elaborated in our model; instead our focus will
surround the target of the formal mentoring program, the protégé, and to a lesser
extent the resulting outcomes for the organization. We note, however, that mentor
benefits such as personal satisfaction that have been reported by mentors in the
informal mentoring context are also expected to appear in the formal mentoring
context.
Organizational outcomes are expected to be generated from the proximal and
distal outcomes of the protégé and mentor, as well as from the people relevant
to the organization that the protégé and mentor impact and interact with (e.g.
customers and co-workers). These organizational outcomes may be as diverse as
improved organizational commitment, retention, organizational communication,
managerial succession, institutional memory, productivity or job performance, and
perceived justice. As a caveat, organizational level outcomes are limited not only
by the effectiveness of the formal mentoring program and the relationships that
are formed, but also by the number of participants in the program (Kram & Bragar,
1992). If the organization launches only ten partnerships, organizational-level
outcomes will be commensurate with the small number of pairs. Furthermore,
the net organizational outcome could be negative if program costs are high and
active participation in the program low, if matched pairs develop only superficial
relationships, or if there is perceived injustice on the part of individuals who
wanted to be in the mentoring program (Kram, 1985a). This suggests assessments
of the organizational benefits of mentoring programs need to be conducted at the
aggregate level, taking into account all stakeholders.
Proximal Protégé Outcomes

Research to date has not carefully delineated the proximal areas of impact that
mentoring – formal or informal – may have upon the protégé, although exciting
new advances into this area have recently appeared (see, for example, Lankau &
Scandura, 2002). Our model first suggests four potential areas of protégé change
(cognitive learning, skill-based learning, affective-related learning, and social net-
works) that may, at least in part, drive the achievement of more distal extrinsic and
intrinsic career success outcomes in a formal mentoring context.
Three of the areas of protégé change (cognitive, skill-based, and affective
learning) were derived from Kraiger, Ford and Salas’s (1993) classification of
learning outcomes that stem from training interventions. Following Kraiger et

al.’s conceptualization, we use cognitive learning to represent enhancements
in declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, strategic or tacit knowledge,
knowledge organization, or cognitive strategies that may occur as a result of the
mentoring relationship. For example, the mentoring process may result in the
protégé gaining new declarative knowledge (e.g. information about the company’s
history and politics), developing job-related mental models (e.g. about how to be
successful in his or her organization), or learning new cognitive strategies (e.g.
planning, problem solving, decision making, creative thinking, self-regulation).
Skill-based learning would involve the improvement of technical (e.g. report
writing, running a meeting) or motor skills (e.g. jewelry repair, stitching up
a head wound). Affective-based learning could be attitudinal (e.g. changes in
self-awareness or values, improved tolerance for diversity, or reconciliation
of work/life balance issues) or motivational (e.g. representing changes in the
protégé’s motivational disposition, self-efficacy, or goal setting).
The last area of protégé change (social networks), rather than being an
individual learning outcome, involves changes in relationships, specifically the
protégé’s social integration and development of social capital. This increased
social integration and development of social capital will be expected to occur
if the formal mentor helps the protégé develop his or her network, for example
by taking the protégé along to business functions, or introducing the protégé to
colleagues. These introductions may result in an expanded social network that
provides the protégé with other sources of contacts, advice, social support, or
strategic information (Podolny & Baron, 1997).
The specification of these change outcomes helps to unfold the mentoring
process by better describing the mechanisms through which mentoring may
lead to increased extrinsic and intrinsic career success (i.e. mentoring leads to
increased career success, at least in part, through protégé change). For example,
a protégé, as a result of discussions with his or her mentor, may develop a
strong mental model for what it takes to succeed in the organization. It is
this new understanding that may be largely responsible for the protégé’s later
success in getting a promotion. Similarly, mentor-protégé discussions on topics
such as improved role clarity, how best to pursue one’s career objectives, and
strategies for maintaining work-life balance have the potential to increase the
protégé’s job, career, and life satisfaction. The number and placement of one’s
social resources have also been empirically linked to career success measures
including current salary, number of promotions over one’s career, and career
satisfaction (see, for example, Seibert, Kraimer & Liden, 2001). Consequently,
in regard to the relationship between protégé change and career success we
suggest:
Proposition 1. Higher levels of protégé cognitive, skill-based, and affective

learning and the expansion of social networks will be associated with increased
probability of promotion and higher compensation as well as higher job satis-
faction, career satisfaction, career commitment, and life satisfaction.
Importantly, not all learning outcome areas need to be affected for distal outcomes
to be influenced. For example, a protégé may be strongly impacted by the
mentoring process only in regard to his or her self-efficacy and self-presentation
skills. Although the mentoring may not affect the individual in other areas, the
changes in the protégé on self-efficacy and self-presentation are sufficient to
improve his or her job performance and chances for promotion.
Proposition 2. Significant protégé change in one area, rather than multiple
areas, may positively impact extrinsic and/or intrinsic distal outcomes.
Our model specifies two additional proximal outcomes, satisfaction with mentor
and the mentoring program. Although listed together, these outcomes are dis-
tinct; one can be high and the other low or both could be high or low. Ragins
et al. (2000) found protégé satisfaction with mentor was related to an array of per-
ceptual outcomes, including higher protégé career commitment, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and perceived opportunities for promotion. Perceived
program effectiveness was related to all of these outcomes with the exception of
perceived opportunities for promotion. We suggest that mentor and program satis-
faction are likely to impact, in a positive direction, the career success outcomes for
the protégé that are more affective in nature (i.e. job satisfaction). The more objec-
tive career success outcomes are proposed to be affected through the protégé change
outcomes or directly through mentor actions (to be described later). We propose:
Proposition 3. Protégé satisfaction with one’s mentor and the mentoring pro-
gram will have a positive impact on protégé job satisfaction, career satisfaction,
career commitment, and life satisfaction.
Mentoring Received
Central to the conceptual model is the mentoring received in the relationship.
Drawing upon the interpersonal relationship literature and specific conceptualiza-
tions of relationship closeness (Berscheid, Snyder & Omoto, 1989), we suggest
formal mentoring can be described in terms of its frequency, scope, and strength
of influence.
Frequency, Scope, and Strength of Influence. Frequency refers to the prevalence of
meetings between the mentor and protégé, influencing the amount of time mentors
and protégés spend together. Berscheid et al. (1989) reasoned that “the more time
people spend together, the more opportunity they have to influence each other’s
thoughts and behaviors” (p. 794). We similarly suggest that simply spending time
together is an important starting point for mentors and protégés in a formal men-
toring program.
Scope indicates the breadth of mentoring functions received by the protégé
(Kram, 1985b) in tandem with the breadth of subjects addressed or discussed
during the duration of the mentoring relationship. At the highest level of scope
of mentoring received would be a relationship that involved a realm of career and
psychosocial-related mentoring functions and covered a variety of subjects. At a
low level of scope of mentoring received, discussions may be focused on one topic
of interest to the protégé (e.g. increasing assertiveness), and the functions provided
by the mentor might fall primarily into the coaching and counseling domains.
Recognition of the subject aspect of the scope of mentoring permits a fuller
understanding of the range of issues being discussed in the mentoring relationship
and helps to ensure the content validity of assessments of mentoring functions
that involve subject content. For example, the Mentor Role Instrument examines
coaching through a three item scale. The items include: My mentor . . . “Helps me
learn about other parts of the organization”; “Gives me advice on how to attain
recognition in the organization”; and “Suggests specific strategies for achieving
career aspirations” (Ragins & Cotton, 1999, p. 550). Other coaching topics that
may be salient in formal relationships (e.g. resolving a current work challenge,
work life balance) are not assessed through these items. When used, this may
make it appear as if a relationship did not involve coaching if the coaching focused
on areas that are not represented in the scale’s items.
Strength of influence refers to the degree to which individuals are influenced by
the mentoring received. Specifically, the strength of the influence of the mentoring
received can vary. Some formal mentors may meet frequently with their protégés,
sharing ideas and counsel, but their suggestions and ideas are superficial, they
are not discussed in sufficient depth, or they do not meet protégé needs and are
thus not influential. Some (e.g. “mentor assigned responsibilities to you that have
increased your contact with people in the district who may judge your potential
for future advancement”), but not all (e.g. “mentor has shared history of his/her
career with you”) current mentoring items capture the concept of strength of
influence (examples taken from Noe, 1988a, p. 469).
The concepts of frequency, scope, and strength of influence are important to
understanding the nature of the mentoring received by an individual. We highlight
the importance of these concepts with the following proposition.
Proposition 4. Higher frequency, scope, and influence of mentoring received

within a formal mentoring program will be associated with more extensive
protégé change and higher satisfaction with the mentor and program.
We suggest that the relationship between mentoring received and more distal
career success outcomes for the protégé is partially, but not fully, mediated by
protégé change and mentor and program satisfaction. First, it is our expectation
that formal mentoring exerts at least part of its impact on the more distal career
outcomes through its effect on protégé change (cognitive learning, skill-based
learning, affective learning, and improving social networks) and mentor and
program satisfaction. However, it is also possible for formal mentoring to impact
the distal career outcomes directly. For example, if the mentor were to exert any
protection or sponsorship functions without the knowledge of the protégé, these
functions could directly influence the protégé’s career success without impacting
the protégé’s learning or mentor or program satisfaction. We propose:
Proposition 5. The relationship between mentoring received and more distal
career success outcomes for the protégé is partially, but not fully, mediated by
protégé change and satisfaction.
Sponsorship, protection, and exposure. Here we elaborate on our expectations

regarding the receipt of three specific mentoring functions within a formal
mentoring relationship. While acknowledging that all traditionally accepted men-
toring functions (e.g. Kram, 1985b) can occur in a formal mentoring relationship,
we suggest that the level of sponsorship, protection, and exposure received by
protégés in formal relationships will be quite low, especially in comparison to their
receipt of other mentoring functions (e.g. coaching, challenging, role modeling,
acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship). Sponsorship, protec-
tion, and exposure all require the mentor to use his or her influence on behalf of
the protégé, something less likely to take place within a limited duration (e.g. one
year) formal mentoring program that may also involve protégé/mentor dyads that
are separated geographically. Furthermore, while sponsorship, protection, and ex-
posure functions are not prohibited, these functions are not explicitly encouraged
or communicated as being part of relationships in formal mentoring programs.
The emphasis of formal mentoring programs is typically on the protégés achieving
self-reliance, rather than teaching them to depend on the sponsorship or protection
of a senior person (Clutterbuck, 2002). Furthermore, an organization’s suggestion
that formal mentors engage in functions such as sponsorship, protection, or
exposure could lead to organizational justice problems among non-participants
or participants not receiving such functions (Kram, 1988). Indeed, many organi-
zations use the term “mentee” rather than “protégé” to refer to the more junior
participants in a formal mentoring program. The formal definition of protégé, “one
who is protected, trained, or guided by an influential person” (Merriam Webster
Dictionary, 1995, p. 418) is distasteful to organizations that do not endorse
“protection” as a formalized mentoring function. Specifically, to delineate our
expectation regarding the scope of mentoring received in a formal relationship,

we propose:
Proposition 6. Sponsorship, protection, and exposure will occur only rarely in
a formal mentoring environment.
Given Proposition 6, studies comparing formal and informal mentoring programs
in terms of their effectiveness should examine mentoring functions at the specific
function level (e.g. sponsorship) rather than combining the functions to form
broader career-related and psychosocial-related function scales. Sponsorship,
protection, and exposure are typically regarded as career-related mentoring func-
tions. If career-related mentoring functions are computed as a sum of sponsorship,
protection, and exposure along with coaching and challenging work, formal
programs evaluated with current mentoring function measures will likely appear as
less effective than informal relationships even when formal programs do not desire
their dyads to be entering into the sponsorship, protection, and exposure domains.
Participant/Relationship Antecedents
Our conceptual model portrays protégé, mentor, and dyad characteristics, along
with characteristics of the protégé/mentor relationship, as important antecedents
to the mentoring received in a formal mentoring program. We describe the role of
these antecedents, beginning with the characteristics of the protégé/mentor rela-
tionship.
Relationship Characteristics
Drawing upon the relationship literature (see, for example, Hinde, 1995, 1997),
we identified four primary relationship characteristics (intimacy, interpersonal per-
ception, conflict, and complementary nature of interactions) that are expected to
be critical antecedents to the mentoring that is received by protégés in formal
Intimacy refers to the closeness that the formal mentor and the protégé are
able to achieve in their assigned relationship. This closeness is indexed by the
extent to which the two individuals reveal themselves to each other cognitively
or emotionally, and is related to the level of trust and comfort in the relationship
(Hinde, 1995). Ragins and Cotton (1999) suggest that establishing intimacy
or closeness within a formal relationship is a unique challenge. They note, for
example, that the mentor and protégé “recognize that the relationship is short-term
and that the mentor may be assigned to another protégé after the relationship is
over” (p. 531). To the extent that intimacy in the formal relationship is achieved,
we expect that a protégé will be more likely to meet with the mentor and to disclose
concerns about work-related issues, even when the issues are not comfortable
ones to discuss. Likewise, within relationships with higher levels of intimacy it
is expected that the mentor will be more likely to confess previous work-related
mistakes or personal “tricks of the trade” (Kalbfleisch & Davies, 1993, p. 403).
Hinde (1995) conceptualizes interpersonal perception as the extent to which two
individuals in a relationship feel understood. Translating to the formal mentoring
context, his ideas suggests that mentors and protégés will meet more frequently
and engage in more meaningful discussion if they understand one another and feel
understood by one another. Hinde’s work suggests several levels of understanding
and perceived understanding in the relationship are important. For example, it
is ideal if the mentor understands how the protégé sees himself (e.g. the mentor
knows that the protégé believes his presentations are effective), yet sees the
protégé as he/she really is (e.g. the mentor recognizes that the protégé needs to
improve his presentation style). It is furthermore important that the protégé feels
understood. For example, a protégé discussing work/life balance issues might feel
misunderstood if he or she feels that the mentor interprets the discussion as a lack
of work commitment. Finally, the relationship has higher levels of interpersonal
perception to the extent the mentor also feels understood by the protégé, and the
extent to which the mentor and protégé see their relationship in similar terms.
We define conflict as “a process in which one party perceives that its interest are
being opposed or negatively affected by another party” (Wall & Callister, 1995,
p. 517). Although Kalbfleisch (1997) focused on conflicts within student/mentor
relationships, we speculate that the types of conflict that were identified in these
relationships could also translate to the formal context, including conflicts stem-
ming from disagreement, embarrassment, negativity, or requests that are made on
the part of the mentor that are perceived to be inappropriate or illegitimate to the
protégé. We subsume under the umbrella of conflict any “lack of agreement or ac-
ceptance of where power lies” that may occur in the mentoring relationship (Hinde,
1995, p. 7) as well as dysfunctional behaviors leading to conflict in the relationship
(Scandura, 1998). Conflict may generate anger, stress, or distrust of the other
party, and may reduce both the quality and amount of communication between
the two individuals (Wall & Callister, 1995). Despite its negative connotation,
conflict can be constructive if the issues are trivial, important to discuss, and/or
if the two members are committed to maintaining the relationship (Hinde, 1995).
Complementary nature of interactions reflects the extent to which mentor
and protégé exchanges involve a rich and satisfactory interplay between each
members’ needs and offerings (Hinde, 1995). To the extent that a protégé has
certain development goals that the mentor has the experience and ability to
assist him or her with, a relationship has the potential to include interactions that
are complementary in nature. Specifically, one partner has a need (e.g. how to
handle a particularly demanding client) that the other partner can address. The
interactions are even more complementary if they fulfill needs for both partners,
for example, if the mentor feels fulfilled by sharing his or her knowledge.
Consistent with our review of the handful of studies exploring the dynamics
of informal and formal mentoring relationships (e.g. Ensher, Thomas & Murphy,
2001; Heimann & Pittenger, 1996; Mullen, 1998; Mullen & Noe, 1999; Orpen,
1997), these relationship characteristics are expected to have a reciprocal rela-
tionship with mentoring received by the protégé. First, relationships characterized
at any given time by more intimacy, greater feelings of being understood, the
absence of destructive conflict, and higher complementarity are likely to lead
to more mentoring. Reciprocally, the more frequently individuals meet, and the
more mentoring that occurs in the relationship, the more likely intimacy and
interpersonal perception will increase. However, more mentoring received may not
automatically lead to reduced conflict or increased complementarity. We propose:
Proposition 7. Higher intimacy, higher interpersonal perception, lower levels
of conflict, and higher complementarity within the relationship are expected to
facilitate a higher frequency, broader scope, and stronger influence of mentoring.
Proposition 8. Higher levels of frequency, scope, and influence of mentoring
are expected, in turn, to increase the intimacy and interpersonal perception within
the relationship.
Mentor, Protégé, and Dyad Characteristics

Each member of the formal mentoring relationship brings to the relationship his
or her unique demographic background, ability levels, personality, attitudes, and
job/career history. The relationship literature (Berscheid, Lopes, Ammazzalorso &
Langenfeld, 2001; Hinde, 1997) suggests that while the unique characteristics of
each individual are important, the interaction of the characteristics of two individu-
als is particularly critical in determining the characteristics of the relationship. For
example, Kelley et al. (1983) gave the example that the unique interaction between
the characteristics of the two individuals is predictive of whether two individuals
strike “it off well” or have “a special chemistry for each other” (p. 55).
There has been relatively little attention given to the interaction among protégé
and mentor characteristics beyond interactions among the race and gender of
the protégé and mentor (Ragins, 1999). An exception to this is recent work by
Godshalk and Sosik (in press). In a study of mentors and protégés who may have
been engaged in either formal or informal relationships, Godshalk and Sosik
found that when both the mentor and protégé had high levels of learning goal
orientation, a high level of mentoring was reported. In contrast, when members
of the dyad had different or low levels of learning goal orientation, lower levels of
mentoring were reported. Our model would suggest that this unique interaction of
mentor and protégé characteristics (including demographic background and other
individual differences) influences the mentoring received through its influence on
the characteristics of the relationship. Specifically, a nice mesh of the multitude
of characteristics of the mentor and protégé influences the development of a
relationship that is more intimate, where individuals understand one another, that
is lower in conflict, and higher in interactions that are complementary. Consider
a mix of race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation between the
mentor and protégé (Ragins, 2002). While dissimilarities on some of these char-
acteristics might make it difficult for pairs to achieve intimacy and interpersonal
perception, this dissimilarity may be overcome if both members of the dyad have
high levels of openness to experience and agreeableness (McCrae & Costa, 1996)
or use similar strategies to address potentially divisive issues (Thomas, 1993).
In summary, we propose that characteristics of the dyad will play an important
role in influencing the characteristics of the relationship that is formed between
the mentor and the protégé.
Proposition 9. The characteristics of the dyad, represented by the rich interac-
tion of the myriad protégé and mentor characteristics, will influence the level
of intimacy, interpersonal perception, conflict, and complementarity in a formal
mentoring relationship.
We do not wish to discount the role that that the unique characteristics of the
mentor and protégé can play in the mentoring process. Our model portrays mentor
and protégé characteristics as impacting the mentoring received not only through
the dyad and relationship characteristics, but also directly. We additionally portray
protégé characteristics as having a direct effect on both the proximal and distal
outcome variables. These direct paths between the protégé’s characteristics and
the developmental outcomes are supported by recent meta-analytic work in the
training literature (Colquitt, LePine & Noe, 2000). Specifically, these authors
found that individual characteristics had both direct and indirect relationships with
training motivation, learning levels, transfer of training, and job performance,
rather than being fully mediated through more proximal variables.
We expect the same protégé and mentor characteristics that have been found in
the informal mentoring literature to be associated with higher levels of mentoring
received, and refer the reader back to our section on predictors within the informal
mentoring context. We wish to highlight, however, our expectations around one
personality characteristic, proactivity, that has not been widely discussed within
the informal mentoring literature. Our review of the formal mentoring process
along with the career success literature highlighted proactivity as an important
protégé characteristic that would seem to drive the frequency of meetings between
the mentor and the protégé, as well as the scope of topics discussed.
Proactivity is an individual’s tendency to engage in activities meant to influence
one’s environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Proactivity is significantly related
to two of the five dimensions of the Big Five model of personality, extraversion
(0.25) and conscientiousness (0.43) and is also related to need for achievement,
need for dominance, and participation in charitable activities and professional
associations (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Because individuals with proactive
personalities tend to identify opportunities and follow through with them, seek
solutions to barriers in their way, and show initiative in other important ways
(Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999), we expect that proactivity is likely to impact
the frequency of meetings that the protégé requests with the mentor. Many formal
mentoring programs suggest that the protégé take the initiative in the mentoring
relationship; that the protégé should not rely on the mentor to schedule meetings
and goals for the relationship (Coley, 1996). This may be difficult for a protégé
who feels uncomfortable “bothering” the mentor, or who tends to shy away from
seeking out advice or counsel. We expect that protégés with a proactive disposition
will be more likely to schedule regular meetings with the mentor, rather than
waiting to hear from the mentor. We further expect that proactive individuals
will be more likely to help guide the mentoring process, bringing questions and
setting goals for the relationship. Finally, because proactivity has been shown to
be associated with both intrinsic and extrinsic career success outcomes (Seibert
et al., 1999), we expect that this characteristic will also have a direct impact on
both the proximal and distal mentoring outcomes. We propose:
Proposition 10. Higher levels of protégé proactivity will be associated with a

higher frequency, scope, and influence of mentoring, increased protégé change,
and more positive intrinsic and extrinsic career success outcomes.
Program Characteristics
Based on our literature review, we identified six primary program characteristics

proposed to have direct implications for the mentoring that will occur in a formal
relationship. In addition, we propose that certain program components may be in
the position to influence relationship characteristics.
First, criteria for the selection of participants seems to vary across formal
mentoring programs. While the issue of who should participate in the program
(e.g. new hires, high potentials, or all managers) is specific to each program’s
objectives, an issue that is relevant to all programs is whether participation
is voluntary or required. Practitioners seem to agree that results of formal

mentoring programs will be best if participation is voluntary on the part of the
mentor (Gaskill, 1993; Gray & Gray, 1990; Newby & Heide, 1992). Mentors
participating voluntarily are expected to be more motivated to be involved in the
relationship, and will make themselves more accessible to their protégés than
those “arm-twisted” by their organizations to be in the program. Although the
effect size was small, Ragins et al. (2000) found that protégés perceived programs
as more effective if their mentor had entered the program voluntarily.
In contrast, there is less support for the idea that it is critical for protégés
to participate in formal mentoring programs voluntarily. Protégé voluntary
participation was not significantly related to perceived program effectiveness
in the Ragins et al. (2000) study, and it is not uncommon for organizations to
include all individuals in a given group (e.g. new hires) in a formal program. Most
individuals included in a formal program are likely pleased that they have been
included in the program, given the program’s intent is commonly to benefit their
careers. Nevertheless, research has developed solid support for the importance
of allowing individuals to participate in decisions regarding their training and
development (Quinones, 1997). We surmise that voluntary participation may
impact frequency of meeting for both parties, with fewer meetings occurring on
the average among mentors and protégés required to be in the program.
Proposition 11. Voluntary participation on the part of mentors and protégés
will be related to higher frequency of meeting.
Another program characteristic is the method of matching protégés and mentors.
Two issues are of interest: (1) how much participant input to use in the matching
process; and (2) what makes a good match. First, organizations vary in the extent
that their participants contribute to the matching process (Viator, 1999). On the
higher extreme of participant input, organizations allow mentors or protégés to
choose one another or allow participants to specify their three top partner choices
(Coley, 1996). In the middle of the spectrum, an organization may survey and
then match the protégé and mentor on business-related criteria (e.g. area protégé
wants to gain experience in), human interest factors (e.g. hobbies, interests),
learning styles, and/or geographical location (Forret, 1996; Gaskill, 1993; Hale,
2000; Tyler, 1998). At the low participation extreme (no input), mentors and
protégés are matched by the program planner without being solicited for any type
of information.
Expert opinion seems to favor allowing the protégé to have some level of in-
put into the matching process. For example, Chao et al. (1992) endorsed partic-
ipant input by comparing “random assignment of protégés to mentors” to “blind
dates” (p. 634). Research by Viator (1999) suggests that allowing the protégé to
have input into the matching process, whether that input is more extensive (where
protégés are allowed to choose among mentors) or less extensive (where protégés
are instead surveyed for information that is used in the matching process) is as-
sociated with higher protégé satisfaction with the mentor. While Ragins et al.
(2000) found no relationship between method of matching (protégé choice versus
no choice) and protégé satisfaction with the mentor, their measurement combined
mentors and protégés that were assigned to each other without any input at all with
those that were assigned following a survey of interests into a “no choice” category.
It is likely that protégé input leads to increased protégé psychological ownership
of and commitment to the mentoring process, and that it facilitates the relationship
by matching individuals having more in common. Furthermore, protégés matched
with mentors based on their business goals and interests may be more likely to be in
a relationship that meets their developmental needs. In following, we suggest that
protégé input in the matching process is likely to be associated with increased men-
tor/protégé intimacy, interpersonal perception, complementarity of interactions,
meeting frequency, and strength of influence. Specifically, we propose:
Proposition 12. Formal mentoring programs that match individuals through a
method that solicits participant input (i.e. either through allowing choice of part-
ner or by eliciting interests and goals from the participants) will have pairs with
higher levels of intimacy, interpersonal perception, complementarity, meeting
frequency, and strength of influence.
Assuming the organization is going to make matches based on protégé input,
the literature gives little guidance about what concrete factors should be used to
develop an effective match. The mentoring literature is supportive of the mentor
and protégé having some similarities (e.g. to facilitate comfort in the relationship).
For example, the results of three empirical studies found that perceptions of
similarity are positively associated with mentoring functions (Burke et al.,
1993; Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Nielson et al., 2001). The dimensions on which
similarity was rated were fairly broad in scope, including intelligence, personality,
background, procedures, and activities outside of work (Burke et al., 1993),
values and attitudes concerning work and family balance (Nielson et al., 2001),
and “outlook, perspective, and values” (Ensher & Murphy, 1997, p. 469).
Despite this support for similarity between the mentor and protégé, it is also
believed that individuals will develop most if exposed to views and experiences
unlike their own (see, for example, Hale, 2000). Although our recommendation
is generic in nature (e.g. we are unable to propose specific scales or items to make
this recommendation more concrete), we propose that the most effective matches
will be those where the mentor and protégé are matched on at least one dimension
so they have something in common as a basis for the relationship (whether it be
a common interest in baseball or both having children of the same age) and on at
least one dimension that is suggestive of the mentor having a skill or background
that complements the protégé’s needs. We propose that this approach will enhance
the level of intimacy, interpersonal perception, and complementarity of interac-
tions in a relationship. Specifically, by matching individuals so that they have at
least something in common, their level of intimacy and interpersonal perception
may be enhanced. By matching protégés to mentors that may be able to meet their
needs, the complementarity of the interactions will be enhanced. We propose:
Proposition 13. Organizations that are more effective at matching protégés
and mentors with a basis of similarity (e.g. an interest in common) but some
complement of each others’ needs will have mentor/protégé pairs with higher
levels of intimacy, interpersonal perception, and complementary interactions.
We put forth an additional proposition about geographical proximity. Many
formal mentoring programs now match protégés with mentors in other locations,
sometimes overseas, and contact has to be primarily over the phone and through
e-mail. Indeed, there are an increasing number of e-mentoring programs, programs
through which mentors and protégés are connected through e-mail, web sites, and
electronic discussion lists (Single & Muller, 2001). We acknowledge the necessity
of assigning protégés to mentors in other locations; this is sometimes unavoidable
(Jossi, 1997). However, evidence is suggestive that formal mentoring programs
that involve long-distance mentoring will not be as effective as mentoring programs
whose participants can meet face-to-face. For example, Burke et al. (1993) found
that office proximity was related to provision of more mentoring, and opportunities
for interaction on the job have been identified as an important predictor of the level
of mentoring provided in a number of studies (Aryee, Chay & Chew, 1996; Noe,
1988a). Based on this research, we suggest that pairs in more proximal locations
will report higher meeting frequency, mentoring scope, and strength of influence.
Proposition 14. Protégés more proximally located to their mentors will report
higher levels of meeting frequency, mentoring scope, and strength of influence.
Berscheid et al. (1989) suggest that even though individuals can be close when
separated by distance, they will likely not be as close as individuals who spend
time together in person. Although pairs can be encouraged to communicate
frequently despite geographical separation, we expect that pairs in more proximal
locations will report higher levels of intimacy and interpersonal perception than
individuals separated by greater distance.
Proposition 15. Protégés more proximally located to their mentors will report
higher levels of relationship intimacy and interpersonal perception.
Authors outlining “best practice” guidelines for formal mentoring programs sug-
gest that an orientation or training session be provided for mentors and protégés
(e.g. Phillips-Jones, 1983). Orientations for protégés may include information
about the purpose of the program; discussions about mentoring functions, benefits,
and limitations; and exercises or handouts on handling conflicts that may occur
during the relationship (Forret, 1996). Forret suggests that it is important that
the program facilitator clarifies expectations, for example by discussing whether
the formal mentoring program is meant to help the protégés’ general introduction
to the organization or their career development. Orientations for mentors might
similarly include discussions about mentoring responsibilities, functions, benefits,
and limitations, along with workshops on mentorship skills such as listening and
problem solving methods (Gaskill, 1993).
We first propose three means by which program orientations might have an
impact on relationship characteristics. To the extent that the orientation provides
quality training on avoiding destructive conflict in the mentoring relationship
(e.g. by providing a discussion of appropriate roles and potentials for abuse of
power in the relationship) along with conflict resolution information, we propose
that program orientations can reduce the occurrence, level, and seriousness of
destructive conflict in the mentor/protégé relationships. To the extent that the
orientation provides quality information about listening skills and skills that
can enhance interpersonal perception, we propose that orientations can improve
the level of interpersonal perception in mentor/protégé relationships. Last, we
propose that programs that suggest activities that mentors may engage in with
protégés (see for example, Coley, 1996) and means by which the protégé and
mentor can begin to develop their relationship can positively enhance the level of
intimacy experienced by individuals in the relationship.
Proposition 16. Effective orientations for the mentor and protégé will reduce
destructive conflict and increase the intimacy and interpersonal perception in
the protégé/mentor relationship.
Some organizations discuss guidelines for frequency of meeting at orientation (e.g.
suggesting meetings of once or twice a month over the duration of the program).
Findings by both Viator (1999) and Ragins et al. (2000), along with studies suggest-
ing more frequent meetings are associated with more mentoring (Burke et al., 1993;
Mullen, 1998; Waters et al., 2002), are supportive of setting frequency of meeting
guidelines. The mentor is typically a person of more seniority and influence than
the protégé. Although some protégés may not be bothered by this seniority, we pro-
pose that frequency of meeting guidelines give protégés both the permission and
expectation that they are to contact their mentors, reducing issues related to intimi-
dation or reluctance to bother the mentor. Frequency of meeting guidelines are also
proposed to guard against the protégé and mentor getting so busy with their work
that they feel they cannot take the time out to meet (Noe, 1988a); the guidelines
may act as a work assignment or meeting that has been previously agreed upon. In
the absence of meeting guidelines it is easy for time to pass quickly and for protégés
and mentors to more easily discount the need to meet. We propose the following:
Proposition 17. Protégés in programs with frequency of meeting guidelines
will meet with their mentors more often than protégés in programs without
frequency of meeting guidelines.
Orientation sessions for protégés in mentoring programs focused on development
may request that participants conduct a skills assessment. A goal setting process
can then be used to encourage protégés to specify competencies or issues they
wish to work on in the mentoring relationship (Coley, 1996). Newby and Heide
(1992) note that protégé goals for the relationship “help to delineate differences
between present and desired levels of performance, identify the needed resources,
and serve as reference points for comparison and adjustment as changes are at-
tempted” (p. 10). A wealth of research in work, educational, and training contexts
supports the notion that goals are motivational in nature, showing individuals who
develop challenging and concrete goals exert more effort (Kanfer, 1990; Locke &
Latham, 2002) and that more motivated individuals learn more and acquire more
knowledge and skills (Colquitt et al., 2000). The nature of protégé goals are also
expected to influence the mentoring received. Kram and Bragar (1992) note that
some protégés are more interested in receiving career-related functions such as
coaching, while others are more interested in receiving psychosocial functions,
such as support and counseling. We propose that individuals who set goals will
meet more frequently with their mentors, due to having a clear picture of what
they wish to achieve. We also propose that the nature of the goal will influence
the nature of the mentoring received.
Proposition 18. Protégés that set specific and challenging goals to work on
through their mentoring relationship will meet more frequently with their
mentor.
Proposition 19. The nature of protégé goals will influence the scope of the
mentoring received.
Last, we propose that program objectives (the purpose of the mentoring program)
will influence the nature of the mentoring that occurs and the outcomes achieved.
Consistent with Kram and Bragar (1992), we feel it is important to recognize
that the focus of mentoring within programs that are for newcomers (e.g. having
a socialization objective) will be different from the focus of mentoring within
other programs, such as those developed for high potential managers (e.g. having
a management development or succession planning objective). As in any other
training or development evaluation effort, the outcomes examined should parallel
the program objectives (Gray & Gray, 1990). Indeed, Ragins et al. (2000) found
that programs aimed at career development were associated with higher levels
of protégé satisfaction with opportunities for promotion than programs aimed at
socialization. We propose the following:
Proposition 20. The nature of the program objectives will influence the scope
of the mentoring received and thus ultimately the outcomes achieved.
Organizational Context
Importantly, we have enclosed our model within an outer box representing the
“organizational context” in order to portray formal mentoring relationships as
embedded within a larger organizational context. Salient to the organizational
context is the organization’s culture, or its members’ characteristic values and
attitudes (Ashkanasy & Jackson, 2001). For example, relevant to mentoring
programs focused on employee development are the organization’s deeply
ingrained values and beliefs about the importance of continuous learning and
development (London & Smither, 1999). Relevant to mentoring programs
focused on socialization would be the messages the organization sends about the
importance of newcomers gaining a facilitated introduction to the organization.
To illustrate the importance of culture, consider a protégé whose job involves
demanding, heavily scheduled days and many evenings of working late. This
protégé may place priority on his or her pressing job demands, postponing meet-
ings with his or her mentor until soon the year devoted to the mentoring program
has passed. Protégés surrounded by a climate emphasizing continuous learning
may be more likely to make the time for the meetings with the mentor, having
been persuaded that development time is critical. Similarly, mentors may have
more motivation to spend time with protégés when they perceive that mentoring
is a valued organizational activity (Aryee, Chay & Chew, 1996). We propose:
Proposition 21. Organizations with cultures that communicate values and atti-
tudes supportive of the mentoring program’s objectives will have mentor/protégé
dyads that will meet more frequently.
At a more micro level, it is also important that mentors and protégés perceive
that their supervisors are supportive of their involvement in the mentoring
program. Research, for example, suggests that perceived supervisory support
for development activity is associated with higher levels of voluntary learning

and development activity on the part of employees (see, for example Maurer &
Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993).
Proposition 22. To the extent that the mentor’s and protégé’s superiors are
supportive of their involvement in the mentoring program, mentoring program
outcomes are expected to be enhanced.
Also relevant are other training and developmental opportunities that are available
to the protégé (Tharenou, 1997). For example, a mentor’s counseling may help
the protégé realize that he or she needs some intensive presentation skills training.
If presentation skills training or a referral to such training is available within the
organization, the protégé may be more likely to act upon that developmental need.
In other words, we propose that protégé change can be enhanced by the existence
of employee development workshops or related development opportunities.
To take this one step further, it is important to consider the existence of other
opportunities when predicting career success outcomes to avoid attributing career
success uniquely to mentoring when mentoring was supplemented by other
development opportunities.
Proposition 23. Protégé change and more distal career success outcomes will
be enhanced by the existence of employee development workshops or related
development opportunities.
Finally, several other contextual factors are relevant to the mentoring process and
outcomes within the organizational context. An organization’s size, structure,
and compensation and promotional opportunities may limit the observation of
increased promotions and compensation as a result of the mentoring program.
For example, mentoring may have more potential to influence promotions within
a large organization with long promotion ladders and high vacancy rates in higher
positions (Tharenou, 1997). We suggest:
Proposition 24. Other contextual factors are relevant to the outcomes observed
as a consequence of a formal mentoring program, including an organization’s
size, structure, and compensation and promotional systems.
Dynamic Aspects of Conceptual Model
Our model is a dynamic process model. First, it is conceivable that the impor-
tance of some predictors in our model varies over the duration of the relationship
(Zaheer, Albert & Zaheer, 1999). The predictive role of dyad characteristics may
be especially dynamic in nature, changing over the duration of the relationship.

For example, demographic dissimilarity may result in less mentoring early in the
relationship, but may actually be beneficial later in the relationship (see, for ex-
ample, Turban et al., 2002), although this may depend on the complex interplay
of other characteristics mentioned earlier such as the openness to experience and
agreeableness of both members.
Importantly, levels of any of the variables in the model may change substan-
tially during the relationship. For example, the scope, frequency, and strength of
influence of protégé/mentor interactions may change over time. This change in
mentoring received could occur due to a wide variety of reasons. As the protégé
changes both as a result of the formal mentoring program as well as from becoming
more experienced in the organization, his or her needs and goals may change.
Mentors or protégés may experience an increase in workload, making it difficult
to meet. If conflict occurs (Scandura, 1998) or if a relationship is not meeting
the protégé’s or mentor’s expectations (Young & Perrewé, 2000), frequency of
meeting may decline or the relationship may be terminated. One of the two indi-
viduals in the partnership may alternatively be relocated, leave the company, or be
laid off, leading to termination of the relationship. Finally, most formal programs
come to a conclusion after one year’s duration. It is unknown how many of these
dyads continue into an informal relationship, or to what extent learning based on
the mentor’s advice and teachings continue even after the relationship is ended.
A final important issue is that protégé perceptions of the mentoring experience
may be dynamic and may not initially reflect its actual benefits. For example,
due to low perception accuracy (Atwater & Yammarino, 1997), the protégé
may change as a result of the mentoring program but not realize it. The social
influence literature, for example, argues that the norms, values, and beliefs of
an influence agent may have an effect on an individual without that individual’s
realization (Forgas & Williams, 2001). Dijksterhuis (2001) also presents evidence
that individuals unknowingly change their behavior to match the behavior of
individuals they are in close contact with, mimicking both basic behaviors such as
gestures or posture to more complex behaviors such as helpfulness. Alternatively,
the protégé may realize they have changed, but may not attribute the change to the
mentoring program. This failure to attribute the change to the mentoring program
might be either unintentional (the individual might believe they would have
changed without the mentoring program) or intentional (individuals motivated to
succeed in an organization may be motivated, if asked, to attribute their change
to their own efforts, rather than acknowledging the helpfulness of the mentoring
program). The protégé’s perceptions may, however, change over time (Zaheer
et al., 1999). A few years after the mentoring experience, the protégé may be
better able to appreciate the relationship and the benefits of that relationship. This
speaks to caution when relying on self-report measures, although assessment of

protégé change through other means is also very challenging.
Summary
Our conceptual model represents a preliminary attempt to portray the antecedents

and outcomes of mentoring received within a formal mentoring context. One
contribution of the model is the “unfolding” of the mentoring criterion space,
represented in our model through proximal and distal outcomes. Also important
is the delineation of variables expected to be predictive of successful formal
mentoring experiences and the process through which these antecedents lead to
successful outcomes. Finally, another contribution of the model is its integration
of useful theory and research from related literatures, such as the career success
literature and the social psychology literature on relationships. For example, the
social psychology literature on relationships helped to guide our delineation of
“relationship characteristics” that emerge as a direct result of the mentor/protégé
dyad combination and our conceptualization of mentoring received as involving
the tripartite scope, frequency, and strength of influence.
Given the limited research on formal mentoring, we hope our model will
stimulate more empirical research in this area. Most studies of formal mentoring
programs in organizations have compared outcomes for individuals in formal
programs to outcomes for individuals with informal mentors or without mentors,
rather than looking at factors that may differentiate between formal programs
that are successful versus not successful. Although our model was discussed
within the context of formal mentoring, researchers will benefit from using the
model to direct their research efforts on informal mentoring. Indeed, the model’s
components, excluding the program characteristics, are applicable in the informal
context. We chose specifically to present the model within the formal mentoring
context to stimulate future theory building and research in the formal arena.
It is likely our model will also be useful for practitioners managing formal
mentoring program efforts. Day and Allen (2002) recently suggested that “if
program administrators knew the precise factors that contribute to beneficial
outcomes they could put these factors to use in mentor training” (p. 25). While
our model is far from precise, it is suggestive and informative of the many factors
that may play a role in mentoring program success. On the outcome side, we
also hope to convey that “mentoring program success” is highly dependent on the
goals of both the organization and the protégé.
As a last note, we suggest several caveats. First, we acknowledge that the
model may be difficult to test in its entirety due to the large number of variables
within its realm. Second, refinement of the model will be required to more
explicitly incorporate the role of additional concepts and variables relevant to
the mentoring experience. Simply due to the vast number of potential variables
and paths, it was difficult to include all variables that have been mentioned in the
mentoring literature and all conceivable paths in the model. Finally, we note that
examination of the model may require development of new measurement scales.
As an example, some items in current mentoring function scales incorporate
what we conceptualize as relationship characteristics (e.g. trust or intimacy)
into the assessment of mentoring functions. For example, the Mentor Role
Instrument reprinted in Ragins and Cotton (1999) includes “is someone I can
trust,” to assess the friendship dimension (p. 550). Future mentoring function scale
revisions may attempt to capture mentoring functions separately from relationship
characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS
In 1988(b), Noe suggested that “research regarding the benefits of mentoring
relationships is in its infancy” (p. 66). Since then, research has advanced our
understanding of the benefits as well as drawbacks of mentoring relationships,
and has delved further into related and important branches of research including
the construct space of mentoring, mentoring within the context of diversity, other
correlates of mentoring received, relationship dynamics, and formal mentoring
programs. While a great deal of research has been conducted on mentoring in
the last decade, our assessment is that the mentoring literature is still very young;
perhaps analogous to a primary school level. As with a child in primary school,
continued stimulation and insight is highly critical for the mentoring literature.
We hope this review and the conceptual model provided within are useful in
directing future research.
In addition to relying on conceptual frameworks such as the one we provided,
attention to several methodological issues in future mentoring research will help
move the mentoring literature forward. Specifically, researchers need to provide
clear and consistent definitions of mentoring to study participants (important
so a participant would not be considered a protégé in one study and without a
mentor in the next), differentiate between formal and informal mentoring, ensure
measurement instruments are content valid and psychometrically sound, rely less
on protégé self-reports, incorporate more dyad analysis into research, increase
the use of longitudinal research, and include appropriate control variables.
Researchers’ attention to these methodological issues when evaluating and
refining models of mentoring will foster the maturation of the field.
NOTE
1. This meta-analysis includes studies that examined formal and informal relationships,
although the majority were focused on informal mentoring relationships. At the time of our
review, the meta-analysis was under review. Given that revisions of the meta-analysis may
include computational changes or additional studies, we provide results at a general rather
than specific level. The authors reported average correlations weighted by sample size as
indicators of effect size (without corrections for other artifacts due to the small number of
studies available). We indicate whether the authors found small (i.e. 0.30 or less), medium
(i.e. 0.30–0.49) or large (i.e. 0.50 or higher) effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) in the relationships
they analyzed rather than providing the exact effect size.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Tammy Allen, Zhaoli Song, and Andy Van de Ven for their comments
and discussion relevant to parts of this review. In addition, we thank Naomi Hagen
for her early involvement in this project.
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2002, April). Interpersonal comfort in mentorship: A mediating
mechanism. Paper presented at the 17th Annual SIOP Conference, Toronto, ON.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2002). Career benefits associated with
mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective mentoring relationships: Strategies from the
mentor’s viewpoint. Career Development Quarterly, 48, 59–73.
Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry
and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 70–89.
Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Protégé selection by mentors: What makes the
difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 271–282.
Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., Russell, J. E. A., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). A field study of factors
related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50,
1–22.
Aryee, S., & Chay, Y. W. (1994). An examination of the impact of career-oriented mentoring on work
commitment attitudes and career satisfaction among professional and managerial employees.
British Journal of Management, 5, 241–249.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees:
An interactionist approach. Group & Organization Management, 21, 261–277.
Aryee, S., Lo, S., & Kang, I.-L. (1999). Antecedents of early career stage mentoring among Chinese
employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 563–576.
Aryee, S., Wyatt, T., & Stone, R. (1996). Early career outcomes of graduate employees: The effect of
mentoring and ingratiation. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 95–118.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Jackson, C. R. A. (2001). Organizational culture and climate. In: N. Anderson,
D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work, & Organi-
zational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 398–415). London: Sage Publications.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and model. In: G. R.
Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 15, pp. 121–174).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bahniuk, M. H., Dobos, J., & Hill, S. E. K. (1990). The impact of mentoring, collegial support,
and information adequacy on career success: A replication. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 5, 431–451.
Bahniuk, M. H., Hill, S. E. K., & Darus, H. J. (1996). The relationship of power-gaining communication
strategies to career success. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 358–378.
Barbian, J. (2002, March). A little help from your friends. Training, 39, 38–60.
Barker, P., Monks, K., & Buckley, F. (1999). The role of mentoring in the career progression of chartered
accountants. British Accounting Review, 31, 297–312.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure
and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
Baugh, S. G., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). The effects of multiple mentors on protégé attitudes toward
the work setting. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 503–521.
Berscheid, E., Lopes, J., Ammazzalorso, H., & Langenfeld, N. (2001). Causal attributions of rela-
tionship quality. In: V. Manusov & J. H. Harvey (Eds), Attribution, Communication Behavior,
and Close Relationships. Advances in Personal Relations (pp. 115–133). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing
the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
792–807.
Blake-Beard, S. D. (1999). The cost of living as an outsider within: An analysis of the mentoring
relationships and career success of Black and White women in the corporate sector. Journal of
Career Development, 26, 21–36.
Bolino, M. C., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of underemployment
among expatriates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 889–911.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in task and
relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311–344.
Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on execu-
tive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58,
53–81.
Bridges, C. R., & Perotti, V. S. (1993). Characteristics of career achievement: Perceptions of African-
American corporate executives. Mid American Journal of Business, 8, 61–64.
Broadbridge, A. (1999). Mentoring in retailing: A tool for success? Personnel Review, 28, 336–355.
Burke, R. J. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group & Organization Studies, 9, 353–372.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Gender effects in mentoring relationships. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, 11(5), 91–104.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1997). Benefits of mentoring relationships among managerial and
professional women: A cautionary tale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 43–57.
Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. S. (1990). Sex differences and cross-sex effects on
mentoring: Some preliminary data. Psychological Reports, 67, 1011–1023.
Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. (1993). Correlates of mentoring in organizations: The
mentor’s perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, 883–896.
Burke, R. J., McKenna, C. S., & McKeen, C. A. (1991). How do mentorships differ from typical
supervisory relationships? Psychological Reports, 68, 459–466.
Busch, J. W. (1985). Mentoring in graduate schools of education: Mentors’ perceptions. American
Educational Research Journal, 22, 257–265.
Campion, M. A., & Goldfinch, J. R. (1983). Mentoring among hospital administrators. Hospital and
Health Services Administration, 28(4), 77–93.
Carden, A. D. (1990). Mentoring and adult career development: The evolution of a theory. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 18, 275–299.
Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15–28.
Chao, G. T. (1998). Invited reaction: Challenging research in mentoring. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 9, 333–338.
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organi-
zational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
730–743.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on
mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45,
619–636.
Clutterbuck, D. (2002). Establishing and sustaining a formal mentoring program for working with
diversified groups. In: D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins (Eds), Mentoring and Diversity: An
International Perspective (pp. 54–86). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Colarelli, S. M., & Bishop, R. C. (1990). Career commitment: Functions, correlates, and management.
Group & Organization Studies, 15, 158–176.
Coley, D. B. (1996, July). Mentoring two-by-two. Training & Development, 50, 46–48.
Collins, P. M. (1994). Does mentorship among social workers make a difference? An empirical inves-
tigation of career outcomes. Social Work, 39, 413–419.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation:
A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
678–707.
Cox, T. H., & Nkomo, S. M. (1991). A race and gender-group analysis of the early career experience
of MBAs. Work & Occupations, 18, 431–446.
Darling, L. A. W. (1986). The mentoring mosaic: A new theory of mentoring. In: W. A. Gray &
M. M. Gray (Eds), Mentoring: Aid to Excellence in Career Development, Business and the
Professions, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mentoring (Vol. 2, pp. 1–7).
Vancouver, BC: International Association for Mentoring.
Day, R., & Allen, T. (2002, April). Why are protégés more successful: Explaining the mentoring-career
success relationship. Paper presented at the 17th Annual SIOP Conference, Toronto, ON.
Dijksterhuis, A. (2001). Automatic social influence: The perception-behavior links as an explana-
tory mechanism for behavior matching. In: J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds), So-
cial Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes (pp. 95–108). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology
Press.
Donaldson, S. I., Ensher, E. A., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2000). Longitudinal examination of mentor-
ing relationships on organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Journal of Career
Development, 26, 233–249.
Douglas, C. A., & McCauley, C. D. (1999). Formal developmental relationships: A survey of organi-
zational practices. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 203–224.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women
in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
539–546.
Dreher, G. F., & Chargois, J. A. (1998). Gender, mentoring experiences, and salary attainment among
graduates of an historically Black university. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 401–416.
Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation
attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 297–308.
Eby, L. T. (1997). Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A concep-
tual extension of the mentoring literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 125–144.
Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The protégé’s perspective regard-
ing negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 57, 1–21.
Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on
mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481.
Ensher, E. A., Thomas, C., & Murphy, S. E. (2001). Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and
peer mentoring on protégés’ support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: A social
exchange perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 419–438.
Fagan, M. M., & Fagan, P. D. (1983). Mentoring among nurses. Nursing and Health Care, 4, 80–82.
Fagan, M. M., & Walter, B. (1982). Mentoring among teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 76,
113–118.
Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The power of a mentor: Protégés and non-protégés perceptions of their own
power in organizations. Group & Organization Studies, 13, 182–194.
Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus
non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309–320.
Fagenson, E. A. (1992). Mentoring: Who needs it? A comparison of protégés’ and non-protégés’ needs
for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41, 48–60.
Fagenson, E. A. (1994). Perceptions of protégés’ vs. non-protégés’ relationships with their peers,
superiors, and departments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 55–78.
Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of mentoring relation-
ships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 29–42.
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1995, March). Good for business: Making full use of
the nation’s human capital (executive summary). Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/asp/
programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf
Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (2001). Social influence: Introduction and overview. In: J. P. Forgas &
K. D. Williams (Eds), Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes (pp. 3–24). Philadelphia,
PA: Psychology Press.
Forret, M. L. (1996). Issues facing organizations when implementing formal mentoring programmes.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 27–30.
Friedman, R., Kane, M., & Cornfield, D. B. (1998). Social support and career optimism: Examining
the effectiveness of network groups among Black managers. Human Relations, 51, 1155–1177.
Gaskill, L. R. (1991). Same-sex and cross-sex mentoring of female protégés: A comparative analysis.
Career Development Quarterly, 40, 48–63.
Gaskill, L. R. (1993). A conceptual framework for the development, implementation, and evaluation
of formal mentoring programs. Journal of Career Development, 20, 147–160.
Gaskill, L. R., & Sibley, L. R. (1990). Mentoring relationships for women in retailing: Prevalence,
perceived importance, and characteristics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(1), 1–10.
Gilbert, J. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). A re-examination of organizational commitment. Journal

of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 385–396.
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor-protégé agreement on mentor leadership behavior
influence the quality of a mentoring relationship? Group & Organization Management, 25,
291–317.
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (in press). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal orientation
in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Goto, S. (1999). Asian Americans and developmental relationships. In: A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby &
R. J. Ely (Eds), Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural
Organizations. Applied Social Research (pp. 47–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Gray, M. M., & Gray, W. A. (1990). Planned mentoring: Aiding key transitions in career development.
Mentoring International, 4(3), 27–32.
Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with doctoral
student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–561.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational expe-
riences, job performance evaluations and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,
33, 64–86.
Hale, R. (2000). To match or mis-match? The dynamics of mentoring as a route to personal and
organizational learning. Career Development International, 5, 223–234.
Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1996). The new protean career: Psychological success and the path with
a heart. In: D. T. Hall (Ed.), The Career is Dead Long Live the Career: A Relational Approach
to Careers (pp. 15–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heimann, B., & Pittenger, K. K. S. (1996). The impact of formal mentorship on socialization and
commitment of newcomers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 8, 108–117.
Higgins, M. C. (2000). The more the merrier? Multiple developmental relationships and work satis-
faction. Journal of Management Development, 19, 277–296.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264–288.
Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the effects
of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 223–247.
Hinde, R. A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships, 2,
1–15.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.
Horgan, D. D., & Simeon, R. J. (1990a). Gender, mentoring, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 5, 453–471.
Horgan, D. D., & Simeon, R. J. (1990b). Mentoring and participation: An application of the Vroom-
Yetton model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 63–84.
Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity and use of personality
variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In: N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K.
Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 233–277). London: Sage Publications.
Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organiza-
tions. In: K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations (pp. 31–88).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howard, G. S. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self-reports? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 399–404.
Hubbard, S. S., & Robinson, J. P. (1998). Mentoring: A catalyst for advancement in administration.
Journal of Career Development, 24, 289–299.
Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 475–485.
Johnson, N. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). The effect of mentorship and sex-role style on male-female
earnings. Industrial Relations, 33, 263–274.
Johnson, K. K. P., Yust, B. L., & Fritchie, L. L. (2001). Views on mentoring by clothing and textiles
faculty. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 19(1), 31–40.
Jossi, F. (1997, August). Mentoring in changing times. Training, 34, 50–54.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1995). An empirical investigation of
the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoreson, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five Personality
traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52,
621–652.
Kalbfleisch, P. J. (1997). Appeasing the mentor. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 389–403.
Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Davies, A. B. (1991). Minorities and mentoring: Managing the multicultural
institution. Communication Education, 40, 266–271.
Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Davies, A. B. (1993). An interpersonal model for participation in mentoring
relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 399–415.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivational theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In: M. D. Dunnette
& L. M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1,
pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kashy, D. A., & Levesque, M. J. (2000). Quantitative methods in close relationships research. In: C.
Hendrick & S. Hendrick (Eds), Close Relationships: A Sourcebook (pp. 3–17). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G. et al. (1983).
Analyzing close relationships. In: H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L.
Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau & D. R. Peterson (Eds), Close Relationships
(pp. 20–67). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1998). Determinants of managerial career success: Evidence and explanation of
male/female differences. Journal of Management, 24, 673–692.
Kirchmeyer, C. (2002). Change and stability in managers’ gender roles. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 929–939.
Klauss, R. (1981). Formalized mentor relationships for management and executive development pro-
grams in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 41, 489–496.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R. C. (1994). Correlates and conse-
quences of protégé mentoring in a large hospital. Group & Organization Management, 19,
219–239.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., & Goodman, E. (1998). Factors and outcomes associated with mentoring
among health-care professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 58–72.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories
of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 311–328.
Kram, K. E. (1985a). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39(4),
40–43.
Kram, K. E. (1985b). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview,

IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring in the workplace. In: D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career Development in Organi-
zations (pp. 160–201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kram, K. E., & Bragar, M. C. (1992). Development through mentoring: A strategic approach. In: D. H.
Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds), Career Development: Theory and Practice (pp. 221–254).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Laband, D. N., & Lentz, B. F. (1995). Workplace mentoring in the legal profession. Southern Economic
Journal, 61, 783–802.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring re-
lationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
779–790.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). Seasons of a man’s
life. New York: Knopf.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
London, M., & Smither, J. (1999). Career-related continuous learning: Defining the construct and
mapping the process. In: G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management (Vol. 17, pp. 81–121). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives
follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86–101.
Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and
person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 3–14.
McCauley, C. D., & Hezlett, S. A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In:
N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial,
Work, & Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 313–335). London: Sage Publications.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical
contexts for the five-factor model. In: J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five Factor Model of Personality
(pp. 51–87). New York: Guildford Press.
McGuire, G. M. (1999). Do race and sex affect employees’ access to and help from mentors? Insights
from the study of a large corporation. In: A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby & R. J. Ely (Eds), Mentoring
Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations. Applied Social
Research (pp. 105–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1997). New directions for mentoring research: An examination
of related constructs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 145–161.
Merriam Webster Dictionary (1995). Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster.
Missirian, A. K. (1982). The corporate connection. Why executive women need mentors to reach the
top. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mobley, G. M., Jaret, C., Marsh, K., & Lim, Y. Y. (1994). Mentoring, job satisfaction, gender, and the
legal profession. Sex Roles, 31, 79–98.
Mullen, E. J. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange. Human Resource
Mullen, E. J. (1998). Vocational and psychosocial mentoring functions: Identifying mentors who serve
both. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 319–331.
Mullen, E. J., & Noe, R. A. (1999). The mentoring information exchange: When do mentors seek
information from their protégés? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 233–242.
Newby, T. J., & Heide, A. (1992). The value of mentoring. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(4),
2–15.
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing
work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 364–381.
Noe, R. A. (1988a). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479.
Noe, R. A. (1988b). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management
Review, 13, 65–78.
Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might
go. In: G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management (Vol. 21, pp. 129–174). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation
in developmental activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291–302.
Ochberg, R. L., Tischler, G. L., & Schulberg, H. C. (1986). Mentoring relationships in the careers of
mental health administrators. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 37, 939–941.
Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1993). Mentor reactions to protégés: An experiment
with managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 266–278.
Olian, J. D., Carroll, S. J., Giannantonio, C. M., & Feren, D. B. (1988). What do protégés look
for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33,
15–37.
O’Neill, R. M. (2002). Gender and race in mentoring relationships: A review of the literature. In:
D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins (Eds), Mentoring and Diversity: An International Perspective
(pp. 1–22). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heineman.
Orpen, C. (1995). The effects of mentoring on employees’ career success. Journal of Social Psychology,
135, 667–668.
Orpen, C. (1997). The effects of formal mentoring on employee work motivation, organizational com-
mitment and job performance. The Learning Organization, 4(2), 53–60.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering processes
of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(2),
170–183.
Peluchette, J. V. E., & Jeanquart, S. (2000). Professionals’ use of different mentor sources at
various career stages: Implications for career success. Journal of Social Psychology, 140,
549–564.
Phillips, L. (1978). Mentors and protégés: A study of the career development of women managers
and executives in business and industry (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los
Angeles, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(11), 6414A.
Phillips-Jones, L. (1983, February). Establishing a formalized mentoring program. Training and
Development Journal, 37, 38–42.
Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in
the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673–693.
Pollock, R. (1995). A test of conceptual models depicting the developmental course of informal mentor-
protégé relationships in the work place. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 144–162.
Prevosto, P. (2001). The effect of “mentored” relationships on satisfaction and intent to stay of company-
grade U.S. Army reserve nurses. Military Medicine, 166, 21–26.
Quinones, M. A. (1997). Contextual influences on training effectiveness. In: M. A. Quinones &
A. Ehrenstein (Eds), Training for a Rapidly Changing Workplace (pp. 177–200).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager’s dilemma. Human Relations, 42,
1–22.
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective.
Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for the next
decade. In: G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and Work (pp. 347–370). Thousand Oaks,
Ragins, B. R. (2002). Understanding diversified mentoring relationships: Definitions, challenges, and
strategies. In: D. Clutterbuck & B. R. Ragins (Eds), Mentoring and Diversity: An International
Perspective (pp. 23–53). Woburn, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers
to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 939–951.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1993). Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations. Journal of
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and
women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
529–550.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor,
quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 43, 1177–1194.
Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring
relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 321–339.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1997). The way we were: Gender and the termination of mentoring
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 945–953.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a
mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 493–509.
Riley, S., & Wrench, D. (1985). Mentoring among women lawyers. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 15, 374–386.
Rotundo, D. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). Coping with a career plateau: An empirical exami-
nation of what works and what doesn’t. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2622–
2646.
Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellingson, J. E. (1998). Ability-personality interactions when predicting
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 545–556.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the
past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51,
234–279.
Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 13, 169–174.
Scandura, T. A. (1997). Mentoring and organizational justice: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 51, 58–69.
Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management,
24, 449–467.
Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship
in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 251–265.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career men-
toring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal,
37, 1588–1602.
Scandura, T. A., & Viator, R. E. (1994). Mentoring in public accounting firms: An analysis of mentor-
protégé relationships, mentorship functions, and protégé turnover intentions. Accounting,
Organizations, and Society, 19, 717–734.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of the moderating effects of gender on the
relationships between mentorship initiation and protégé perceptions of mentoring functions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 342–363.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psy-
chology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological
Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
Schneider, R. J., & Hough, L. M. (1995). Personality and industrial/organizational psychology. Inter-
national Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 75–129.
Seibert, S. (1999). The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitudinal quasi-experiment. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 54, 483–502.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longi-
tudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54,
845–874.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy
of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.
Shapiro, E. C., Haseltine, F. P., & Rowe, M. P. (1978). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and the
“Patron System”. Sloan Management Review, 19(3), 51–58.
Silverhart, T. A. (1994, October). It works: Mentoring drives productivity higher. Managers Magazine,
69, 14–15.
Single, P. B., & Muller, C. B. (2001). When email and mentoring unite: The implementation of a
nationwide electronic mentoring program. In: J. J. Phillips & L. K. Stromei (Eds), Creating
Mentoring and Coaching Programs (pp. 107–122). Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000a). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-
related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21, 365–390.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000b). The role of gender in mentoring: Implications for diversified
and homogenous mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 102–122.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (in press). Self-other rating agreement in mentoring: Meeting protégé
expectations for development and career advancement. Group & Organization Management.
Steinberg, A. G., & Foley, D. M. (1999). Mentoring in the army: From buzzword to practice. Military
Struthers, N. J. (1995). Differences in mentoring: A function of gender or organizational rank? Journal
of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 265–272.
Tepper, B. J. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and nonmentoring rela-
tionships. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1191–1205.
Tepper, B. J., Brown, S. J., & Hunt, M. D. (1993). Strength of subordinates’ upward influence tactics
and gender congruency effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1903–1919.
Tepper, K., Shaffer, B. C., & Tepper, B. J. (1996). Latent structure of mentoring function scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 848–857.
Tharenou, P. (1997). Managerial career advancement. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), Inter-
national Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 39–93). Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons.
Thibodeaux, H. F., III, & Lowe, R. H. (1996). Convergence of leader-member exchange and mentoring:
An investigation of social influence patterns. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11,
97–114.
Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relation-
ships (mentoring and sponsorship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11, 479–492.
Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and
career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688–702.
Turban, D. B., Dougherty, T. W., & Lee, F. K. (2002). Gender, race and perceived similarity effects in de-
velopmental relationships: The moderating role of relationship duration. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 61, 240–262.
Tyler, K. (1998, April). Mentoring programs link employees and experienced execs. HR Magazine, 43,
98–103.
Viator, R. E. (1999). An analysis of formal mentoring programs and perceived barriers to obtaining a
mentor at large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 13(1), 37–53.
Viator, R. E. (2001a). The association of formal and informal public accounting mentoring with role
stress and related job outcomes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 73–93.
Viator, R. E. (2001b). An examination of African Americans’ access to public accounting men-
tors: Perceived barriers and intentions to leave. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26,
541–561.
Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A study of mentor-protégé relationships in large public
accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 5(3), 20–30.
Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21,
515–558.
Wallace, J. E. (2001). The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
58, 366–391.
Waters, L., McCabe, M., Kiellerup, D., & Kiellerup, S. (2002). The role of formal mentoring on business
success and self-esteem in participants of a new business start-up program. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 17, 107–121.
Watson, E., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional
states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation
and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20, 577–595.
Weil, P. A., & Kimball, P. A. (1996). Determinants of salaries earned: Comparisons of Black and White
healthcare managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 657–678.
Whitely, W. T., & Coetsier, P. (1993). The relationship of career mentoring to early career outcomes.
Organization Studies, 14, 419–441.
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeco-
nomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress. Academy of Management
Journal, 34, 331–351.
Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1992). Correlates of career-oriented mentoring for
early career managers and professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 141–154.
Witt Smith, J., Smith, W. J., & Markham, S. E. (2000). Diversity issues in mentoring academic faculty.
Journal of Career Development, 26, 251–262.
Young, A. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). What did you expect? An examination of career-related support
and social support among mentors and proteges. Journal of Management, 26, 611–632.
Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of
Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Zey, M. G. (1985). Mentor programs: Making the right moves. Personnel Journal, 64(2), 53–57.
THE IMPACT OF TELECOMMUTING
DESIGN ON SOCIAL SYSTEMS,
SELF-REGULATION, AND
ROLE BOUNDARIES
David G. Allen, Robert W. Renn and

Rodger W. Griffeth
ABSTRACT
researchers and managers will need to understand the effects of this relatively
new working arrangement on the work perceptions and behaviors of the in-
dividual telecommuter. The extant empirical literature provides mixed results
and is limited by a lack of theory; consequently, neither researchers nor man-
agers can rely on this literature for clear direction on how telecommuting will
likely affect individual telecommuters. There is a critical need for theoretical
frameworks to guide research on how telecommuting may affect the telecom-
muter’s job perceptions, working relations, and work outcomes. We present
a multi-dimensional framework of telecommuting design, and focus on how
telecommuting design may affect the telecommuter’s work environment
and outcomes through its effects on the social system of the telecommuter,
autonomy and self-management opportunities and requirements, and role
boundaries, particularly in terms of the work and non-work interface.
Our goal is to provide a framework to assist managers and researchers

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22003-X
125
126 DAVID G. ALLEN, ROBERT W. RENN AND RODGER W. GRIFFETH
in systematically addressing questions of how to design telecommuting

arrangements to maximize their potential benefits while minimizing their
potential drawbacks.
INTRODUCTION
Enabled by the increasing power, availability, and affordability of telecommunica-
tions technology, many American companies (51%) have adopted telecommuting
programs (McCune, 1998). Telecommuting represents an alternative work
arrangement facilitated by such technology that allows the employee to work
physically away from the employer’s premises (Feldman & Gainey, 1997;
O’Mahony & Barley, 1999). Most estimates of the number of individuals who
telecommute indicate that there are at least seven to 19 million telecommuters
(Armstrong, 1993; Dunkin, 1995; Raghuram, Wiesenfeld & Garud, 2000).
The International Teleworkers Association recently estimated that 16.5 million
Americans telecommute at least one day per month (ITA, 2000). A recent survey
by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 37% of 754 human
resource professionals reported offering telecommuting in their organization, up
from 20% in 1997 (SHRM, 2001). Further, telecommuters represent the fastest
growing segment of home-based workers (Dunkin, 1995), and it is expected that
more companies will embrace telecommuting in the future (Kirkman, Rosen,
Gibson, Tesluk & McPherson, 2002; Maynard, 1994).
researchers and managers will need to understand the effects of this relatively
new working arrangement on the work perceptions and behaviors of the
individual telecommuter (Duxbury & Neufeld, 1999; O’Mahony & Barley,
1999). Bartol and Liu (2002) suggest that telecommuting presents a number of
management challenges surrounding relationships with employees and employee
adjustment. Unfortunately, theory and evidence on this important issue is weak.
Scott and Timmerman (1999), for example, found only 32 empirical studies
of telecommuting, and characterized them as lacking theory and as focusing
on subjective estimates of outcomes (e.g. Teo, Lim & Wai, 1998). Bailey and
Kurland (2002) recently found 80 published empirical studies. Only a subset
of these examined telecommuter outcomes, whereas most focused on issues
surrounding the decision whether to adopt telecommuting as a work arrangement.
Their review also found that most studies of performance relied on telecommuter
self-reports of performance levels. Lamond, Standen and Daniels (2000) found
that many telecommuting studies were over a decade old, and excluded new
technologies such as e-mail and groupware. Igbaria and Guimaraes (1999) argued
The Impact of Telecommuting Design 127
that there is no consensus regarding the impact of telecommuting on outcomes

such as satisfaction and commitment, and characterized the literature as primarily
anecdotal and speculative. Hill, Miller, Weiner and Colihan (1998) found that the
limited empirical evidence on telecommuting revealed mixed and contradictory
results regarding productivity, satisfaction, morale, and work-family balance.
For example, it has been suggested that telecommuting increases work flexi-
bility, provides uninterrupted time for cognitive tasks, and reduces distractions
and commuting time (Goodrich, 1990; Ladda, 1995; Perlow, 1997). However,
others report difficulty adjusting to the lack of structure, isolation, family
interruptions, and stress that can accompany telecommuting (Chrobot, Janat &
Gerstner, 1997; Raghuram et al., 2000). Furthermore, although telecommuting
purportedly improves employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and job performance, and also purportedly lowers employee stress, work-family
conflict, and turnover (AT&T, 1998), other evidence suggests that telecommuting
may lower job and life satisfaction, and organizational commitment and lead to
fewer interactions with others (Olson, 1989; Olszewski & Mokhtarian, 1994). The
extant empirical literature, then, provides mixed results and is limited by a lack of
theory (Clancy, 1994; Elder & Smith, 1999; Tomaskovic-Devey & Risman, 1993).
Consequently, neither researchers nor managers can rely on this literature for
clear direction on how telecommuting will likely affect individual telecommuters.
There is a critical need for theoretical frameworks to guide research on how
telecommuting may affect the individual telecommuter’s job perceptions, working
relations, and work outcomes (Lamond et al., 2000; Scott & Timmerman, 1999;
Sparrow & Daniels, 1999), and Roberts and Grabowski (1996) argue that existing
technology frameworks are inadequate for studying new information technolo-
gies. Researchers have offered frameworks that offer insights into the impact
of electronic communication technology on organizational form and structure,
on the use of communication technologies, to explain the types of workers who
will pursue telecommuting opportunities, or to link telecommuting directly to
work-related outcomes, such as attachment, job satisfaction, withdrawal, and per-
formance (e.g. Feldman & Gainey, 1997; Fulk & DeSanctis, 1995; Higo, Sheng,
Shin & Figueredo, 2000; Wiesenfeld, Raghuram & Garud, 1998). They have not,
however, explicated the underlying mechanisms by which telecommuting affects
attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Raghuram, Garud,
Wiesenfeld and Gupta (2001) recently suggested that adjustment to virtual work
is a function of both structural (e.g. work and evaluation characteristics) and
relational (e.g. trust and connectedness) mechanisms, an important contribution.
The present analysis goes further and focuses on how telecommuting may affect
the telecommuter’s work environment and outcomes through its effects on the
social system of the telecommuter, autonomy and self-management opportunities
128
DAVID G. ALLEN, ROBERT W. RENN AND RODGER W. GRIFFETH
Fig. 1. The Impact of Telecommunicating Design on Social Systems, Self-Regulation, and Role Boundaries.
and requirements, and role boundaries, particularly in terms of the work and
non-work interface. Modeling the effects of telecommuting design on outcomes
as mediated by telecommuters’ appraisal of the working arrangement overcomes
criticisms that predictions of the effects of telecommunications technology neglect
intervening variables (O’Mahony & Barley, 1999). Toward this end, we propose
the framework depicted in Fig. 1.
Note that there are four major groups of variables in the Fig. 1 model. The
first component explicates the multidimensional nature of telecommuting design.
Merely classifying an individual as a telecommuter or non-telecommuter does
not provide enough information to allow understanding of the likely effects
of such an arrangement. The second component consists of variables we have
labeled mediating mechanisms, and the third consists of variables we have labeled
outcomes. Although telecommuting has been proposed to affect both attitudinal
and behavioral outcomes, this model tries to more completely explain how and
why telecommuting is likely to influence outcomes such as satisfaction and
performance. Our focus is not on the relationships among the mediating mecha-
nisms and outcomes, since those relationships have received substantial research
attention and are not endemic to the telecommuting context. Instead, we focus on
relationships among telecommuting design and the mediators, since we believe
telecommuting will have more direct effects here than on more distal outcomes
such as performance and satisfaction. At this point, we are not arguing that
these relationships are necessarily fully mediated ones; however, we believe this
framework provides greater explanatory potential for understanding the processes
by which telecommuting may affect important outcomes. Finally, the fourth
component consists of variables proposed to moderate relationships in the model.
Again, we focus on variables that may influence relationships between telecom-
muting design and the mediating mechanisms because of our interest in the effects
of telecommuting.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Before addressing specifics of the model, we clarify that the model is explicitly
intended to address telecommuting effects on individual telecommuters. It is not
intended to address reasons why organizations and individuals decide to adopt
telecommuting or make decisions concerning the availability and structure of
telecommuting arrangements. Similarly, the model does not address issues of
physically distributed teamwork, work group or organization level performance,
or cost effectiveness. Finally, the model does not attempt to explain telecommuting
effects on managers or co-workers, such as the effects on co-workers who are
unable or not allowed to telecommute, or the effects on supervisors of managing

someone who is not physically present. These issues are important, but have
begun to be addressed elsewhere (see Bailey & Kurland, 2002, for a review), and
are beyond our scope of interest in this case. Although narrowing the scope of
the model necessarily limits the range of phenomena explained, what remains is
critically important. For researchers and organizations to understand the effects of
allowing and even encouraging and requiring some employees to work outside of
the traditional office environment, a systematic framework is needed for explicitly
explaining the mechanisms by which telecommuting can influence individual
work-related attitudes and behaviors.
CONCEPTUALIZING TELECOMMUTING
It is important to differentiate telecommuting from other work arrangements
in which individuals work away from a traditional office setting. Workers who
run businesses from their home or who happen to live at their work site (e.g.
farmers) are not considered telecommuters because there is no commute trip to
eliminate, reduce, or shift. Also, although the terms telecommuting and telework
are often used interchangeably, telework is defined as using telecommunications
technology to conduct business at a distance; thus, it includes using faxes, e-mail,
cellular phones, even ordinary phone calls from any location, such as from the car
on the way to work. Telecommuting is a subset of telework that involves using
telecommunications technology to work outside the office in lieu of traveling
to the traditional office and to allow greater flexibility to individual employees.
Current confusion about telecommuting’s individual-level effects may partially
result from failing to distinguish telecommuters from other types of teleworkers
and home-based workers.
Confusion may also stem from unidimensional rather than multidimensional
conceptualizations of this construct (e.g. Elder & Smith, 1999). Early concep-
tualizations viewed telecommuters as workers who worked almost entirely with
computers, who telecommuted full-time, and who worked from home (Handy
& Mokhtarian, 1995). However, this picture fails to capture the full complexity
of telecommuting. An in-depth review of the available literature and analysis
of the work practices of several large companies with extensive telecommuting
experience reveals that telecommuting designs in practice differ along a number
of important dimensions. For example, only a small subset of telecommuters do
so full-time; most do so part-time. And, many telecommuters work part of the
day in the office and the remainder out of the office. Such telecommuters do
not eliminate commute trips; they shift them to off-peak hours. In some cases,
telecommuters’ work does not require use of a computer. Further, telecommuting

need not occur only at home. Telecenters, where equipment and supplies are
located in small satellite offices, are a growing telecommuting option. In this case,
commutes are reduced, though not eliminated. It would be misleading to assume
that a data entry employee required to work full-time at a satellite center under
close electronic monitoring in order to reduce real estate costs for the organization
is the same as a manager allowed to telecommute from any location at their
discretion in order to provide increased flexibility to manage work and non-work
demands.
Telecommuting Design Dimensions
Unlike unidimensional views, Feldman and Gainey (1997) propose a multidi-

mensional conceptualization of telecommuting arrangements. They suggest that
telecommuting arrangements consist of four dimensions: (1) whether the amount
of time spent telecommuting is full- or part-time; (2) whether the telecommuting
schedule is fixed or flexible; (3) whether telecommuting occurs from home or
from a satellite work site; and (4) whether telecommuting was initiated at the
request of the organization or the individual. These dimensions are a valuable
first step, but expressing them as dichotomous propositions limits their utility.
For example, there might be important differences between individuals who
telecommute very little and those who do so most but not all of their work
time. Similarly, even among telecommuters classified as flexible, there may be
important differences between those allowed to choose among certain flexible
hours to telecommute and those able to telecommute whenever or wherever
they like.
We believe it is critical to consider variance in telecommuting arrangements,
because most of the empirical research on telecommuting merely compares
telecommuters against non-telecommuters without making finer distinctions
(Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Because of these potential limitations, we draw from
the wider telecommuting literature as well as analysis of the telecommuting
arrangements of several large organizations and refine and expand our conceptu-
alization of telecommuting along six design facets: (1) telecommuting frequency;
(2) telecommuting location; (3) flexibility of scheduling; (4) formalization of
policies; (5) extent and nature of performance monitoring; and (6) initiation of the
telecommuting arrangement. We believe these aspects of telecommuting design
describe many of the important decisions organizations make when utilizing
telecommuting arrangements, and also enable a more fine-grained analysis of the
outcomes associated with telecommuting.
Telecommuting Frequency
Few individuals are full-time telecommuters. Instead, the amount of time spent
telecommuting may range from as little as a few hours per week to full-time
telecommuters who rarely, if ever, visit the office. Individuals who work a
great deal out of the office are likely to have different experiences than those
who do so only a few hours. Feldman and Gainey (1997), for example, suggest
full-time telecommuters would have more autonomy and less interdependence and
interaction. There is some preliminary evidence to suggest that greater time at the
office increases communication satisfaction for telecommuters (Sturgill, 1998).
Researchers, however, have often ignored frequency, commonly comparing a
telecommuting sample against a non-telecommuting sample (Bailey & Kurland,
2002). Measuring the amount of time an individual telecommutes relative to their
total amount of work time would enable more detailed analysis of the effects of
working away from the office.
Telecommuting Location
Telecommuters may work part of the time in the office, part at home, part from
alternate work sites such as telecenters, or any combination of locations. Kurland
and Bailey (1999) offer four types of telecommuting: home-based; satellite
offices, where an employer offers work space closer to locations where employees
live; neighborhood work centers, where multiple employers share work space for
telecommuters; and mobile teleworkers, who work from a variety of locations,
perhaps while traveling. Although empirical evidence is lacking, it seems likely
that telecommuting from home would differ from doing so from a telecenter or
satellite office. Depending on its location, telecommuting from a satellite office
should still shift, reduce, or eliminate stressful commutes, and may also avoid
some types of conflicts and distractions possible when working at home, such
as dependent children, household chores, and lack of separation between work
and home. For such reasons, Shamir and Salomon (1985) suggest that “halfway”
arrangements like satellite centers may be ideal options. On the other hand,
telecommuting from a satellite center may not provide as much flexibility or
increased ability to balance work and family as telecommuting from home. If
experiences differ across work sites, whether home, telecenters, or other options,
then the relative amount of time spent at specific locations should be important in
understanding the effects of telecommuting.
Flexibility of Scheduling
Telecommuters may differ in terms of the flexibility of their schedules, or the
control they have over when and from where they will work. Some telecommuters
are required to work certain hours at the office and certain hours from another
location, such as home. Others may have core hours during which they must be in
the office or must be at home. However, during other times, the employee decides
from where to work. Still others have complete flexibility in scheduling the timing
and location of work. Telecommuters with greater scheduling flexibility seem
likely to experience more control and autonomy, and may also perceive that they
are better able to balance work and family demands (Feldman & Gainey, 1997).
More flexible telecommuters may also perceive differences in social cohesiveness
and interaction.
Formalization of Policies
There are a host of potential policy issues associated with a telecommuting ar-
rangement, such as communication guidelines, equipment ownership, frequency,
and location. Yet, there is evidence that organizations vary in the extent to which
they provide formal policies regulating the arrangement. One survey indicates
that 80% of respondent companies lacked formal telecommuting policies, while
others provided extensive documentation of specific policies (Farrah & Dagen,
1993). A more recent survey reported that 24% of respondent companies that
offer flexible work arrangement such as telecommuting provide guidelines, down
from 26% in 1998 (Wells, 2001). Thus, the existence, detail, and rigidity of
such policies are likely to vary, and there is a need for research on the effects
of telecommuting policy formalization (Glass & Finley, 2002). Bartol and Liu
(2002) suggest that policies will impact relationships with employees and thus
outcomes such as attitudes and performance. More formal policies may mitigate
ambiguity or uncertainty about role expectations. On the other hand, they may
also reduce perceived flexibility or autonomy.
Performance Monitoring
Management of telecommuters also varies in the extent of performance moni-
toring that occurs. Concerns about managing individuals who are not physically
present and the possibility of shirking are often cited as barriers to telecommuting
arrangements. Thus, the evaluation of telecommuter performance is an important
issue. Computer-based or electronic performance monitoring allows managers to
monitor aspects of telecommuter behavior such as key strokes, telephone calls,
log-in times, etc. For telecommuters in professional jobs, the popular press sug-
gests shifting to managing based on objectives and results; however, for clerical,
data entry, and other non-professional telecommuting jobs, an alternative is to
closely monitor the amount of time spent at the computer or logged into a system,
even to the extent of monitoring keystrokes. It seems likely that different amounts
of electronic monitoring will be associated with different experiences in terms of
flexibility and control. There is some evidence that constant monitoring can lead
to stress, apprehension, low morale, and less frequent and less rich communication
(Fairweather, 1999).
Telecommuting Initiation
The assumption is often made that telecommuting is a boon to the telecommuter.
However, the literature shows that there are clear differences in the reasons why
organizations allow or require telecommuting, and these reasons may affect the
ways in which telecommuting arrangements are implemented. Telecommuters who
make more positive attributions about these motivations are likely to have different
experiences than those who make less positive ones.
Telecommuting arrangements may be initiated to save overhead costs, for
legal compliance, to address environmental concerns, to increase productivity,
to allow greater staffing flexibility, to allow employees greater flexibility, to help
employees meet non-work responsibilities, and so forth. Feldman and Gainey
(1997) suggest that individuals who initiate telecommuting would experience
more positive outcomes than those who do so at the organization’s initiative.
However, it is not clear that individuals offered the opportunity to telecommute
by organizations should necessarily react negatively. Perhaps a more accurate
representation of the underlying construct in this case is attributions about the mo-
tivation behind adopting telecommuting. These underlying adoption motivations
may vary in the extent to which they are intended to benefit the telecommuter
versus the organization, and attributions about these differences may result in
different experiences and outcomes. Although telecommuting may be intended to
benefit both employee and company, the experiences of a lower-level data entry
worker required to begin telecommuting to save office space are likely to be quite
different from those of a manager who is allowed to telecommute to help accom-
modate family responsibilities. Underlying adoption motivation more explicitly
intended to benefit the telecommuter should result in more positive experiences
and outcomes.
THE IMPACT OF TELECOMMUTING DESIGN

It may be tempting to view telecommuting as a simple change in the location
from which an individual works. However, this analysis is based on the premise
that telecommuting fundamentally alters the ways people work, relationships
with peers, supervisors, and organizations, and the boundaries between work
and non-work life. Broadly speaking, we propose that telecommuting design
facets influence individual-level work-related outcomes through three categories
of mechanisms: (1) the social system of the telecommuter, particularly in terms
of relationships with others and the telecommuter’s own social identity; (2)
self-regulatory processes, particularly in terms of autonomy, personal control,
self-management, and the feedback environment; and (3) role boundaries,
particularly in terms of the work and non-work interface.
We focus on these mediating mechanisms for several reasons. First, telecom-
muting is a technological change whose effects cannot be understood without
considering the social system within which it is embedded (Passmore & Sherwood,
1978). The effects of changes in technical systems should not be considered
in isolation from the effects of these changes on social systems (e.g. Emery &
Trist, 1960; Trist & Bamforth, 1954). This reasoning applies to telecommuting in
particular because to varying degrees it physically removes the individual from the
social context, thus potentially drastically affecting relationships with supervisors
and co-workers, as well as with family and friends, and also the social identity
of the telecommuter.
Second, telecommuting is by definition both a technological change and an
alternate way of designing work and jobs. Although the telecommuter’s general re-
sponsibilities and tasks may remain fundamentally similar, the work environment
and the ways in which they accomplish work may change, perhaps drastically, as
a function of telecommuting. We argue that one of the most important and direct
ways that telecommuting affects work design is by providing greater opportunities
for autonomy and self-management while simultaneously requiring greater
personal control and self-management effort as telecommuters adapt to the option
of working outside the traditional office and away from personal supervision.
Telecommuting also changes the nature of the feedback environment in which
individuals work.
Third, telecommuting affects boundaries among roles, particularly with regard
to work and family (Ashforth, Kreiner & Fugate, 2000). Indeed, telecommuting’s
importance is largely attributed to helping individuals balance work and family
responsibilities, although some research identifies telecommuting as a trend that
may actually increase the potential for work-family interface and conflict (Eagle,
Miles & Icenogle, 1997). The unique nature of telecommuting is such that it
would seem to simultaneously provide greater control over the extent to which
work and family concerns “spillover” into each other while also increasing the
extent to which these two spheres actually overlap (cf. Zedeck, 1992).
Finally, we argue that considering telecommuting’s effects on these mechanisms
in terms of the design facets describe earlier will aid researchers in answering
questions about the effect of telecommuting on outcomes such as attitudes and
performance. It is likely that telecommuting could have positive or negative
effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance
depending on the implementation and the circumstances. Thus, our goal is to
provide a framework to begin to guide research seeking to clarify how, why, and
when telecommuting is likely to influence these important outcomes.
Social Inclusion and Relationships
A widely expressed concern of employees regarding telecommuting is that they

will feel isolated from the workplace and from social contacts at work (Handy
& Mokhtarian, 1995). Rousseau (1989) suggests that telecommuters might feel
less inclusion in the workplace, with inclusion defined as the degree to which the
individual is physically and psychologically integrated into the organization. Lack
of inclusion can affect employee investment of time and energy, willingness to
make long-term commitments, and how role competition is resolved (Rousseau,
1989). The isolated employee is likely to miss out on the informational benefits of
social contact, and to be less likely to take on exceptional levels of responsibility
(Pratt, 1984). Because telecommuting physically removes the telecommuter from
the workplace, it likely affects the telecommuter’s social context in several ways.
One is through the extent to which the individual identifies with the organization.
Another is through changes in perceptions of social support the individual receives
from supervisors, co-workers, and the organization.
Social Identity
Social identity theory (SIT) asserts that individuals identify who they are
through the groups to which they belong, and that individuals infuse their group
memberships with special meanings. Further, SIT holds that social identity
processes are motivated by the enhancement of self-esteem and the reduction
of uncertainty that follows from belonging to distinctive groups. According to
Hogg and Terry (2000), social identity processes stem from individuals’ needs
to “reduce subjective uncertainty about one’s perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and
behavior and, ultimately one’s self-concept and place within the social world”
(p. 124). Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) also state “through social interaction and
the internalization of collective values, meanings, and standards, individuals come
to see themselves through the eyes of others and construct more or less stable
self-definitions and a sense of self-esteem” (p. 417).
As the degree of separation between a telecommuter and his/her company
increases, telecommuters will likely spend less time with their work groups
and have less exposure to organizational values, meanings and standards. Less
exposure to co-workers and organization culture may cause telecommuters to
lose sight of their position in work groups, departments, and the larger social
domain of the organization (Hogg & Mullin, 1999). This would be expected to
negatively affect telecommuters’ self-esteem and produce greater uncertainty

about self-identity, psychological processes hypothesized to motivate social
identity processes or, more specifically, self-categorization processes whereby
individuals seek new groups with whom to identify, to assimilate themselves,
and to derive self-esteem (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Similarly, telecommuters may
find it more difficult to identify with their organization because of their lack of
access to tokens and symbols of organizational membership and to organizational
rituals and ceremonies (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram & Garud, 2001). Vega and
Brennan (2000) recently argued that telecommuting should increase feelings of
isolation because telecommuters lack artifacts of status, have greater difficulty in
identifying with group norms and values, and have diminished opportunities for
shared experiences.
Thus, we can make several propositions regarding the impact of telcommuting
design on identification with the organization. The more employees are away
from the office and physically separated from co-workers and the organiza-
tional environment, the more difficult it may be to develop or maintain strong
identification with the organization. Therefore, telecommuting frequency will
be negatively related to identification with the organization. At the same time,
though, different telecommuting locations provide varying amounts of exposure
to the organization. Telecommuting from home or from neighborhood locations
inhabited by multiple employers may provide less exposure to the organization
than a satellite center that provides more organizational culture and contact with
organization members, and so may make identification more difficult.
These effects are important because loss of social identity from separation
may affect organizational commitment, an attitude or orientation that attaches
the identity of a person to an organization (Sheldon, 1971). As opposed to an
employee who works on company premises, a telecommuter’s ability to identify
with the organization may be weakened by the physical and psychological barriers
that separate the individual from the organization and its groups. Benkhoff (1997)
suggests that the absence of clear expectations resulting from exposure to a firm’s
social network may disrupt the social identity process (i.e. defining and identifying
oneself as a member of a given group or employer). In other words, due to lack of
exposure to an organization’s context and its groups, telecommuters may become
victims of a blurred social identity with specific groups within the organization
and, thus, struggle to maintain organizational commitment. Therefore, greater
percentage of time telecommuting, especially from home, may be associated
with less commitment to the organization as a result of a loss of meaningfulness
and sense of connection with the organization (Albert, Asforth & Dutton, 2000;
Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982). Telecommuting designs that increase physical
and psychological separation from the organization may be associated with
greater subjective uncertainty and reduced organization-based self-esteem that

motivate social identity processes. These processes are then associated with a
loss of connection with the organization manifested in less identification with the
organization and lower organizational commitment.
Social Support
Social isolation is a major factor inhibiting the success of telecommuting
(Chapman, Sheehy, Heywood, Dooley & Collins, 1995). Because telecommuters
spend less time in close physical proximity to others at work, they experience
less interaction and potentially less rich communication (e.g. e-mail versus
face-to-face). Cooper and Kurland (2002) recently argued that telecommuters are
likely susceptible to greater social and professional isolation. Feldman and Gainey
(1997) argued that telecommuting would decrease interaction with supervisors
and co-workers, and Lowery (1996) found some evidence that employees who
were physically distant from their supervisors perceived less communication
with them. Communication that does occur may be delivered via leaner com-
munication media, providing less context and information. In addition, research
on the spatial configuration of work space indicates that individuals whose work
setting has fewer barriers to interaction will have more expected and unexpected
interactions (e.g. Oldham, Cummings & Zhou, 1995). The physical separation of
telecommuters would be expected to act as a barrier to interaction, thus reducing
the amount of potential social support from supervisors and co-workers.
The frequency and location of telecommuting are likely to affect social support.
In interviews with telecommuters, their supervisors, and non-telecommuters,
Cooper and Kurland (2002) found that all groups agreed that lower telecommuting
frequency would be associated with less isolation. Individuals who work outside
the traditional office more often are likely to feel less social support from both
supervisors and co-workers. Further, though, individuals who telecommute from
a satellite center are likely to have more interaction with co-workers and perhaps
experience greater inclusion in workplace norms and culture than individuals
who telecommute from home. There is some evidence that extensive computer
and Internet use may displace social activities and the maintenance of strong
social ties (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay & Scherlis,
1998). Similar effects may also occur from extensive telecommuting. Cooper and
Kurland’s (2002) interviews also revealed that formalized policies were thought
to potentially protect against isolation, however.
The underlying adoption motivation may also influence perceptions of support,
particularly supervisor support. Individuals who perceive that the telecommuting
arrangement was implemented primarily or exclusively to benefit the organization
may perceive even lower supervisory support. For example, if the employee
believes they are being required to telecommute to free up office space, they
are likely to perceive their supervisors as less supportive. This may also be the
case if the organization utilizes extensive close performance monitoring. On the
other hand, individuals who perceive that the telecommuting arrangement was
implemented primarily or exclusively to benefit them are likely to perceive greater
supervisory support.
Thus, telecommuting frequency, telecommuting from locations not associated
with the organization (home or neighborhood locations), and extensive per-
formance monitoring should be negatively related to perceptions of supervisor
and co-worker support. Formalization of policies and the extent to which the
telecommuting adoption motivation is perceived as intended to benefit the
telecommuter should be positively related to perceptions of supervisor support.
These relationships are important because social support from supervisors
and co-workers can influence work-related attitudes such as satisfaction and
commitment, and may also impact job performance because of their effects on
the employee’s ability and willingness to cope with and overcome obstacles.
Perceived Organizational Support
Rooted in social exchange theory (e.g. Gouldner, 1960), perceived organizational

support (POS) represents employees’ “global beliefs about the extent to which
the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”
(Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). Shore and Shore
(1995) posit that discretionary human resource practices that communicate con-
cern for employees’ future should enhance POS. Thus, the adoption motivation
underlying the decision to telecommute is likely related to perceptions of support,
especially given the emphasis on employer discretion in developing POS (Shore &
Shore, 1995). That is, telecommuters’ POS may vary with their perceptions of the
forces motivating organizations to adopt this new work arrangement. Employees
who perceive the driving forces behind telecommuting as primarily serving the
organization (i.e. lower overhead costs, legal compliance, etc.) may interpret
telecommuting as a sign that the organization does not care as much about their
well-being as when the organization provided them a pleasant work space.
In addition, employees who are forced to telecommute may interpret the
decision as an indication that the organization doesn’t care about their future
careers with the organization. The negative impact that telecommuting may have
on career advancement is a primary concern of telecommuters (Perlow, 1997). On
the other hand, employees who believe that the forces motivating telecommuting
stem from the desire to help employees avoid stressful commutes, provide greater
schedule flexibility and allow more time to meet non-work responsibilities may
surmise that telecommuting is an action by an organization that cares about their
well-being.
At the same time, telecommuters who are given a great deal of discretion
in managing their work processes will likely perceive that the organization
both trusts them and cares about them. Allowing telecommuters to design their
own schedules and not shackling them with extremely restrictive rules and
monitoring should increase perceptions of organizational support. Extremely
limited flexibility or restrictive rules, policies, and monitoring, on the other hand,
might reduce these perceptions.
Thus, flexibility of scheduling and the extent to which the telecommuting
adoption motivation is perceived as intended to benefit the telecommuter should
be positively related to perceived organizational support. Formalization of policies
and extensive performance monitoring should be negatively related to perceived
organizational support.
These relationships are important because of the potential effects on organiza-
tional commitment and other outcomes through perceived organizational support
(POS). When employees perceive high levels of support, they feel obligated to
reciprocate with commitment to their organization and by engaging in behaviors
that support organizational goals (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). Research indi-
cates that POS is positively related to employee commitment to an organization
and organizational citizenship behavior and negatively related to intentions to
quit and turnover (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1986;
Moorman, Blakely & Niehoff, 1998; Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Wayne, Shore &
Liden, 1997).
Self-Regulation Opportunities and Requirements
Telecommuting purportedly provides enhanced freedom and flexibility because

of the ability to eliminate or shift commutes and to determine the scheduling of
when and from where to work. Telecommuters may also experience less direct
supervision and monitoring from supervisors and peers because of their physical
separation from the workplace. Telecommuting, then, may increase perceptions of
autonomy and control. At the same time, it places additional responsibility on the
telecommuter to manage their own behavior. Thus, telecommuting increases both
the opportunities and the requirements for self-regulating behavior. Several aspects
of telecommuting design are intended to influence how empowered employees
feel to control their work life. This work arrangement also has implications for
how employees self-manage their work behavior. Telecommuting also affects the
feedback environment in which the employee works, an important element of

self-regulation.
Autonomy and Personal Control

Technological change that increases worker discretion over the pace and flow of
work and that allows more control over establishing priorities, time management,
and work methods increase autonomy (Rousseau, 1977; Slocum & Sims, 1980).
A primary component of empowerment is self-determination to plan and schedule
work and identify and remove obstacles (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse,
1990). Because telecommuters’ work behaviors and methods are less likely to
be closely monitored by supervisors or peers, they should perceive more discre-
tion over their workflow and control over how they manage their work than in
a traditional office setting. Therefore, increased percentage of work time spent
telecommuting should enhance autonomy perceptions.
Similarly, whether work occurs at home, a satellite office, or a corporate office
should also affect perceptions of the amount of control one has over his or her
work. Researchers suggest that working at home, and telecommuting in particular,
will increase autonomy because of less direct supervision (Feldman & Gainey,
1997; Parker & Wall, 1998; Shamir & Salomon, 1985). A telecommuter who
works from home should experience greater discretion and control than one who
works from a satellite office, who should experience more discretion and control
than one who works out of a corporate office. Thus, telecommuting from home
should enhance autonomy perceptions more than telecommuting from a satellite
office.
Telecommuters also differ in their degree of flexibility in deciding when and
from where they will telecommute. Hackman, Oldham, Janson and Purdy (1975)
propose that flexibility of scheduling work is an important aspect of vertical
loading that would be positively related to this job dimension. Individuals with
greater scheduling flexibility should perceive greater discretion and control over
their work. Thus, the degree to which telecommuting schedules are flexible should
also be positively related to autonomy perceptions.
Finally, formalization of telecommuting policies and extensive electronic
performance monitoring may also be related to autonomy, although in a different
manner. As rules, policies, and procedures for telecommuting increase, a telecom-
muter’s perceptions of control over work may decrease, as such procedures
constrain freedom, independence, and discretion. In this regard, Parker and Wall
(1998) suggest that telecommuting might not increase autonomy in the case of
electronic performance monitoring or tightly controlled deadlines. Thus, increased
monitoring and formalization of telecommuting policies should reduce perceptions
of autonomy.
To understand the relationship between telecommuting and outcomes such

as job performance and job satisfaction, it is useful to take into account direct
effects on autonomy and personal control perceptions. Having control over work
methods and greater influence over work-related decisions enhances feelings of
personal responsibility and accountability that, in turn, lead to improvements
in job performance and job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Over two
decades of research indicate that job autonomy is positively associated with
job performance and satisfaction (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller
& Fitzgerald, 1985). A meta-analysis of perceived control, autonomy, and
participation found consistent evidence of positive relationships with work
satisfaction, job performance, and reduced stress (Spector, 1986).
According to social cognitive theory, personal control perceptions can enhance
performance through self-efficacy judgments (Bandura, 1986; Greenberger &
Strasser, 1986). Self-efficacy refers to the beliefs an individual has over his her
ability to perform a specific task. When individuals believe they can control
factors that affect their work outcomes, they tend to have higher self-efficacy
and set higher personal goals (Bandura & Wood, 1989). By contrast, when
individuals perceive an inability to exercise control over the environment (i.e.
lack autonomy), they experience a variety of adverse outcomes, including lower
self-efficacy, performance decrements, and decreased satisfaction (Bazerman,
1982; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Two longitudinal field studies indicate that personal
control perceptions are positively related to job performance and job satisfaction
(Greenberger, Strasser, Cummings & Dunham, 1989). Thus, telecommuting
arrangements that enhance perceptions of job autonomy and personal control
would be expected to enhance telecommuters’ experienced responsibility,
accountability, and self-efficacy judgments and, hence, establish conditions for
improvements in job performance and job satisfaction.
Self-Leadership Opportunities
Self-leadership is a process of using learning principles to manage one’s own
behavior for the purpose of achieving desired results (Manz & Neck, 1999). It
involves three general activities: (1) observing one’s own behavior to identify
performance objectives; (2) establishing personal goals and plans to attain desired
performance objectives; and (3) monitoring and reacting to one’s progress in
working towards personal objectives (Bandura, 1991). Considering the impact
of telecommuting on self-leadership opportunities is important because studies
suggest that how well telecommuters adapt to internal versus external control will
likely affect their job performance and job satisfaction (Frayne & Geringer, 2000;
Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1998).
Broadly speaking, telecommuting’s effect on self-leadership opportunities

is based on the principle that psychosocial functioning occurs within a triadic
reciprocal causal framework consisting of behavior, cognitive and personal
factors and the external environment (Wood & Bandura, 1989). In essence, this
framework suggests that behavior is the result of interactions between the person
and the external environment. As Wood and Bandura (1989) state, “individuals are
both products and producers of their environment” (p. 362). Thus, self-leadership
is not only a product of an individual influencing the external environment to suit
his or her self-regulation needs but also is a result of the external environment
exerting influence over an individual’s perceptions and attempts at self-control
(Zeidner, Boekaerts & Pintrich, 2000). In this vein, telecommuting changes
the environment in which work occurs and thus is likely to affect employees’
perceptions of self-leadership opportunities.
Telecommuting affects self-leadership opportunities by placing employees
in work environments that provide them with autonomy and that enhance their
beliefs that they control their own work processes and outcomes. The job
characteristics model (JCM) proposes that work designs that increase employees’
control over their own work (i.e. autonomy) cause employees to experience
more personal responsibility for their work processes and outcomes that, in turn,
improve intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction and job performance (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980). Experiencing greater personal responsibility for one’s own work
processes and outcomes is also a core psychological state of self-leadership (Manz
& Neck, 1999; Renn & Vandenberg, 1995). Self-leadership shifts responsibility
for influencing individuals to achieve organizational goals from an external agent
to the individual employee (Manz & Neck, 1999). And, as individuals realize
that they control critical work activities once performed by a manager, they
experience feelings of heightened personal responsibility for the quantity and
quality of their work. In addition, social cognitive theory suggests that work
designs that increase autonomy or control enhances individuals’ beliefs that they
can organize and execute the courses of action necessary to accomplish desired
results (i.e. self-efficacy). Further, as individuals’ efficacy beliefs rise so does
their self-regulatory efforts (i.e. self-leadership efforts) (Bandura, 1997). Thus,
the same telecommuting dimensions that enhance autonomy and personal control
perceptions ought to promote perceptions of self-leadership opportunities as well.
To be more specific, telecommuting removes individuals from organizational
settings comprised of structural properties that can restrict self-management
opportunities (Mills, 1983). In the broadest sense, telecommuting places in-
dividuals in a more organic context than does working in a traditional work
environment. In a traditional work environment, employees conduct work within
a network of physical and psychosocial structures that can frustrate self-regulation

efforts. Physical structures such as tools and equipment, material and supplies,
technologies, job-related information, departmental designs, procedures and
policies, decision hierarchies, work designs, and even the architectural layout of a
building can constrain employees’ ability to control their own work processes and
outcomes (Peters & O’Connor, 1980). As one example, employees’ work within
organizations may be more tightly coupled with and thus more dependent upon
the work and/or resources of other individuals, work groups and departments
than when it is performed in a telecommuting arrangement (Thompson, 1967;
Tsui & Ashford, 1994). Consequently, employees within traditional organizations
have comparatively less freedom than most telecommuters who work at home or
satellite offices to decide when, where and how to work.
Psychosocial properties of organizations can also interfere with self-leadership
efforts. Formal leaders, such as first-line supervisors, whose main purpose is
to control and monitor employee work can signal employees that they are not
ultimately responsible for managing their own work processes and outcomes
(Manz & Sims, 1987; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). When employees believe that
supervisors control and monitor work processes and outcomes, they are likely
to experience personal inefficacy and are less likely to exercise self-regulation
(Wood & Bandura, 1989). Besides formal leaders, the climate, roles, norms
and social information processes within traditional work settings may affect
employees’ self-leadership beliefs and actions (Feldman, 1984; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978; Schneider, 1990). Role expectations and information acquired from
the social environment, for instance, may “communicate” to employees that they
are not supposed to take an active posture towards their work. Such expectations
and social information would likely reduce employees’ perceived responsibility
for work outcomes, lower their self-efficacy beliefs and thus dampen their
self-regulatory activities (Bandura, 1997; Griffin, 1983).
In contrast, telecommuting places relatively fewer physical and psychosocial
constraints on employees and even allows them to design some or all aspects
of their own work surroundings. Instead of waiting to perform a task until
another individual, group or department provides needed resources (e.g. money
or information), telecommuters may be provided with their own resources (e.g.
travel budget or supply budget) and empowered to acquire the resources when
they need it and from whomever can provide resources the most quickly and
economically. Telecommuters also perform work in a context where they are
not surrounded by a climate, role expectations, norms, leaders and co-workers
who could hinder self-control attempts at work. The most obvious example is
the absence of direct supervision that, in turn, reduces the frequency of direct
external control and monitoring of work. As a result of minimal physical and
psychosocial constraints, telecommuters should experience a heightened sense

of personal responsibility, self-efficacy and thus self-leadership opportunities.
Thus, frequency of telecommuting, telecommuting from locations outside of
the organization, and flexibility of scheduling should be positively associated
with self-management opportunities. Formalization of policies and performance
monitoring should be negatively related to self-management opportunities.
Performance Feedback
In work organizations, performance feedback is information about the correctness
or adequacy of one’s work behavior (Ilgen, Fisher & Taylor, 1979). Understanding
telecommuting’s effects on performance feedback is worthy of attention because
of its relationship with important work attitudes and behaviors. Individuals need
information about the quality of their work behavior to modify personal goals,
work strategies and improve task performance (Locke & Latham, 1990; Taylor,
Fisher & Ilgen, 1984). Indeed a recent meta-analysis indicates that feedback inter-
ventions are positively associated with task performance as long as the feedback
directs attention to the task and not the self (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Performance
feedback also affects self-efficacy judgments and training performance, especially
when recipients attribute the feedback to controllable factors (Martocchio &
Dulebohn, 1994). In addition, it can enhance intrinsic work motivation and job sat-
isfaction, work-related attitudes that are important for explaining performance in
a variety of settings, and for controlling absenteeism, turnover and organizational
citizenship behavior (Bandura, 1997; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Organ, 1990).
Telecommuting is likely to affect feedback because to some extent this work
arrangement removes the employee from the feedback environment. Revealing
telecommuting’s effects on performance feedback requires conceptualizing the
organization as a feedback environment and the recipient as an active rather
than passive participant in the feedback process. From a feedback perspective,
the organizational context is a complex and rich network of information that
provides multiple cues for assessing individuals’ task performance. The office
environment provides individuals performance feedback from multiple sources,
including the formal organization, immediate supervisor, co-workers, customers,
the task and self (Greller & Herold, 1975). While the traditional work setting
offers performance feedback from multiple sources, the quality of the feedback
individuals receive from these sources is not equivalent. Sources that are closer
psychologically to the individual (e.g. task, self) seem to be the most informative
and useful for enhancing task performance (Herold & Parsons, 1985). For instance,
over twenty years of job characteristics research indicates that task feedback
is consistently and positively related to job performance and negatively related
to absenteeism and turnover (Fried & Ferris, 1987). In addition, more recent
individual studies find that task feedback has positive effects on task performance
independent of external feedback and especially when individuals are committed to
task goals (Goodman, 1998).
Explaining telecommuting’s effects on feedback also requires viewing individ-
uals as proactive participants in acquiring, generating, processing and responding
to feedback messages. That is, individuals are not passive thermostats waiting
idly to receive feedback to be used to reduce discrepancies between standards and
actual performance (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Herold & Fedor, 1998). Instead
individuals proactively seek, create and shape their own feedback (Ashford,
1986). In Herold and Fedor’s (1998) words, “. . . the performer acts as both sender
and receiver of performance feedback, generates feedback through interactions
with, and manipulation of the external environment, is the receiver of various
feedback messages from other sources, as well as the processor of this wide array
of performance cues” (p. 221).
Telecommuting thus removes individuals from an organizational setting in
which they shaped and acquired performance feedback from multiple sources. By
removing individuals from the organizational feedback environment, telecom-
muting eliminates or reduces access to some sources of feedback, and changes the
nature of the relationship between the telecommuter and other sources of feedback.
For example, as the frequency of telecommuting increases, telecommuters will
have less exposure to and interaction with the formal organization, co-workers
and managers, all which are valuable and distinct sources of positive and negative
feedback (Herold & Parsons, 1985). Because they have less casual and physical
access to these sources, telecommuters generally would be expected to acquire
and receive less feedback from them. In addition, the feedback they do receive
from these sources will be based on a narrower range of performance behaviors, as
managers and co-workers have fewer opportunities to observe the full range of a
telecommuter’s in-role and extra-role work behaviors. Feldman and Gainey (1997)
argue that telecommuting decreases interactions with supervisors and co-workers,
and Shamir and Salomon (1985) posit that working from home can decrease
feedback from both these sources. Lowery (1996) also reports that employees
who are physically distant from their supervisors perceive less communication
with them. When supervisors do communicate with telecommuters, they may use
“leaner” communication media that conveys less information, such as e-mail and
telephone that do not contain facial expressions or body language (Cascio, 2000;
Daft & Lengel, 1984).
As telecommuters spend more time working at locations that isolate them from
the organization and its members (e.g. home), they may reconfigure their sources
of feedback and become more active in seeking feedback (Ashford & Cummings,
1983). Telecommuters, for instance, may become more attuned to task feedback,
generate more feedback themselves (i.e. self-generated feedback) and/or seek

more feedback from customers and telecommuting peers in an effort to fill a
feedback void caused by acquiring and receiving less feedback from the organi-
zation and its members. Whether telecommuters rely on the task or self-generated
feedback versus seeking feedback from customers or telecommuting peers likely
will be affected by their feedback propensities. Feedback propensity refers to
a predisposition to desire feedback from internal or external sources (Herold,
Parsons & Rensvold, 1996). High external propensity is a strong preference for
feedback from external agents (e.g. supervisors, co-workers, customers); high
internal propensity refers to a penchant for internally-generated feedback. High
external feedback propensity individuals report that the task provides less feedback
than do those with high internal propensities (Herold et al., 1996). Consequently,
telecommuters with a high external feedback propensity may rely less on the task
and self for feedback and seek feedback more often from external agents (e.g.
customers, telecommuting peers, managers) than their high internal propensity
counterparts (Renn & Fedor, 2001). By contrast, high internal propensity
telecommuters would be expected to view the task and self as preferable sources
of feedback and thus rely more on these sources than feedback from others. Thus,
telecommuting frequency will be negatively related to receiving performance
feedback from the formal organization and its members, and as telecommuting
frequency increases, telecommuters with high external propensities will seek
more performance feedback from external agents and rely less on feedback from
the task and self than will their high internal propensity counterparts.
Role Properties and Boundaries
Because telecommuting moves the work role at least partially out of the office and
often into the home, it likely changes the nature of both the work role itself and
relationships between work and non-work roles. Since the nature and frequency
of interactions with supervisors may change, telecommuting may influence the
important role property of role ambiguity. Also, since telecommuting may blur
distinctions between work and non-work roles, its effects on conflict among roles
is important. Given the purported benefits of telecommuting for balancing work
and family obligations, we focus on its likely effects on conflict between work and
family roles.
Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguity occurs when there is a lack of information concerning the proper
definition of a job, its goals, and the permissible means for accomplishing them
(Katz & Kahn, 1978). Organizations are comprised of systems of roles that
function together to affect organizational outcomes. In this system of roles,
members communicate expectations, directly and indirectly, for each role. When
this communication is non-existent, confusing, or inefficient, role ambiguity can
occur (Tubre & Collins, 2000, p. 157). Because it represents a lack of information
about how to perform a job, role ambiguity has been hypothesized to reduce effort-
to-performance and performance-to-reward expectancies, which, in turn, would
be expected to lower motivation and job performance (Jackson & Schuler, 1985).
To the extent telecommuters are removed from the workplace, they may receive
less information and fewer cues from supervisors and co-workers about role
requirements. They would also be expected to have fewer opportunities to seek
feedback from others and may receive less frequent performance feedback from
supervisors (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). In this vein, Jackson and Schuler (1985)
found that leader initiating structure and feedback from others were negatively
related to role ambiguity. Thus, as telecommuters become more physically and
psychologically removed from the organization, they may experience greater role
ambiguity. However, more thorough and clear telecommuting policies will likely
reduce feelings of uncertainty about role expectations. Jackson and Schuler (1985)
also found that formalization was negatively related to role ambiguity. Therefore,
telecommuting arrangements that reduce the opportunity for self-management
are likely to be associated with less role ambiguity. Telecommuting frequency
and telecommuting from locations not associated with the organization (home
or neighborhood locations) should be positively related to perceived role ambi-
guity, while formalization of policies should be negatively related to perceived
role ambiguity.
Work and Family Role Conflict

Role conflict exists when an occupant’s expectations for a role are in conflict
with the expectations of a role sender (Katz & Kahn, 1978). One of the important
purported benefits of telecommuting is to reduce conflict between work and family
roles, and at least one survey reports that telecommuters and home-based workers
found it easier to separate the demands of home and office than office workers
(Trent, Smith & Wood, 1994).
Yet, even a brief consideration of telecommuting arrangements suggests that in
some instances telecommuters may be subject to greater work – family conflict
because of the close proximity of family members, especially dependent ones, and
the blurring of the distinction between work space and time as well as family space
and time. Similarly, Shamir (1992) argues that it is naı̈ve to believe that individuals
can achieve a better balance between work and family simply by eliminating
temporal and physical boundaries between the two spheres of life. Indeed studies
indicate that individuals who work at home report that one of the most frustrating
aspects of working at home is interruptions from children (Costello, 1988).
Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate (2000) recently proposed a framework of micro
role transitions that may elucidate individuals’ cognitive/affective experience of
telecommuting and telecommuting outcomes. According to the framework, a
pair of roles can be placed on a segmentation-integration continuum based on
the degree of flexibility and permeability of their boundaries and the contrast
of their identities (Ashforth et al., 2000). Highly segmented roles are separated
by inflexible and impermeable boundaries and have high-contrast role identities,
or identities that do not share core and peripheral features and, thus, are easily
distinguished from one another. Highly integrated roles have flexible and perme-
able boundaries and have low-contrast role identities. Because of their inflexible,
impermeable boundaries and high-contrast identities, highly segmented roles
benefit from less blurring but suffer from the difficulty of transitioning from
one role to another. In contrast, highly integrated roles suffer from blurring and
benefit from the ease of transitioning between roles. Ashforth et al. (2000) suggest
that high segmentation is more evident in work and home domains compared
to telecommuting because each role is associated with specific settings and
times. They further argue that segmentation is less evident in the at work domain
because of shared organizational contexts and weaker differentiation of role
identities (p. 476). Similarly, Rau and Hyland (2002) suggest that telecommuting
arrangements are closer to the integration end of this spectrum.
Following the Ashforth et al. (2000) framework, telecommuting may shift
work and family roles along this continuum from high segmentation to higher
integration which, in turn, would be expected to produce easier role transitions
but greater role blurring. For example, a telecommuter working at home should
be able to transition more easily from employee to parent when a child is crying in
the room next to a home office than trying to do so from a corporate office. While
telecommuting may lower the magnitude of the transition between work and
home roles, it may also “create confusion and anxiety about which role identity
is or should be most salient and produce greater interruptions without warnings
(sic)” (Ashforth et al., 2000, p. 481). An example is a telecommuter working at
home whose neighbor enjoys visiting and chatting about neighborhood activities
in the middle of the workday. The telecommuter likely will experience conflict
over which role should take precedent (i.e. employee versus neighbor), especially
if he/she values the neighbor’s friendship. So, telecommuting frequency and
telecommuting from home will increase the integration of work and family roles,
which, in turn, creates greater inter-role conflict.
At the same time, spillover theory stresses the importance of the amount
of control individuals have over the permeable boundary between subsystems
such as work and family (Zedeck, 1992). If an individual has little control over
interactions between subsystems, then spillover effects tend to be negative. For
individuals with the power to control these interactions, spillover effects tend to
be positive. Following this logic, the increased flexibility and control provided by
some telecommuting designs may result in positive spillover. More specifically,
individuals who have greater flexibility in determining when and from where they
will work would seem to have greater control over the interactions between their
work and family subsystems and, thus, are likely to experience less work-family
conflict (Pleck, Staines & Lang, 1980; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). So, flexibility
of scheduling will reduce work-family conflict.
These role properties are important because many studies have examined
their relationships with work-related outcomes, and at least three meta-analyses
have found that both are negatively related to job performance, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler,
1985; Tubre & Collins, 2000). Further, there is evidence that when employees
experience conflict between work and family roles, they also report experiencing
greater job dissatisfaction and fatigue, and lower life satisfaction (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992).
Moderators
Given the complexity of these relationships, it becomes important to identify

boundary conditions that specify when, for whom, and under what conditions
the relationships are likely to hold. Doing so may help clarify, for example,
whether there are some individuals who are less susceptible to the negative effects
of physical and psychological separation from the organization. Thus, future
research will need to consider moderators of the proposed relationships. Although
a host of variables may affect these relationships, we discuss demographic and
individual difference variables as well as some situational variables we believe to
be especially important in a telecommuting context.
Demographics and Individual Differences

With respect to demographics and individual differences, Blegen, Mueller and
Price (1988) describe kinship responsibilities as a complex constellation of family
obligations based, in part, on marital status, number of children and their age. Hall
(1990) argues that telecommuters with children should experience more stress
than those without children, and Hill, Hawkins and Miller (1996) found evidence
that telecommuting did not ease work-family conflict for all respondents, depend-
ing on the presence of young children. Thus, increased kinship responsibilities
could mitigate effects of increased self-management with work-family conflict.

Organizational tenure may serve as a boundary condition of relationships between
separation and social relationships. Rousseau (1989) suggests that telecommuters
who have previously worked full-time in the office should feel greater inclusion
and be more socialized than those who have not. Hence, longer organizational
tenure may mitigate the negative effects telecommuting is proposed to have on
social support. Similar effects might be found for telecommuters who already
have extensive experience working in a virtual environment. Need for affiliation is
an individual difference that researchers should also consider (McClelland, 1965).
Individuals differ in terms of the amount and types of interpersonal interaction
and affiliation they need. Telecommuters who require a great deal of interpersonal
interaction (high nAff) will likely have more difficulty dealing with increased
physical and psychological separation from peers and supervisors at work (Frolick,
Wilkes & Urwiler, 1993). Thus, high nAff telecommuters may be more prone to
seek out other groups with whom to identify and be more likely to identify less with
the organization (i.e. organizational commitment) as a result of separation than
low nAff telecommuters.
Situational Moderators
Situational moderators include training, communication, and boundary manage-
ment. Telecommuters may need to learn certain skills and develop abilities to
effectively manage their alternative work arrangement. For example, telecom-
muters and their supervisors may benefit from training in communication and
feedback because telecommuting will likely reduce impromptu and planned face-
to-face communication that are essential for reducing role ambiguity, planning,
and adjusting goals and work-related strategies. Communication richness would
be expected to assume a critical role in understanding proposed relationships
with agent feedback and role ambiguity (Fulk & Boyd, 1991). Supervisors who
frequently use the telephone to communicate with telecommuting subordinates,
for example, may be perceived as providing work-related information and
sufficient feedback, even though face-to-face discussions are rare (Daft & Lengel,
1984; Trevino, Daft & Lengel, 1987). And, there is some empirical evidence
that telecommuters tend to use less rich communication (Raghuram, 1996).
Venkatesh and Johnson (2002) recently suggested that organizations that invest
in a virtual office environment for their telecommuters might improve commu-
nication through the use of media with greater social richness and telepresence.
Lastly, to manage potential interruptions and reduce the potential for conflict,
telecommuters may benefit from maintaining greater segmentation between work
and family roles by erecting, maintaining, and defending boundaries between
these roles. Ashforth et al. (2000) cite research on at-home workers who attained
greater segmentation by “creating a physical workspace, marking the territory

with equipment and furniture, restricting access of others, rescheduling domestic
tasks, and setting time when people can call or talk to them” (p. 482).
DISCUSSION
Organizational research lags far behind telecommuting practice. Consequently,
we proposed a framework for investigating telecommuting that should facilitate
closing the gap between research and practice on an alternative work arrange-
ment that will likely continue to spread. We proposed a parsimonious set of
telecommuting dimensions and tied those dimensions to social systems, self-
management opportunities and requirements, and the work–non-work interface.
We suggested that the effects of telecommuting on attitudes and behaviors such
as job performance, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are too
complex for simple relationships (e.g. telecommuting increases job satisfaction).
However, it is possible to analyze specific telecommuting designs and analyze
their likely impact on the proposed mediators and thus begin to understand the
likely effects on outcomes. This analysis should aid researchers in clarifying
the complex and potentially contradictory effects of telecommuting. It is not
practical here to identify every aspect and combination of telecommuting design
and attempt to trace the impact. We can, though, examine examples of aspects of
telecommuting design in order to see what our analysis suggests in terms of impact
on outcomes.
Consider, for example, the two arrangements identified earlier in the manuscript:
an employee required to work full-time at a satellite center under close electronic
monitoring, and an employee allowed to telecommute from any location at their
discretion. Both arrangements are common, but our framework suggests that
these two telecommuters might have very different experiences and responses.
Benefits to the first employee would include increased feelings of autonomy
and control and increased opportunities for self-management stemming from the
high frequency of telecommuting. However, there may be a number of concerns as
well. The high frequency may be associated with receiving less feedback, weaker
identification with the organization, lower perceived social support from organi-
zational members, and increased role ambiguity. Some of these relationships may
be mitigated by the telecommuting location. For example, telecommuting from a
satellite center, where the employee will have occasion to interact with agents and
symbols of the organization, would probably not have as negative an impact on
identification and social support as doing so from home. At the same time, the lack
of flexibility, tight performance monitoring, and perceptions that the arrangement
is intended almost entirely to benefit the organization could lead to lower POS
and perceptions of supervisory support. Overall, it is difficult to see how this

arrangement could be expected to result in increased satisfaction, commitment, or
performance for this employee. Organizational policies regarding telecommuting
were left unspecified in this example, but formal policies on communication and
feedback could serve to mitigate some of the effects on isolation and ambiguity.
The second employee, allowed to telecommute at their discretion, would be ex-
pected to have different experiences. The high flexibility of scheduling the timing
and location of work, along with perceptions that the arrangement is intended at
least partially to benefit the employee, should lead to increased perceptions of au-
tonomy and social support, increased POS, and potentially lower work–non-work
conflict because of the increased control over the boundaries between these two
spheres. These expectations suggest the potential for more positive work attitudes
and perhaps increased performance as well. Several aspects of telecommuting
design were not specified in this example, but it might be important to consider
managing the frequency of telecommuting or policies regarding communication
because of their potential effects on identification and social support.
Of course, these are only two examples that do not begin to specify the
possible combinations of telecommuting designs and their effects on outcomes.
Our goal was to point out how a more detailed analysis of the variations in how
telecommuting arrangements are designed and their direct effects on important
mechanisms might lead to an increased understanding of how telecommuting
can influence attitudes and performance. At the same time, these proposed
relationships are subject to empirical verification.
Future Research
Clearly, the effects of telecommuting on attitudes and behavior are complex.

Research is needed to evaluate the propositions and the processes through which
telecommuting affects job performance, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. For example, research is needed on the design dimensions. Do
individuals perceive telecommuting along the proposed dimensions? We derived
the present dimensions inductively and from previous conceptual work (e.g.
Feldman & Gainey, 1997). However, we are unaware of qualitative or empirical
studies that have systematically defined and measured individuals’ perceptions
of telecommuting arrangements. Other design facets may be important, such as
technical requirements and support. Similarly, to what extent do the individual
design facets operate together? Will the potentially positive effect on autonomy of
providing greater scheduling flexibility be negated by very formal and restrictive
policies? To answer these and similar questions, researchers may need to wrestle
with how to weigh or combine the design dimensions.
Research is also needed on the proposed mediating mechanisms. Are the

proposed design facets related to these mechanisms as suggested? To what
extent do these mechanisms account for relationships with outcomes? And,
what are the total effects on outcomes of competing processes? For example, if
increased self-management opportunities do increase autonomy and perceived
organizational support and decrease work – family conflict, but at the same time
increase role ambiguity, what will be the net effect on attitudes and behaviors?
The role of social identity processes may also lead to several important research
questions. With which other groups will a telecommuter seek to identify? Will a
telecommuter, for instance, begin identifying with independent consultants who,
in turn, influence the telecommuter to quit full-time work? How long will it take
for individuals to begin searching for other groups with whom to identify?
Finally, other outcomes may be important. For example, although we discussed
the likely effects of telecommuting on performance per se, we did not address
the possible effects on contextual performance or organizational citizenship
behaviors (e.g. Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Organ, 1987). It seems plausible
that the greater autonomy and reduced social contact with others at the work
place may reduce or inhibit such prosocial unrewarded activities. The effects
on work-family conflict may also depend on the type of conflict. Some research
suggests three types of work-family conflict: time-based (the demands of one role
make it difficult to be available to the other role), strain-based (the strain from
one role interferes with the other role, like separating from a hard day at work
when you get home), and behavior based (behavioral expectations in one role are
incompatible with those in another role) (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Telecom-
muting may reduce time-based work-family conflict, but increase strain-based
and behavior-based work-family conflict (McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003). Voluntary
turnover may be another outcome of interest. We have argued that telecommuting
affects both job satisfaction and organizational commitment, typically the two
most important attitudinal variables in turnover research (cf. Hom & Griffeth,
1995). Telecommuting might also influence turn‘over by providing a work option
for specific populations who might otherwise quit such as individuals close to
retirement, who are unwilling to relocate, or with new family responsibilities.
Current employees may also demand telecommuting as an option and, if not
offered, they may leave for alternatives that do offer a telecommuting option.
Practical Implications
Telecommuters are the fastest growing segment of home-based workers and man-
agers are puzzled about supervising from a distance and the effect of telecommuting
on teamwork and corporate identity (Becker & Steele, 1995; Dunkin, 1995).
What are the best telecommuting arrangements for employees? Are there key
dimensions of telecommuting that can be diagnosed and manipulated to increase
the likelihood that telecommuting will have a positive effect on job performance
and organization identification (i.e. commitment)? How will a particular individual
appraise telecommuting, and are certain employees better suited for telecommut-
ing than others? Our framework provides specific telecommuting design facets
that can be measured and manipulated by managers in response to these questions
and others.
Our analysis also suggests ways that organizations can minimize the potential
negative effects of telecommuting. Although telecommuting allows organizations
and employees to overcome time and distance constraints (Fulk & DeSanctis,
1995; O’Mahony & Barley, 1999), organizations are concerned with the long-term
effects of telecommuting on employees’ identification with the organization
(Elsbach, 1999). Our analysis does suggest that over time, physical and psycho-
logical separation from the organization’s context and work groups may diminish
telecommuters’ organization identification. To overcome feelings of isolation,
managers may need to plan activities/assignments that require telecommuters to
spend time on company premises and to interact with work groups. Becker and
Steele (1995) argue that individuals who have been working at home all day do
not want to come to the company office to do the same thing. Rather, while on
company premises, they want to interact with others, and discuss customers and
goals. Managers, thus, may consider redesigning corporate offices and telecenters
to accommodate such needs. Managers may also organize extracurricular activities
where corporate employees and telecommuters can work together to achieve
common goals (e.g. community service projects) (Elsbach & Glynn, 1996).
Doing so may allow telecommuters to continue to internalize the organization’s
collective values, meanings, and standards and, thus, maintain their attachment to
the organization (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Benkhoff, 1997).
Our analysis also suggests that telecommuting promotes greater integration of
home and work roles (Ashforth et al., 2000). Thus, organizations must be sensitive
to the potential blurring of work and family roles created by telecommuting. Shift-
ing work and family roles from high segmentation to higher integration may cause
greater work – family conflict unless a telecommuter is able to erect and maintain
boundaries between these roles. Hence, training telecommuters in designing physi-
cal workspaces for optimal separation seems appropriate. Finally, managers should
be sensitive to telecommuters’ needs to have a life outside of work. Telecommuters
may work at home, but their home is not a twenty-four hour workplace.
In sum, the question of whether telecommuting is a good or bad way of design-
ing work is probably not as important as questions of how to design and implement
telecommuting arrangements. Societal pressures to reduce traffic congestion, air

pollution, and fuel consumption are likely to continue to push organizations to
utilize telecommuting. At the same time, pressures from employees demanding
greater flexibility and work-family balance, especially in tight labor markets, may
also lead to increased telecommuting. And, employers who see opportunities
to reduce overhead costs or tap underutilized labor sources will continue to
experiment with telecommuting. Thus, the important question becomes twofold:
what are the effects of designing work to include telecommuting; and how can we
design telecommuting to take advantage of its potential benefits while minimizing
its potential drawbacks? This framework should assist managers and researchers
in systematically answering those questions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Rabi Bhagat.
Portions of this research were supported by a grant from the Fogelman College of
Business and Economics at the University of Memphis.
REFERENCES
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting
new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25, 13–17.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29,
99–118.
Armstrong, L. (1993). The office is a terrible place to work. Business Week, 46.
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of
creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of con-
structing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413–434.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role
transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.
AT&T (1998). AT&T telework guide: A telework success story. http://www.att.com/telework/
chap05.html
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and
lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383–400.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman Press.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on
self regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,
805–814.
Bartol, K. M., & Liu, W. (2002). Information technology and human resources management: Harnessing
the power and potential of netcentricity. In: G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management (Vol. 21, pp. 215–242). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bazerman, M. H. (1982). Impact of personal control on performance: Is added control always beneficial?
Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design: Mapping the high performance workscape. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Benkhoff, B. (1997). A test of the HRM model: Good for employers and employees. Human Resource
Blegen, M. A., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Measurement of kinship responsibility for
organizational research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 402–409.
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 81–90.
Chapman, A. J., Sheehy, N. P., Heywood, S., Dooley, B., & Collins, S. C. (1995). The organizational
implications of teleworking. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 229–248).
Chrobot, D. L., Janat, E. A., & Gerstner, C. R. (1997). The impact of problem – focused coping on
quality of work life in the virtual office environment. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Clancy, T. (1994). The virtual corporation, telecommuting, and the concept of team. Academy of
Management Executive, 8, 7–10.
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee devel-
opment in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 511–532.
Costello, C. B. (1988). Clerical home-based work: A case study of work and family. In: K. E. Christensen
(Ed.), The New Era of Home-Based Work (pp. 135–145). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and
organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.
Dunkin, A. (1995). Taking care of business – without leaving your house. Business Week, 106–107.
Duxbury, L., & Neufeld, D. (1999). An empirical evaluation of the impacts of telecommuting on
intra-organizational communication. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 16,
1–28.
Eagle, B. W., Miles, E. W., & Icenogle, M. L. (1997). Interrole conflicts and the permeability of
work and family domains: Are there gender differences? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50,
168–184.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the rela-
tionship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Elder, A. E., & Smith, C. S. (1999). Telework: Implications for the individual. Paper presented at the
meeting Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In: R. Sutton & B. Staw
(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 163–200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elsbach, K. D., & Glynn, M. A. (1996). Believing your own PR: Embedding identification in strate-
gic reputation. In: J. Baum & J. Dutton (Eds), Advances in Strategic Management (Vol. 13,
pp. 65–90). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1960). Socio-technical systems theory. In: C. H. Churchman & M. Verhulst
(Eds), Management Science, Models and Techniques (Vol. 2, pp. 83–97). New York: Pergamon.
Fairweather, N. B. (1999). Surveillance in employment: The case of teleworking. Journal of Business
Ethics, 22, 39–49.
Farrah, B. J., & Dagen, C. D. (1993). Telecommuting policies that work. HR Magazine, 64–71.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 47–53.
Feldman, D. C., & Gainey, T. W. (1997). Patterns of telecommuting and their consequences: Framing
the research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 369–388.
Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. A. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity.
Frayne, C., & Geringer, M. (2000). Self-management training for improving job performance: A field
experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 361–372.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Frolick, M. N., Wilkes, R. B., & Urwiler, R. (1993). Telecommuting as a workplace alternative: An
identification of significant factors in American firms’ determination of work-at-home policies.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2, 206–222.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work – family conflict:
Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65–78.
Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Man-
agement, 17, 407–446.
Fulk, J., & DeSanctis, G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms.
Organization Science, 6, 337–349.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Glass, J. L., & Finley, A. (2002). Coverage and effectiveness of family – responsive workplace policies.
Human Resource Management Review, 12, 313–337.
Goodman, J. S. (1998). The interactive effects of task and external feedback on practice performance
and learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 223–252.
Goodrich, J. N. (1990). Telecommuting in America. Business Horizons, 31–37.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161–178.
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 164–177.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact of personal
control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
43, 29–51.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy
of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greller, M. M., & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary investigation. Organiza-
Griffin, R. W. (1983). Objective and social sources of information in task redesign: A field experiment.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975, Summer). A new strategy for job enrich-
ment. California Management Review, 57–71.
Hall, D. T. (1990). Telecommuting and the management of work – home boundaries. In Paradigms
revised: Annual Review of Communications and Society (pp. 177–208). Institute for Information
Studies. Nashville, TN: Northern Telecom & Queenstown, MD: Aspen Institute.
Handy, S. L., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (1995). Planning for telecommuting: Measurement and policy issues.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 99–111.
Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1998). Individuals interaction with their feedback environment: The
role of domain specific individual differences. In: G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and
Human Resource Management (Vol. 16, pp. 215–254). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Herold, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1985). Assessing the feedback environment in work organizations:
Development of the job feedback survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 290–305.
Herold, D. M., Parsons, C. K., & Rensvold, R. B. (1996). Individual propensities in the generation and
processing of performance feedback (Working Paper). Georgia Institute of Technology.
Higo, K., Sheng, O. R., Shin, B., & Figueredo, A. J. (2000). Understanding relationships among
teleworkers’ e-mail usage, e-mail richness perceptions, and e-mail productivity perceptions
under a software engineering environment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
47, 163–173.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., & Miller, B. C. (1996). Work and family in the virtual office: Perceived
influences of mobile telework. Family Relations, 15, 293–301.
Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., & Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on aspects
of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 667–683.
Hogg, M. A., & Mullin, B. A. (1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty
reduction and group identification. In: D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds), Social Identity and
Social Cognition (pp. 249–279). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College
Publishing.
Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1999). Exploring differences in employee turnover intentions and its de-
terminants among telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 16, 147–164.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior
in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.
International Telework Association (2000). http://www.telecommute.org/
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role
ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36, 16–78.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenge to
virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 67–79.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin,
119, 254–284.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet
paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?
American Psychologist, 53, 1017–1031.
Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999, Autumn). The advantages and challenges of working here, there,
anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 53–68.
Ladda, C. (1995). Telecommuting raises productivity. HRFocus, 6.
Lamond, D., Standen, P., & Daniels, K. (2000). The psychosocial impact of telework: A theoretical
and research framework. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Toronto,
Canada.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relations
of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280–289.
Lowery, T. (1996). Alternative work arrangements: The effects of distance and media use on the
supervisor-subordinate relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rice University.
Manz, C. C., & Neck, C. P. (1999). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for personal
excellence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of
self-managed working teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.
Martocchio, J. J., & Dulebohn, J. (1994). Performance feedback effects in training: The role of perceived
controllability. Personnel Psychology, 47(2), 357–373.
Maynard, R. (1994). The growing appeal of telecommuting. Nation’s Business, 61–62.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 23, 321–333.
McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (2003). Does ‘Out of Sight’ mean ‘Out of Mind’? An empirical
investigation of the career advancement prospects of telecommuters. Information Resources
McCune, J. C. (1998). Telecommunicating revisited. Management Review, 87(10).
Mills, P. K. (1983). Self-management: Its control and relationship to other organizational properties.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate
the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods
of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
527–556.
Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A., & Zhou, J. (1995). The spatial configuration of organizations. Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 1–37.
Olson, M. H. (1989). Work at home for computer professionals: Current attitudes and future prospects.
ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 7, 317–338.
Olszewski, P., & Mokhtarian, P. (1994). Telecommuting frequency and impacts for state of California
employees. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 45, 275–286.
O’Mahony, S., & Barley, S. R. (1999). Do digital communications affect work and organization? The
state of our knowledge. In: R. Sutton & B. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 21, pp. 125–162). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In: B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Parker, S., & Wall, T. (1998). Job and work design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Passmore, W., & Sherwood, J. (1978). Sociotechnical systems: A sourcebook. San Diego, CA:
University Associates.
Perlow, L. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit from new
work practices. New York: Cornell University.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of
a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, 391–397.
Pleck, J. H., Staines, G. L., & Lang, L. (1980). Conflict between work and family life. Monthly Labor
Review, 103, 29–32.
Pratt, J. H. (1984). Home teleworking: A study of its pioneers. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 25, 1–14.
Raghuram, S. (1996). Knowledge creation in the telework context. International Journal of Technology
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors contributing to virtual work
adjustment. Journal of Management, 27, 383–405.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. (2000). Adjustment to telecommuting: Role of self-
efficacy and structuring. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Toronto,
Canada.
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on
applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111–136.
Renn, R. W., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Development and field test of a feedback seeking, self-efficacy,
and goal setting model of work performance. Journal of Management, 27, 563–584.
Renn, R. W., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1995). The critical psychological states: An underrepresented
component in job characteristics model research. Journal of Management, 21, 279–304.
Roberts, K. H., & Grabowski, M. (1996). Organizations, technology and structuring. In: S. Clegg,
C. Hardy & W. Nord (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 409–423). Thousand Oaks,
Rousseau, D. M. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee satisfaction, and
motivation: A synthesis of job design research and sociotechnical systems theory. Organiza-
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Human resource planning for the future. Annual Review of Psychology,
245–266.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In: B. Schneider
(Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 383–412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (1999). Communication technology use and multiple workplace iden-
tifications among organizational teleworkers with varied degrees of virtuality. IEE Transactions
on Professional Communication, 42, 240–260.
Shamir, B. (1992). Home: The perfect workplace? In: S. Zedeck (Ed.), Work, Families, and Organiza-
tions (pp. 272–311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Shamir, B., & Salomon, I. (1985). Work-at-home and the quality of working life. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 10, 455–464.
Sheldon, M. E. (1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms as producing commitment to the
organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 142–150.
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. M. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In:
R. S. Cropanzano & M. Kacmar (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing
the Social Climate of the Workplace (pp. 149–164).
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637–643.
Slocum, J. W., & Sims, H. P. (1980). A typology for integrating technology, organization, and job
design. Human Relations, 33, 193–212.
Sparrow, P. R., & Daniels, K. (1999). Human resource management and the virtual organization:
Mapping the future research issues. In: C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in
Organizational Behavior (pp. 44–61). John Wiley & Sons.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy
and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Sturgill, A. F. C. (1998). Relationship of telecommuting to organizational communication: A prelimi-
nary study of group process and communication satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Cornell University.
Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals’ reactions to performance feed-
back in organizations: A control theory perspective. In: G. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds),
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 2, pp. 81–124). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Teo, T. S. H., Lim, V. K. G., & Wai, S. H. (1998). An empirical study of attitudes towards teleworking
among information technology personnel. International Journal of Information Management,
18, 329–343.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 15, 666–681.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Risman, B. J. (1993). Telecommuting innovation and organization: A con-
tingency theory of labor process change. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 367–385.
Trent, J. T., Smith, A. L., & Wood, D. L. (1994). Telecommuting: Stress and social support. Psycho-
logical Reports, 74, 1312–1314.
Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media
choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research, 14,
553–574.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1954). Some social and psychological consequences of the long-wall
method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 30, 3–38.
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial effective-
ness. Journal of Management, 20, 93–121.
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the rela-
tionships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Management,
26, 155–169.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals’ self-
managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, 340–350.
Vega, G., & Brennan, L. (2000). Isolation and technology: The human disconnect. Journal of Organi-
zational Change Management, 13, 468–481.
Venkatesh, V., & Johnson, P. (2002). Telecommuting technology implementations: A within and
between subjects longitudinal field study. Personnel Psychology, 55, 661–687.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member
exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Wells, S. J. (2001, October). Making telecommuting work. HR Magazine, 35–45.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (1998). Communication patterns as determinants of
organizational identification in a virtual organization. Journal of Computer Mediated Commu-
nication, 3.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual
workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy
Zedeck, S. (1992). Work, Family, and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for fu-
ture research. In: M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of Self-Regulation
(pp. 750–768). San Diego: Academic Press.
RESEARCH ON EMPLOYEE
CREATIVITY: A CRITICAL
REVIEW AND DIRECTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Jing Zhou and Christina E. Shalley
ABSTRACT
The examination of contextual factors that enhance or stifle employees’
creative performance is a new but rapidly growing research area. Theory
and research in this area have focused on antecedents of employee creativity.
In this paper, we review and discuss the major theoretical frameworks
that have served as conceptual foundations for empirical studies. We then
provide a review and critical appraisal of these empirical studies. Based on
this review, we propose exciting possibilities for future research directions.
Finally, we discuss implications of this body of work for human resource
management.
INTRODUCTION
Research on employee creativity, as a sub-area in the field of micro organizational

behavior, has had a relatively short history. The foundation for this research began
in the late 1980s through the middle of the 1990s. Building on her seminal work on

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22004-1
165
166 JING ZHOU AND CHRISTINA E. SHALLEY
the social psychology of creativity (Amabile, 1983), Amabile (1988) was perhaps
the first person to propose a theory-based and empirically supported componential
framework to understand the personal (e.g. domain-relevant knowledge and
skills, and creativity-relevant skills and strategies) and environmental factors
(e.g. contracted – for rewards) that could facilitate or inhibit employee creativity.
Shalley (1991) then demonstrated the differential effects of two factors that
have substantial implications for creativity in the workplace – productivity
goals and creativity goals on creativity. Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin (1993)
made the explicit declaration that creativity is affected by the interaction of
personal and organizational or environmental factors, and reviewed many indi-
vidual, group, and organizational factors that might interact to affect creativity.
Oldham and Cummings (1996) provided an important empirical test of the
associations between personal factors, contextual factors, their interactions, and
creativity in the workplace, and successfully demonstrated the existence of these
associations.
Although the history of focused scholarly research on creativity in the work-
place is relatively short, during the past decade empirical research in this area has
catapulted. Researchers have investigated effects of a variety of contextual or orga-
nizational factors, individual differences, as well as the interactions of contextual
factors and individual differences on creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1988, 1996; Amabile
& Conti, 1999; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996; Eisenberger &
Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994; George & Zhou, 2001, 2002; Madjar,
Oldham & Pratt, 2002; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Perry-Smith & Shalley,
2003; Shalley, 1991, 1995; Shalley & Oldham, 1997; Shalley & Perry-Smith,
2001; Tierney & Farmer, 2002; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999; Zhou, 1998a,
2003; Zhou & George, 2001; Zhou & Oldham, 2001). While this body of work has
made significant contributions to our knowledge of what factors enhance or impair
creative activities in the workplace, substantial challenges, unanswered questions,
and exciting research opportunities remain ahead of us. The purpose of this paper
is to critically review research on employee creativity, and propose avenues for
future work.
The paper unfolds as follows. We first review: (a) existing major theoretical
frameworks; (b) dominant research methods that have been used to research
individuals’ creative performance; and (c) results of major empirical studies.
Next, we propose several directions for future research. Finally, we discuss
implications of this body of research for human resource management. We
emphasize extant theories and empirical research that promote an understanding
of employee creativity in the workplace. We also emphasize empirical studies
that were either conducted in organizational settings or provide clear implications
for an understanding of creativity in the workplace.
Research on Employee Creativity 167
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Creativity is defined as the production of new and useful ideas concerning
products, services, processes and procedures (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1991; Zhou, 1998a). This definition can include
creative solutions to business problems, creative business strategies, or creative
changes in job processes.
Currently, there are two influential models concerning creativity in the
workplace (Amabile, 1983, 1988, 1996; Woodman et al., 1993). While there are
similarities and differences between these models, together they complement each
other and provide a solid framework that guides research in the area of employee
creativity. Notably, in addition to individual characteristics, both models discuss
effects of the work environment or organizational context, describing a variety
of potentially relevant contextual factors that either enhance or restrict employee
creativity. Each of these models is briefly reviewed below. Additionally, we briefly
discuss some related conceptual work on creativity that has been developed.
The Componential Model of Creativity
Amabile (1988) published a chapter proposing a componential theory of creativity

in the workplace, which was partially based on the componential model of a
social psychology of creativity she formulated and tested earlier (Amabile, 1983).
It represented one of the first comprehensive and grounded theories of employee
creativity. This theory has been further tested, revised and updated since then (e.g.
Amabile, 1996). Essentially, the theory posits that there are three key components
of creativity or creative performance: domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant
processes, and task motivation. According to Amabile, the first component,
domain-relevant skills, refers to factual knowledge and expertise in a given do-
main. Amabile has argued that domain-relevant skills tend to be affected by formal
and informal education, and individuals’ perceptual, cognitive, and motor abilities.
The second component, which was initially called creativity-relevant skills but
recently has been changed to creativity-relevant processes, includes explicit or
tacit knowledge concerning the appropriate strategies for producing creative ideas,
appropriate cognitive styles and work styles for creative idea production. Amabile
reasoned that training in creative skills and strategies, experiences in creative
activities, and possessing certain personality characteristics are likely to positively
influence creativity-relevant processes. Subsequent empirical research on training
for creative problem solving has indicated that training can help enhance
employee’s level of creativity (e.g. Basudur, Wakabayashi & Graen, 1990).
The third component, task motivation, includes individuals’ attitudes toward

a task and their perceptions of his or her own motivation for working on the
task. In general, an individual’s motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic in nature.
Amabile proposed that intrinsic motivation should be defined as “any motivation
that arises from the individual’s positive reaction to qualities of the task itself;
this reaction can be experienced as interest, involvement, curiosity, satisfaction,
or positive challenge” (1996, p. 115). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation can
be defined as “any motivation that arises from sources outside of the task itself.”
This model premised that intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation was
critical for creativity to occur, especially at the stage of discovering or defining
a problem for which creative ideas or solutions need to be produced, and at the
stage of actually coming up with creative ideas or solutions. There are at least two
significant implications of the fact that task motivation is featured prominently
in the componential model. First, it makes a powerful and convincing statement
that individuals with great creative potential (e.g. domain-relevant knowledge
and skills) may not actually produce creative ideas; they need to be willing to
engage in creative activities in a intense and persistent manner. This emphasis
on motivation represents a significant advancement from prior theorizing of the
determinants of individual creativity (see Barron & Harrington, 1981 for a review
of personality factors and creativity). Second, it sets the stage for researchers
to identify contextual factors that enhance or constrain creative performance via
promoting or diminishing intrinsic motivation. As such, the componential model
of creativity is often considered an intrinsic motivation perspective of creativity.
Much of the prior research using the intrinsic motivation perspective has identi-
fied creativity-relevant contextual factors that have been theorized to affect intrinsic
motivation and subsequently creativity, and they have been premised on cognitive
evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985). Essentially, this line of research has
argued that specific contextual factors positively or negatively influence individu-
als’ intrinsic motivation, which, in turn, influence an individual’s creativity. Thus,
it is necessary to outline the key elements of cognitive evaluation theory here.
According to cognitive evaluation theory, individuals will experience high
levels of intrinsic motivation toward a task when they feel competent and
self-determining on a given task. All contextual factors or conditions have two
potential functions: informational or controlling. The relative salience of these two
functions determines whether a contextual factor will have a positive or negative
effect on individuals’ levels of intrinsic motivation. When the informational aspect
is salient, individuals perceive that they are being supported and encouraged
to take initiatives and to try new things, with little external pressure to achieve
certain things in prescribed ways. As a result, their intrinsic motivation tends to
be maintained or enhanced and they are likely to exhibit high levels of creativity.
In contrast, when the controlling aspect is salient, individuals perceive that their
thoughts, feelings, and actions are being constrained toward doing specific things
in certain ways. Thus, they feel that they are no longer the origin of their own
actions. Rather, they sense that they are under the tight control of external forces.
As a result, their intrinsic motivation tends to diminish, and they would be expected
to exhibit relatively low levels of creativity.
Cognitive evaluation theory has guided much of the recent research on creative
performance (e.g. Shalley, 1995; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Zhou, 1998a;
Zhou & Oldham, 2001). However, even though these models and empirical studies
discuss the importance of intrinsic motivation as the psychological process that
accounts for employee creativity, little research has unequivocally demonstrated
that intrinsic motivation mediates effects of contextual factors on creativity. In
fact, recently the importance of intrinsic motivation rather than motivation in
general or some other underlying mechanisms, such as focus of attention and
affect, has been questioned (Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001). This issue will be
more fully discussed later in the paper.
An Interactionist Approach to Organizational Creativity
Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin’s (1993) interactionist perspective of organizational

creativity is premised on the idea that creativity is an individual level phenomenon
that can be affected by both dispositional and situational variables. In fact, it is
the interaction of individual’s disposition and contextual factors that more fully
predicts creative performance. While Amabile’s and the Woodman et al.’s models
both stress the role of contextual factors at the individual, group and organizational
levels, Woodman and colleagues’ model explicitly stresses the importance of the
interaction between the person and the situation, and is based on the strong theoret-
ical base of interactional psychology (Schneider, 1983; Terborg, 1981). Finally, an
important part of this model is its propositions concerning influences across levels
of analysis. These researchers argued that the cross-level influences are essential
in identifying and understanding group and organizational characteristics that can
enhance or constrain creative behavior in a complex social system.
According to Woodman and colleagues (1993), creative performance in
organizations is a function of a host of individual, group and organizational
characteristics that interact to enhance or constrain creativity. They called for
a systematic investigation of the social and contextual influences at all levels
that affect creativity. Specifically, for individual characteristics they discuss how
cognitive abilities or style, personality, intrinsic motivation and knowledge are im-
portant. The group characteristics that they discuss include norms, cohesiveness,
size, diversity, roles, task and problem solving approaches. Finally, organizational
characteristics such as culture, resources, rewards, strategy, structure and tech-
nology are highlighted. In the model they propose that creative persons, groups,
and organization are inputs that are transformed in some way by the creative
process and the creative situation, which includes enhancers and constraints for
creative activities. The potential outcome of this transformation of the inputs is
a creative product.
Related Conceptual Work on Creativity
Ford (1996) proposed a theory of individual creative action in multiple social

domains, such as, group, organizational, institutional, and market domains. He
argued that creative action by an individual is a result of the joint influence of
sensemaking, motivation, and knowledge and ability. Ford proposed that creative
and habitual actions are competing behavioral options for an individual. He argued
that as long as habitual actions remain more attractive, even when the context may
be favorable for creative action, an individual would tend to choose the habitual
action. Therefore, creative actions, though extremely important, will remain as
more uncommon instances in organizations.
Drazin, Glynn and Kazanjian (1999) also proposed a multi-level model of or-
ganizational creativity, in which they defined creativity not using the more typical
outcome based definition, but as an individual’s psychological engagement in cre-
ative activity regardless of whether the outcomes are creative or not. Their process
definition of creativity focuses on individuals attempting creative activities. They
proposed that individuals form frames of reference that mediate their engagement
in creative activities. Their model is focused more on larger scale organizational
projects that run for long durations, and they suggest several ways to test their ideas.
Three very recent conceptual pieces take a different approach than presenting
multi-level models. In the first piece, Mainemelis (2001) proposed a model that
describes the way individuals experience timelessness by being totally engaged in
their work activities. This model looks at contextual conditions that facilitate or
impair this engrossment process, and the effect of timelessness on the creativity
of employees. He suggests that timelessness is composed of four experiences:
a feeling of immersion, a recognition of time distortion, a sense of mastery,
and a sense of transcendence. Mainemelis’s approach is highly focused on the
experience of working on a specific activity and the resulting task related affective
processes that may increase the likelihood of creativity in organizations.
In another recent conceptual piece, Unsworth (2001) questioned whether
creativity was really a unitary construct, as much of the literature has treated it.
Essentially, she argued that the common definition used for creativity (e.g. novel
ideas that are appropriate for the situation) implies that creativity is really only one
construct without looking at the type of idea, why it was generated, or how the pro-
cess began. She called for a more fine-grained analysis of the processes involved
in creativity. Unsworth developed a matrix of four creativity types that varied on
the following two dimensions: what was the driver for the engagement (external
or internal), and what was the problem type (open or closed). Open ideas are those
ideas that are discovered by the individual, while closed ideas are presented to the
individual. The four creativity types are: responsive (closed, external), expected
(open, external), contributory (closed, internal), and proactive (open, internal).
The third and most recent conceptual piece (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003)
highlights the importance of others for generating creative ideas by focusing
more on the social side of creativity. Using concepts from social network theory,
Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003) explored the association between the context
of social relationships and individual creativity from a more macro perspective.
Taken together, their propositions can be summarized by describing an individual’s
journey from the fringe of the network to the center. They argued that weaker
ties are generally more beneficial than stronger ties for creativity. Specifically,
they proposed that a peripheral position with many connections outside of the
network is likely to be associated with more creative insights and potentially more
groundbreaking advancements. However, once this high level of creativity has
been achieved, they suggest that the peripheral individual would start becoming
relatively more central. The exposure to diverse people and information brought
about by this centrality will spark new ideas and aid in the generation of additional
creative insights. This reciprocal, spiraling process of increased centrality and
increasing creativity will continue until a point of diminishing returns. At this
point, the person may become too entrenched or immersed in the status quo,
ultimately, constraining their creativity unless they maintain connections outside
of their social field.
While the ideas presented in each of these conceptual pieces are intriguing
and merit further exploration, as of yet, little empirical work has specifically
examined the issues laid out by these researchers. This is not surprising given that
each of the articles are relatively recent, we would expect to see more work based
on these frameworks in the future.
RESEARCH METHODS
Definitional Issues
As mentioned earlier, creativity refers to the production of new and useful ideas
concerning products, services, processes and procedures (e.g. Amabile, 1996;
Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Shalley, 1991; Zhou, 1998a). Operationally,

especially in studies conducted in the behavioral laboratory, creativity is defined
as “the production of responses or works that are reliably assessed as creative
by appropriate judges” (Amabile, 1996, p. 83). Appropriate judges are usually
experts or those with advanced knowledge within the domain studied. Essentially,
because creativity is considered by many to be historically, culturally, and socially
bound (cf., Amabile, 1996), it is important to obtain assessment from multiple,
appropriate judges and these judges’ assessments need to reach an acceptable
level of agreement concerning the extent to which an idea or product is creative.
Furthermore, creativity is generally considered to be a continuous concept with
a focus on how relatively creative something is, rather than a discrete decision
that something is or is not creative (Amabile, 1996; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003;
Shalley, 1995). Therefore, using both continua of the spectrum, a creative solution
may be a minor adaptation or a major breakthrough. For instance, Mumford and
Gustafson (1988) discuss the differences between minor and major contributions,
with minor contributions reflecting adjustments, recombinations and extensions of
existing ideas whereas major contributions are more groundbreaking and radical
in their approach. Thus, the entire spectrum of creativity can be important because
at times organizations may desire more incremental creative solutions, while at
other times it may be more desirable to have employees attempt breakthroughs
considered more monumental.
Measurement of Creativity
The Consensual Assessment Technique

The majority of research in this area has used Amabile’s consensual assessment
technique, which is derived from her operational definition of creativity described
above (Amabile, 1983, 1996). Typically, two or more raters serve as expert judges.
The judges normally have relevant educational degrees and a number of years of
relevant work experience. They are usually asked to independently rate the overall
creativity of each solution or product on a scale ranging from not at all creative
to extremely creative. Some studies have used a 7-point scale, others have used
an 11-point scale for the ratings. As done in Shalley (1991, 1995), Shalley and
Perry-Smith (2001), Zhou (1998a), and Zhou and Oldham (2001), if the interrater
reliability for the judges ratings is acceptable, then a creativity score is computed
as an average of the creativity ratings for each individual across the generated
solutions.
Before computing the creativity score, it is important to check the acceptability
of both: (a) inter-judge reliability (the extent to which the ratings were consistent)
using an intraclass correlation approach (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979); and (b)
inter-judge agreement (the extent to which the judges assigned the same rating to
each solution) (Tinsley & Weiss, 1975). In earlier creativity research, researchers
often checked interrater reliability by using Spearman-Brown coefficients and
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Increasingly, as the field becomes more sophis-
ticated, so does the variety of techniques used. For example, in addition to the
aforementioned formulas proposed by Shrout and Fleiss (1979) and Tinsley and
Weiss (1975), another alternative is to calculate the rwg (James, Demaree & Wolf,
1984). Importantly, each of these methods for calculating interrater reliability
and agreement has its assumptions. Researchers need to select a method whose
assumptions and applicability are most suitable to the research design and nature
of the data.
Most of the studies conducted have taken an overall creativity rating approach in
which raters were first given the definition of creativity as including both originality
or novelty and usefulness, and then they rated the extent to which each idea or
solution generated by each participant is creative. After checking the reliability
and agreement of the judges’ ratings, a creativity score is computed for each
participant by taking the average of the overall creativity ratings across all ideas
generated and averaging across the judges’ ratings as well.
A somewhat different approach was taken in Zhou and Oldham (2001), where
two judges first separately evaluated both the originality and usefulness of the
solutions to Shalley’s (1991) memos. Once the judges’ originality and usefulness
ratings were deemed reliable and in agreement, an originality score and a usefulness
score were created for each participant by taking averages of originality and useful-
ness ratings, respectively. Next, a creativity index was formed for each participant
by multiplying the originality and usefulness scores for a composite measure.
Which of the above reviewed two approaches is better remains an empirical
question. Furthermore, if originality and usefulness are rated separately and then
combined into a composite measure, whether it would be best to multiply, add,
or differentially weight each sub-factor in some way is unclear and needs to be
explored. For the time being, both the overall creativity rating approach (e.g.
Shalley, 1991; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Zhou, 1998a) and the multiplicative
approach used in Zhou and Oldham (2001) appear to be consistent with the def-
inition of creativity (i.e. both originality and usefulness are necessary conditions
for an idea to be judged as creative).
Supervisor Ratings
Having supervisors rate the creativity of their employees is most commonly used
in field studies (George & Zhou, 2001, 2002; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott
& Bruce, 1994; Shin & Zhou, in press; Tierney et al., 1999; Zhou, 2003; Zhou &
George, 2001). Currently in the literature, we have identified four different rating
scales that have been used to have supervisors rate the level of creativity of their
employees. These four scales are: (a) George and Zhou’s 13-item scale (3 of the
13 items were adapted from Scott & Bruce, 1994) (George & Zhou, 2001, 2002;
Shin & Zhou, in press; Zhou, 2003; Zhou & George, 2001); (b) Oldham and
Cummings’ (1996) 3-item scale; (c) Scott and Bruce’s (1994) 6-item scale; and
(d) Tierney and colleagues’ 9-item scale (Tierney et al., 1999, 4 of these nine
items were adapted from Ettlie and O’Keefe, 1982. Tierney and Farmer, 2002,
used six items of the Tierney et al., 9-item scale). In looking at their items, many
of these scales share similarities and yet they have different emphases in notable
ways. In particular, some scales may be more appropriate for studying certain
populations (e.g. R&D employees) than others (e.g. employees whose jobs do not
revolve around creativity). In addition, some scales tend to emphasize innovation
(i.e. the implementation of creative ideas) instead of producing creative ideas and
approaches per se, whereas other scales tend to be more balanced with regard
to producing and implementing ideas. Systematic investigations are needed to
examine the extent to which these four scales converge, and whether different
scales are more suitable for studies with different jobs, types of industries and
employees, and at different stages of the creative process.
Objective Measures
Some field studies have also used objective measures such as the number of patents,
patent disclosures, research papers and technical reports, and ideas submitted to
employee suggestion programs (e.g. Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Pelz & Andrews,
1966; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney et al., 1999). Articles reporting these studies
usually have included some discussion of whether these objective measures are the
same as creativity. Obviously, whether to use these objective measures depends
on whether it makes sense in studying different populations. For example, number
of patents or patent disclosures, research papers and technical reports may be
relevant indicators of creative performance for employees working in research and
development. However, they are not relevant indicators of creativity for employees
working on jobs that potentially involve some level of creativity (e.g. nursing) but
do not normally involve producing patents and research papers.
In addition, although many studies have found similar results between objective
measures and supervisory ratings of employee creativity, some studies have found
varying results, and still other studies have found varying results between different
objective measures. For instance, Scott and Bruce (1994) reported that supervisor
ratings were significantly correlated with number of invention disclosures.
Likewise, Tierney et al. (1999) found that supervisor ratings were significantly
correlated with invention disclosures and research reports, and that patterns of
results were similar across these three subjective and objective measures. How-
ever, Oldham and Cummings (1996) found different results for patent disclosures
written and contributions to company’s suggestions program, and yet results
involving patents and supervisor rated creativity were similar. It is possible that for
certain jobs and in certain organizations, different measures converge in tapping
creativity. It is also possible that for other kinds of jobs and in other organizations,
different measures are tapping different types or dimensions of creativity. More
research is needed to examine utilities of subjective versus objective measures of
creativity, and among different objective measures of creativity.
Research Design
Laboratory Studies
In the laboratory studies on creativity, an important issue has been the task that
participants work on. Essentially, it has been argued that to allow creativity to
manifest, the type of task that research participants work on is critical. More
specifically, participants should be working on a complex, open-ended task where
a heuristic rather than algorithmic solution or outcome is possible. Complex-
heuristic tasks are open-ended and ill-structured, and lack a clear, straightforward
path to a solution (Amabile, 1983; McGraw, 1978). Thus, it is necessary to discuss
the tasks used in these studies. The tasks that are particularly relevant given the
purposes of this paper include the tasks developed and used by Amabile and her
colleagues (1996), the task developed by Shalley (1991), and the task developed by
Torrance (1974).
Over the years, Amabile and colleagues have developed many tasks used in
their programmatic research on creativity. Amabile (1996) grouped these tasks
into three categories: artistic (e.g. collages and paintings), problem solving
(e.g. ideas for high-tech products), and verbal (e.g. poems and stories) tasks.
Notably, Amabile (1996) reported that these tasks had been used with a variety of
populations (e.g. school children, artists, and undergraduate or MBA students),
and yielded satisfactory interrater reliabilities when the researchers used the
consensual assessment technique.
Shalley’s (1991) memo task is similar in many ways to an in-basket exercise
in that research participants are asked to read through a number of memos and
respond to the issues presented in the memos. However, the typical in-basket
exercise is also focused on being able to get the memo off one’s desk quickly,
or to decide to delegate the issue or respond to it in the future. In Shalley’s
task, the participants are encouraged to respond to each memo presented in a
thoughtful, complete manner and not to worry about completing all the memos
provided. The task involves responding to a series of problems presented to the

personnel director of a large steel manufacturing company. The participants are
given information concerning their role as the personnel director, background
on the company, and a packet of memos that deal with a variety of management
related issues (e.g. incidents of potential sexual harassment, employee theft, and
productivity issues). Individuals are normally told to try to craft a response to deal
with the issue presented in each of the memos they are given. The original task
included a set of twenty-two different memos (Shalley, 1991) so that there was
a range of different types of issues that participants could respond to and also so
that participants could be assigned productivity goals that varied in their difficulty
level. Since most of the subsequent studies using this task have not been concerned
with the use of productivity goals, typically the studies have used a sub-set of
the original twenty-two memos since it is extremely difficult for any individual to
respond to all twenty-two issues in the time usually allotted for the task.
Torrance’s (1974) unusual uses task involves asking research participants to
generate unusual uses for a variety of different objects. The objects commonly used
include a brick, newspaper, tire, junk auto, and hanger. On the basis of Guilford’s
(1956, 1967) theory concerning components of creativity and divergent thinking,
the participants’ creativity is assessed by considering four dimensions: fluency
(i.e. the total number of new uses generated for the five objects), flexibility (i.e. the
extent to which each participant used different categories of ideas or approaches
to a problem), elaboration (i.e. the extent to which the ideas are well developed),
and originality (i.e. the extent to which the ideas are unusual or statistically
infrequent). Many prior studies used variations of the Guilford and Torrance
unusual uses task to investigate correlates between individual differences and
creativity, and the task is considered to be appropriate for research on contextual
influences of creativity. However, Amabile (1996) cautioned that the task is some-
what removed from real-world scenarios of creative performance and its scoring
may represent quite narrow definitions of creative achievements (e.g. verbal
fluency).
Thus far, we have reviewed three commonly used tasks in laboratory research
on creativity. Laboratory studies have a number of potential strengths. In partic-
ular, with laboratory studies researchers are more likely to be able to establish
causality, and by their nature they have internal validity. With laboratory studies
the researchers can also isolate different constructs and cleanly manipulate the
constructs of interest while controlling conditions that are not the focus of the
study, and instead may just represent noise. These strengths are particularly
attractive for creativity research, which is a relatively new topic compared with
many other topics in the field of organizational behavior and human resource
management.
However, as with any research method, laboratory studies have potential

limitations. A nature of the beast with laboratory studies is the issue of external
validity. While many of these studies have tried to select contextual factors to
examine that are important for employees in organizations and have tried to
structure the laboratory environment so that it is as close as feasible to a typical
work environment, the laboratory is not a real work environment and participants
are often not full time employees. As such, while laboratory studies have inherent
strengths in terms of control over the situation, cleaner manipulation of constructs
and getting rid of noise, they do err on the side of less external validity, potentially
making their results not be as generalizable to an organization as a typical
field study. As always, selecting any single research method involves balancing
trade-offs, and by the use of triangulation of methods, consistent results across
methods can be gained to inform the field.
Field Studies
To date, most field studies on employee creativity have used quantitative data
collected by questionnaire measures and, when available, archival data (e.g.
number of patents obtained) collected from participating companies’ records.
And, not different from many field studies in organizational behavior and
human resource management, many field studies on creativity are primarily
cross-sectional, with measures of independent variables and dependent variables
collected in close proximity of each other.
While prior field studies have been largely quantitative in nature, qualita-
tive case studies may compliment quantitative studies to provide fuller and
richer descriptions on how creative performance unfolds in the organizational
context. There are abundant anecdotes about creative individuals, however,
well-executed and rigorous qualitative studies on creativity have been rare.
An exception is a study by Hargadon and Sutton (1997). In an ethnographic
study that lasted approximately two and a half years, the authors conducted
observations, interviews, informal conversations and gathered archival data at
a product design firm. On the basis of the ethnography, the authors developed a
technology brokering model of product innovation. This model describes how the
organization acted as a technology broker, using its network position of a product
design consulting firm working with many clients in at least forty industries to
broker, transfer and adapt existing knowledge from one industry to another or
combining preexisting ideas, products and knowledge into an original product.
This qualitative study provides implications for theory development and research
on how organizations might use its external network positions and develop
internal processes to gather, store, and retrieve knowledge in order to routinely
develop innovative products. As creativity is a new and rapidly growing research
area, qualitative studies might be particularly suitable for grounded theory

building: Such studies have the potential to provide framebreaking, convincing,
and testable insights, which are especially needed in newer research areas
(Eisenhardt, 1989).
There are a number of strengths of conducting field studies to investigate cre-
ativity. In particular, field studies use employees in their work organizations, and
they have the potential to be more generalizable and have greater external validity
compared with studies conducted in the behavioral laboratory. However, conduct-
ing a study in an organizational setting in itself does not guarantee greater internal
and external validity, and hence is not necessarily a superior method relative to lab
studies. This is because while field studies have strengths, at the same time they
also have several potential limitations. For example, as mentioned above, because
of resource and access constraints, to date field studies on creativity are largely
cross-sectional in nature. Hence, they cannot unequivocally determine direction
of causality, even if hypotheses derived from theory receive empirical support. In
addition, in field studies researchers often cannot definitively control extraneous
factors and noise.
While carrying out longitudinal studies might lessen some of the limitations
associated with field studies, they themselves pose tremendous challenges
to researchers. In addition to the typical challenges in all longitudinal field
studies such as cost and participant attrition, there are unique challenges for
creativity research. For example, creative endeavors in organizations may unfold
over an extended period of time. In addition, unless these endeavors are R&D
projects that have a clear starting point and ending point, many creative activities
initiated by employees with non R&D jobs may not have clear-cut beginning
and ending points. Moreover, different people may use different strategies and go
through different cognitive and behavioral processes to produce creative outputs,
which makes continual tracking of creativity-related behaviors a real challenge
for researchers.
These and other challenges notwithstanding, a longitudinal study reported by
Amabile and Conti (1999) provided an example on how some of the challenges
might be addressed. More specifically, they investigated creativity enhancing or
inhibiting work environments before, during, and after a major downsizing. They
were not able to follow the same group of employees to collect all waves of data.
Instead, they randomly sampled a different group of employees for each wave of
data collection.
Finally, while qualitative case studies can provide rich information compared
with typical quantitative survey studies, and they are particularly useful for theory
building, they do have the inherent limitation of not being generalizable to other
organizations and situations.
A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES

This review is divided into two parts: the first part focuses on contextual factors
as antecedents of creativity, and the second part focuses on individual differences
as antecedents or moderators of creativity.
Antecedents of Creativity – Contextual Factors
Goals and Expectations for Creative Activity

One potential way that managers may be able to influence the occurrence of creative
activity is through goal setting. Goals influence motivation through their impact on
self-regulatory mechanisms (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Research on goal setting
has indicated that it is an incredibly effective motivational technique (Locke &
Latham, 1990). The basic motivational assumption of goal setting is that goals
increase attention and effort by providing clear targets toward which individuals
can direct their energies. Goals serve to motivate and direct attention to important
facets of a task or project and facilitate information acquisition. Goals regulate
action directly by affecting what people pay attention to, how hard they work, and
how long they persist on a task. Goals affect action indirectly by motivating people
to discover and use task strategies that will facilitate goal achievement. Goals are
more likely to be attained when people are strongly committed to the goals and
are given feedback concerning their progress in relation to their goals. A robust
finding across numerous studies concerning the relation between goal setting and
performance has been that setting difficult and specific goals improves productivity
(Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham, 1981). Presumably, a difficult and specific goal
can enhance performance because it would direct individuals’ attention and energy
toward achieving certain aspects or levels of performance.
Interestingly, however, studies that demonstrated this performance-enhancing
effect of goal-setting usually focused on the sheer productivity aspect (i.e.
the number of task units completed) of individual task performance. Because
individuals have limited cognitive resources and energy, it is possible that goals
that direct individuals’ attention toward completing more task units would
simultaneously divert their attention away from coming up with creative ideas
about their work. However, it is also possible that a goal could either help or
hinder task engagement depending on whether the goal focuses individuals on
aspects of the task that may facilitate or stifle creative performance. For instance,
since goals are directive they could focus individuals on aspects of the task that
would facilitate their performance. On the other hand, it is possible that the goal
could inhibit engagement by narrowing an individual’s focus of attention and
information acquisition to particular aspects of the task that may not facilitate cre-
ative performance. In addition, a goal may be perceived as an extrinsic constraint,
and thereby, reduce individuals’ intrinsic motivation to perform a task (Shalley &
Oldham, 1985). In other words, while productivity goals can enhance productivity,
they may have neutral or even negative effects on creativity. Furthermore, it also
is possible that goals could be set for individuals to be creative. These ideas are
consistent with the distinction between performance- and mastery-oriented goals
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Individuals motivated by a
mastery goal orientation focus on task mastery and skill improvement. In contrast,
individuals motivated by a performance orientation focus on the assessment of the
level of their abilities relative to others. Thus, a performance orientation directs
individuals’ attention to themselves, away from concentrating on the task, and
makes the individuals feel pressured and anxious to show their competence. The
lack of task interest and feelings of anxiety often result in poor performance on
complex tasks (Utman, 1997).
Shalley (1991) conducted a study to empirically test some of the issues dis-
cussed above. She examined the effects of two types of goals (i.e. a creativity goal
and a productivity goal) on individuals’ creative performance. More specifically,
participants were assigned one of three productivity goals (difficult, do your best,
or no goal) and one of three creativity goals (difficult, do your best, or no goal)
while they worked on the memo task described earlier in this paper. Participants
assigned a difficult productivity goal were asked to generate solutions for at least
14 of 22 memos presented to them, a do your best goal was to generate solutions
for as many memos as possible, and those with no productivity goal were told
to work at their own speed. As for the creativity goals, participants assigned a
difficult creativity goal were told that 90% of the solution generated needed to
be creative, those with a do your best creativity goal were told to try to generate
highly creative solutions, and those with no creativity goal heard no mention of
creativity. An interactive effect for goal type on creative performance was found.
Specifically, creativity was low if individuals were given a do-your-best or difficult
productivity goal without also assigning a creativity goal. However, individuals
exhibited high levels of both creativity and productivity if they were assigned a
do-your-best or difficult creativity goal and a difficult productivity goal.
Shalley (1991) interpreted these findings as indicating that once a creativity
goal was assigned, individuals were primed to focus their attention and effort
on this objective, and therefore, exhibited overall higher levels of creativity than
individuals who were not assigned a creativity goal. Furthermore, in the absence of
a creativity goal, a productivity goal appeared to cause individuals to narrow their
attention to goal-relevant stimuli alone (e.g. being productive), and to ignore subtle
aspects of the task that could have been helpful in their being creative. Therefore,
in this case, productivity goals served as attentional controls, causing performance

on other dimensions not addressed by the goal to suffer while the presence of a
creativity goal served to boost individuals’ level of creativity on the task.
In a similar study as above, Carson and Carson (1993) found that students who
were assigned only a creativity goal or a creativity goal along with a quantity
goal performed more creatively on a verbal fluency task (i.e. Torrance’s task
described earlier) than individuals assigned a quantity goal only. Furthermore, in
another study, Shalley (1995, Study 2) found that assigning a creativity goal had
a significant, positive effect on individuals’ creativity. Additionally, in this study,
individuals assigned a creativity goal had lower productivity than those with
no creativity goal, presumably because they were focusing their attention and
effort on creativity rather than productivity. Therefore, in general, the presence
of a creativity goal appears to enhance creativity. However, it may do so at the
expense of other aspects of performance such as productivity, as measured by
sheer quantity of output (Shalley, 1995, Study 2).
In summary, creativity goals seem to serve as a mechanism for inducing
individuals to exhibit certain behaviors, perform at a desired level, and also as a
standard against which task behavior can be evaluated. A number of studies also
have found that when individuals know that creativity is important, but an explicit
goal has not been set, they are more likely to actually be creative. For instance,
Speller and Schumacher (1975) found that individuals’ scores on creativity tests
improve if they are told that they are taking a creativity test. Additionally, it has
been found that when individuals were given test instructions to “be creative”
they were significantly more creative on a divergent thinking test than individuals
given instructions that did not emphasize a desire for creativity (Manske & Davis,
1968). The results of these studies could be explained by the fact that the mention
of a creativity test or instructions to be creative serves as a goal, priming attention
and effort on trying to be creative. Priming is a process in which particular
information is activated for recall. Thus, it would be expected that the notion
that creativity is expected or even required in order to perform a job effectively
should facilitate creative performance by causing individuals to focus all of their
attention and effort on generating novel, appropriate responses.
Research has indicated that employees can accurately identify when creative
activity is required by their job. For instance, Shalley, Gilson and Blum (2000)
found that at least 75% of their sample of 2,870 working individuals (i.e. 2,200
people) accurately reported the level of creativity that was required in order to
perform their job when their responses were compared to the creativity rating for
those same jobs by the U.S. Department of Labor in their Dictionary of Occupa-
tional Titles (DOT). The researchers speculated that for the remaining quarter of
the sample, there may have been some misperceptions, but also factors such as the
job incumbent, organizational culture, and manager’s expectations that may have
caused an individual’s job to have a higher or lower level of required creativity than
the matching DOT job. Recently, Shalley (in press) asserted that if managers would
like their employees to be more creative then they need to explicitly or implicitly
stress the importance of role requirements for creative performance. Therefore,
creating role expectations by assigning goals for creative performance, making
creative activity a job requirement, and developing a culture that is supportive of
creative activity, is expected to lead to higher levels of creative performance.
The Effect of Evaluation and Feedback on Creativity

Since performance evaluation is an integral part of any job, it is important to exam-
ine its effect on various aspects of performance, including creativity. In the area of
employee creativity, there has been a relatively large amount of research focused on
different facets of performance evaluation for employees’ creativity. These studies
range from examining the expectation of evaluation, to the provision of feedback,
to the type of feedback actually given (e.g. developmental assessments). Each of
these areas will be discussed in detail below.
Expected evaluation. Early research on the effects of expected evaluation for

intrinsic motivation and creativity had inconsistent results. On one hand, some
research suggested that evaluation can have dysfunctional effects on intrinsic
motivation and creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1979; Amabile, Goldfarb & Brackfield,
1990; Shalley & Oldham, 1985). For example, Amabile (1979) found that
individuals who expected his or her task performance to be evaluated exhibited
lower intrinsic motivation than those who did not expect an evaluation. This result
may have occurred because expected evaluation undermined intrinsic motivation
by focusing the participants on extrinsic reasons for engaging in the task (e.g.
receiving a positive evaluation) rather than an intrinsic reason such as enjoyment
of the task. Furthermore, in this study she found that individuals expecting an
evaluation had significantly lower levels of creativity on an artistic task than
individuals not expecting an evaluation. On the other hand, other studies have
found that evaluation can positively affect intrinsic motivation and creativity (e.g.
Harackeiwicz & Elliott, 1993; Jussim, Soffin, Brown, Ley & Kohlhepp, 1992). For
instance, Shalley (1995) conducted two studies looking at the effect of expected
evaluation on creativity. The first found no significant effect for expected evalu-
ation (Shalley, 1995, Study 1). The second study (Shalley, 1995, Study 2) found
that individuals who worked alone, had a creativity goal, and expected an external
evaluation demonstrated the highest level of creativity. Taken together, the results
of these two studies indicate that expected evaluation is not necessarily harmful to
people’s creativity and can actually be beneficial to creativity in certain situations.
Shalley (1995) suggested that cognitive evaluation theory could help in

explaining the unexpected positive effect of expected evaluation. Specifically,
the relative salience of the informational and controlling aspects of expected
evaluation may have mediated the effects of evaluation on creativity through its
effect on intrinsic motivation. She argued that the informational component of
expected evaluation would have been expected to be salient in this study, given
the nature of the task and participants. Most participants were business majors
who should have had some familiarity with this type of task and thus, would
have been interested in receiving an evaluation of their creativity in generating
solutions to managerial problems. Thus, they should have perceived expert
judgments on how well they performed as primarily informational. Therefore,
she argued that their creativity could have been enhanced since they anticipated
getting useful information from the evaluation. However, it was not possible to
empirically test this argument since intrinsic motivation had not been measured in
this study.
Revisiting this issue, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) specifically examined the
differential effects of anticipating an informational versus controlling evaluation
on individuals’ intrinsic motivation and creativity. They argued that the actual
manner in which evaluation was manipulated in past studies appeared to be
different based on the instructions given, which could have caused some evalu-
ations to be perceived as more controlling and some as more informational. For
instance, in Shalley’s (1995) study participants were told that experts in the area
would perform a detailed review of the content of their solutions and that they
would receive a copy of this review. This approach was expected to have focused
individuals on expecting an evaluation that could enhance their competency and
boost his or her learning. On the other hand, Bartis, Szymanski and Harkins (1988)
found that evaluation decreased creativity. Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) argued
that in Bartis and colleagues’ (1988) study, participants were given instructions
that were more controlling, in that they should have felt pressured to perform.
Therefore, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) hypothesized and found that when
individuals expect an informational evaluation they have significantly higher
levels of creativity than when expecting a controlling evaluation.
Perhaps more importantly, while many prior studies relied on cognitive
evaluation theory to predict how the informational aspect of a given contextual
factor would promote creativity via enhancing intrinsic motivation, whereas
the controlling aspect of a given contextual factor would inhibit creativity via
reducing intrinsic motivation, studies have not directly tested the mediating effect
of intrinsic motivation. In Shalley and Perry Smith (2001), they first directly tested
the role of cognitive evaluations theory’s primary intervening cognitive process
of locus of causality (or self-determination) in mediating the relationship between
evaluation and intrinsic motivation. Locus of causality is the psychological process

that cognitive evaluation theory posits is responsible for the relationship between
informational and controlling aspects of the context and individuals’ intrinsic
motivation. They found that locus of causality was indeed the mediator linking
expected evaluation and intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, in this study they also
empirically tested whether creativity is most likely to occur when individuals are
intrinsically motivated. Although never tested empirically before, much of the
creativity research had been based on this association (e.g. Amabile, 1983). Inter-
estingly, intrinsic motivation was not found to mediate the relationship between
evaluation and creativity. The researchers went on to suggest other possible inter-
vening mechanisms in addition to or besides intrinsic motivation that may mediate
the effect of external factors on individuals’ level of creativity. For instance, they
suggested that focus of attention, affect, domain relevant skills, and creativity
relevant skills may play some role in the relationship between external factors
and their effects on employee creativity.
Feedback valence and style. Zhou (1998a) examined the effect of feedback valence
and feedback style on individual’s creativity. Zhou (1998a) defined feedback va-
lence as the positive or negative outcome of the comparison between an individual’s
creativity and normative or situational criteria. If the comparison indicates that the
individual’s ideas are more creative than the criteria, the feedback valence would
be positive. If the comparison shows that the ideas are less creative than the criteria,
the feedback valence would be negative.
In addition to feedback valence, Zhou (1998a) argued that creativity-related
feedback has another distinct component – feedback style. The concept of
feedback style is important because people do not necessarily perceive and
interpret the feedback they receive in a straightforward manner. Rather, depending
on the style in which feedback is delivered, the recipient may or may not choose
to listen to and respond to feedback. Zhou’s argument concerning the joint effects
of feedback valence and style is based on the intrinsic motivation framework
(Amabile, 1996) mentioned earlier in this paper.
More specifically, Zhou (1998a) defined feedback style as the manner in which
feedback is delivered. Feedback style can be either informational or controlling.
Feedback delivered in an informational style is not restrictive or constraining nor
does it impose the feedback giver’s will or wishes on the feedback recipient.
Instead, when it is used to deliver feedback, the informational style suggests that
the feedback recipient is in control of his or her own behaviors and the external
feedback provider’s goal is simply to help the feedback recipient to learn and
develop his or her creative capabilities and creative performance. Because of the
nature of informational feedback, the recipient tends to feel that the feedback
communicated in this type of style is informative and supportive. As a result, he

or she is most likely to respond to the feedback in a positive way.
On the other hand, supervisors sometimes intentionally or unintentionally
deliver feedback in a controlling style. According to Zhou (1998a), feedback
delivered in a controlling style makes external constraints salient by emphasizing
certain types of ideas or outcomes that the feedback recipient must obtain or
certain levels of creativity the recipient must achieve. While used in delivering
feedback, a controlling style emphasizes the demands of an external force to obtain
certain behavioral outcomes from the feedback recipient. By making external
control salient, the controlling style instills feelings of external causality to the
feedback recipient. That is, the recipient is led to feel that his or her behaviors
and actions did not originate from him- or herself but from controlling others.
Taken together, employees should respond most positively to positive feedback
when it is delivered in an informational style. In this condition, employees’ per-
ceived competence and self-determination will be enhanced and supported, and as
a result, high intrinsic motivation should be experienced (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and
high creativity should be exhibited. However, employees should exhibit relatively
moderate creativity when they receive positive feedback delivered in a controlling
style, or negative feedback delivered in an informational style. Finally, employees
should respond negatively when negative feedback is delivered in a controlling
style. In this condition, employees’ perceived competence and self-determination
will be diminished, low intrinsic motivation will be experienced, and low levels
of creativity will be exhibited.
Zhou (1998a) examined these issues in a laboratory study that tested the hy-
potheses that feedback valence and style would jointly affect individuals’ creative
performance. Participants in this study worked on Shalley’s (1991) memo task.
Participants were randomly assigned to different feedback valence-by-feedback
style conditions: positive feedback and informational style, positive feedback and
controlling style, negative feedback and informational style, and negative feedback
and controlling style. Results showed that of the four experimental conditions,
individuals in the positive feedback and informational style condition exhibited the
greatest creativity, whereas individuals in the negative feedback and controlling
style condition exhibited the least creativity, thereby supporting the hypotheses.
After reading the above discussion, one might be inclined to conclude that in
order to promote creativity, we need to give people positive feedback delivered
in an informational style. This approach is appropriate if the feedback recipient
indeed has come up with ideas that are more creative than a standard. If, however,
the recipient has come up with ideas that are less creative, should we still give
him or her fake positive feedback for the sake of boosting creativity? Little
research has examined this issue in depth. Yet, to the extent that individuals need
to learn standards for creativity and learn appropriate creativity-relevant skills and
strategies to produce truly creative work (Amabile, 1996; Shalley & Perry-Smith,
2001; Zhou, 2003), giving fake positive feedback would jeopardize this important
learning process and hence should be avoided. When one must give negative
feedback, one should do so but deliver it in an informational rather than controlling
style (Zhou, 1998a).
Developmental feedback. Feedback may also vary on its developmental orien-

tation. Feedback messages that are high on developmental orientation provide
employees with helpful and valuable information that enables the employees to
learn, develop, and make improvements on the job (Zhou, 2003). Such feedback
implies that individuals can constantly become better (e.g. more skilled, more
creative, and generally more in control of their work) by learning and improving
on the job. Feedback messages that are low on developmental orientation contain
little information to help employees learn to be creative and grow on the job.
Prior research has shown that developmental feedback, in combination with
other personal characteristics and contextual variables, facilitated employees’
creative performance. For example, Zhou and George (2001) found that when
office employees at a petroleum drilling equipment company experienced
high levels of job dissatisfaction and continuance commitment (i.e. employees
are committed to their organizations because of necessity instead of affective
attachment to or identification with the organizational values and goals; Allen &
Meyer, 1996), the more they received feedback high on developmental orientation
from coworkers, the higher their creative performance. The researchers reasoned
that when an employee is dissatisfied with the job yet perceives the cost of
quitting to be too high or alternatives are not available, he or she may either
choose to be passive about the job and only work to meet the minimum standard,
or choose to proactively change the unsatisfactory and unattractive work situation
into something that is more interesting and attractive. If the employee receives
feedback from coworkers that focuses on job improvement, the employee’s
attention is likely to be directed toward learning and making improvements on
the job, in the process of which he or she may be stimulated to see things from
different perspectives and come up with new and useful ways of doing things.
In another study with hospital employees (e.g. nurses, pharmacists, and so
forth), Zhou (2003) hypothesized that when creative coworkers were present, the
more supervisors provided developmental feedback, the greater the likelihood
that employees would exhibit creative performance. Using the intrinsic motivation
perspective described earlier in this paper, Zhou reasoned that developmental
feedback is likely to boost intrinsic motivation. This enhanced interest in the
task itself and an orientation toward learning and improvement should allow the
employees to benefit from the presence of creative coworkers. Under this joint
condition, the employees are likely to be immersed in the task and focused on skill
mastery (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Utman, 1997), and
hence they may find the presence of creative coworkers a particularly welcoming
opportunity for them to learn and improve creativity-relevant skills. In addition,
their enjoyment of the task and orientation toward learning and improvement
enable them to seek challenges, to be persistent, and not to be afraid of making
mistakes (Dweck, 1986), which are essential for their being able to truly master
and utilize creativity skills and strategies. As such, when supervisors provide
developmental feedback and creative coworkers are present, employees are likely
to properly acquire and use creativity-relevant skills and strategies to search for
new and better ways of doing things, which increases the chance of exhibiting
high levels of creativity. Results of the study supported this hypothesis.
Expected developmental assessment strategies. Zhou and Oldham (2001) argued

that much prior research using cognitive evaluation theory to examine effects of
contextual factors or practices on creativity had shown that practices restricted
creativity by increasing the salience of the controlling aspect. They noted that,
however, less was known about the practices that enhance creativity by increasing
the relative salience of the informational aspect. They conducted a laboratory
study to examine a practice that might have this effect-providing individuals with
the expectation of a non-critical, developmental assessment of their creativity-
relevant skills. They also examined the effects of two sources for administering
the assessment: other actors and the individual him- or herself.
According to Zhou and Oldham (2001), a developmental assessment involves:
(a) reviewing or assessing individuals’ task responses and; (b) providing them
with a non-critical report of this assessment that is intended to help develop
their relevant skills and competencies (Farh, Cannella & Bedeian, 1991; London,
Larsen & Thisted, 1999). Thus, different from a traditional evaluation approach
in which a person’s creativity was critiqued and contrasted against some standard,
a developmental assessment approach emphasizes providing individuals with
learning and mastery experiences. The goal of this latter approach is to help the
individuals to develop creativity-relevant skills and competencies (Nickerson,
1999).
Zhou and Oldham defined other-administered assessment as a method in which
individuals expected external actors to assess their task responses. Because it was
developmental in nature, the outcome of the assessment was to be used for the
purpose of developing the focal individuals creativity-relevant skills and to be
made available to the focal individuals only. Alternatively, in a self-administered
assessment, individuals expected an opportunity to conduct a personal analysis
of their task responses that would help them in developing creativity skills. The
focal individual was in charge of the assessment – no external assessments were
to be provided, and other actors are involved only to the extent that they provided
assistance that the individual requested for conducting the self-assessment.
Taking the intrinsic motivation perspective of creativity, Zhou and Oldham
predicted higher creativity in a self-administered developmental assessment
condition than in other-administered or control (no developmental assessment)
conditions. In the former, the controlling aspect should be relatively nonsalient
and the informational aspect should be relatively salient. In the other-administered
condition, individuals expected the opportunity to develop their personal com-
petencies, which should contribute to the informational aspect. However, because
external actors conducted the assessment, the relative salience of the controlling
aspect should also be boosted, counteracting the effects of the informational
aspect, and resulting in lower creativity. Finally, in a control condition, no external
actors were involved to increase the salience of the controlling aspect. At the same
time, individuals in this condition did not expect the opportunity to develop their
creativity skills, which reduced the relative salience of the informational aspect
and should result in relatively low creativity.
In a laboratory study, Zhou and Oldham manipulated the expected develop-
mental assessment variable at three levels (self-administered, other-administered,
or control). In addition, they also measured individuals’ creative personality
(see the section on individual differences below for more detailed results of this
part of the study). Sixty-eight participants worked on the memo task developed
by Shalley (1991). Results showed that, as predicted, individuals who expected
a self-administered developmental assessment exhibited higher creativity than
those who expected either no assessment or an other-administered assessment.
In summary, taken together these studies researching different aspects of
performance evaluation seem to be clearly indicating that while evaluation of
employees work is a necessary part of any job, how an evaluation is given or how it
is expected can have a dramatic effect on employees’ creativity. Thus, it is not the
presence or absence of an external factor per se that positively or negatively affects
creative performance. Rather, the way in which people perceive the contextual
factors matters for creativity. In other words, the informational component of the
evaluation needs to be stressed and the controlling component should be down-
played or not mentioned regardless of whether we are discussing the expectation
of evaluation, the provision of feedback, developmental assessments, and so on.
Thus, when the informational component of performance evaluation is salient,
it appears to enhance individuals’ creative performance while the salience of the
controlling aspect of evaluation should have detrimental effects for employees’
creativity.
Social Influences on Individual’s Creativity – The Role of Others

There have been a series of studies that have focused on the effect of others on
individual’s creativity. In general, these studies have focused on the level of cre-
ative performance exhibited by focal individuals when the presence of others in
some way could have a positive or negative effect on focal individuals’ creative
performance. For instance, some studies have looked at the effect of the presence of
competitive others while others have looked at the effect of the presence of others
working independently and noncompetitively in the same room (i.e. coactors) on
individuals’ creativity. Finally, other studies have focused on creative role models
and how they may impact individuals’ creative performance.
The presence of coactors. There has not been a great deal of research on how
working in the presence of others may affect individuals’ overall performance
and, in particular, their creativity. The research that has examined this has yielded
inconsistent results. For instance, Amabile and her colleagues (1990) examined
the effects of coaction and audience surveillance on creativity and found no effect
for coaction and a nonsignificant negative effect for surveillance. Conversely,
Matlin and Zajonc (1968) found that surveillance had a significant, negative effect
on originality, which is one key component of creativity. Given that employees are
increasingly working in open offices in which their work stations are in view of
others’ work stations (Oldham, 1988), it is important to determine how working
in the presence of others, either as coactors or as an audience watching their
behavior, affects various performance outcomes.
There has not been any recent work on audience surveillance but there has been
some work on the effect of coactors. In two laboratory studies discussed earlier in
the expected evaluation section, Shalley (1995) examined the effects of coaction
(i.e. individuals working at a table with five others working on the same task)
versus working alone in a private room on individual creative performance. Based
on the distraction/conflict theory of social facilitation (Baron, 1986), the presence
of others could serve as a distraction and can either energize people or disrupt
their performance, depending on whether their attention is focused on dominant
or subordinate responses. The researcher argued that distraction could lead to
attentional conflict, which may mediate social facilitation effects by increasing
drive and causing attentional overload (Baron, 1986). Attentional overload was
expected to cause individuals to restrict his or her cognitive focusing, causing
them to attend to cues that are central to the task and to ignore peripheral cues.
Attentional overload has also been suggested to cause individuals to use cognitive
shortcuts to avoid taxing their attentional cues, such as the use of pre-existing
algorithms. In these studies it was hypothesized that attentional overload would
be dysfunctional for creativity, given the cognitive activities commonly proposed
to be necessary for creativity. Specifically, individuals need to explore a number

of potential solutions before choosing the solution deemed highest in novelty and
appropriateness. Thus, individuals must attend to a wide range of environmental
stimuli in attempting to activate different knowledge structures. Given this,
the presence of coactors was expected to have a social impairment effect on
individuals’ creativity performance by disrupting their cognitive processing.
Using the memo task described earlier in this paper, Shalley (1995) conducted
two studies. In the first study, she found that participants who worked alone
produced more creative solutions for the memo problems than those working
at a table with five others. However, in the second study, she did not find an
independent effect of coaction on creativity. Rather, individuals with a creativity
goal who worked alone in a private room under the expectation of evaluation had
the highest level of creativity. Therefore, it appears that under certain conditions,
it may be better to have individuals work alone rather than in the presence of
coactors, but under other conditions coactors may have a neutral or negative effect.
Presence of creative role models. The use of role models is common in daily
work life and in organizational training modules (Decker & Nathan, 1985;
Robinson, 1980). Modeling is believed to help clarify role expectations and
enhance employees’ skill acquisition. However, little research has looked at
whether the use of modeling has an effect on creativity. There is some related
developmental research that has examined the presence of role models in a
renowned individuals life. For instance, Bloom and Sosniak (1981) looked at
talented internationally recognized individuals across different fields and found
that most of these individuals had at least one model of achievement in their life
during childhood (oftentimes, a parent). Zuckerman (1977) studied ninety Nobel
laureates and found a critical role for modeling in at least some types of creativity.
And Simonton (1975, 1984) found that those who had been exposed to creative
role models were more likely to be recognized for their creativity.
In the area of cognitive modeling, Gist (1989) found that a cognitive model-
ing training program for managers focusing on techniques to enhance innovative
problem solving increased the quantity and divergence of ideas generated, and
Meichenbaum (1975) found that cognitive modeling led to an increase in flexibility
and originality on tests of divergent thinking. Finally, Harris and Evans (1974) did
find that college students who were given creative responses to read subsequently
exhibited higher creativity on a similar task than those given a more standard
response to read. However, their task was a fairly simple, algorithmic task, so it re-
mains unclear whether these results would hold for a more complex-heuristic task.
Therefore, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) set out to examine whether mod-
eling has an effect on subsequent creativity performance, and if so, whether the
type of model makes a difference. The results in their study concerning expected
evaluation have already been discussed in the performance evaluation section of
this paper, so here we will focus on their arguments and results for modeling. Their
anticipated reasoning for the effects of modeling on creativity was based on social
learning theory (Bandura, 1969). According to this theory (Bandura, 1969, 1986),
learning can take place vicariously by modeling and self-control processes. If
individuals are capable of performing a behavior, but do not, they are more likely
to exhibit it after a visual demonstration of the behavior (i.e. behavioral modeling)
or through the transmission of examples of appropriate rules and thought processes
(i.e. cognitive modeling). Through vicarious learning, individuals do not merely
observe an example or behavior but actively pay attention to and store a symbolic
representation in their mind of how to behave in certain situations (Bandura,
1969). Thus, modeling can provide cognitive and behavioral tools for innovation
by providing standards for organizing thought, strengthening or weakening
social inhibitions concerning appropriate behaviors, and encouraging versatility
(Bandura, 1986).
Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) argued that individuals who were given a
creative work model should be able to learn what is considered creative from this
model, and this would actually result in them exhibiting more creative behavior.
On the other hand, if someone was given a more standard or routine model to
review, this would cause them to have lower creativity as compared to those given
a creative model or those given no model. The researchers expected this effect
also when the individuals were specifically told that the standard model was
given to them as an example of what is not desired. Results of their laboratory
study showed that individuals exhibited greater creativity when they were given
a creative model than individuals not given such a model. Individuals who were
given no model or a standard model did not differ significantly on their level of
creative performance. Finally, individuals working in the expected controlling
evaluation and standard solution condition exhibited the lowest levels of creativity.
Therefore, providing work models can serve as a contextual factor for creativity.
In addition to providing individuals with models of creative work, we also can
surround individuals with creative role models – other employees. In the two field
studies in the section titled “developmental feedback” described above, Zhou
(2003) did not predict direct or main effects of the presence of creative co-workers
on employee creativity. Consistent with Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001), Zhou
developed the hypotheses by integrating the intrinsic motivation framework of
creativity and social learning theory, and she added an interactional perspective
of creativity to this study.
More specifically, Zhou theorized that the presence of creative coworkers would
provide employees with the opportunity to learn and acquire creativity – relevant
skills and strategies. In addition, employees also needed to experience intrinsic

motivation in order to take advantage of this opportunity. She argued that
supervisors might maintain or enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation by either
providing high levels of developmental feedback or low levels of close monitoring
(i.e. the extent to which supervisors keep close tabs on their employees to ensure
that the employees do exactly what they are told, perform tasks in expected ways,
and do not do things that supervisors might disapprove of). Converging results from
the two field studies demonstrated that, as hypothesized, when creative coworkers
were present, the less supervisors engaged in close monitoring, the greater the
creativity exhibited by the employees. Study 2 also found that the contribution of
this joint condition was stronger for employees with less creative personalities. In
addition, Study 2 found that when creative coworkers were present, the more su-
pervisors provided developmental feedback, the greater the employees’ creativity.
Presence of competitive others. Another creativity-related contextual factor that

has intrigued researchers is competition. While anecdotes have suggested a
powerful and positive impact of competition on innovation and technological
advancement in industries, both of which contain elements of creativity, little
systematic research has been conducted to determine how competition affects
individual creativity.
Shalley and Oldham (1997) conducted one of the few empirical studies devoted
to examining the impact of competition on creativity. On the basis of the intrinsic
motivation framework of creativity, these researchers argued that the effects of
competition on creativity were complex; designed appropriately, competition
might enhance instead of minimize creativity. Thus, it was necessary to distinguish
two aspects of competition: informational and controlling. Depending on which
aspect is made more salient, competition was hypothesized to either facilitate
or inhibit creativity. When the informational aspect is relatively more salient,
competition provides individuals with valuable information concerning how well
they are performing the task. Individuals may welcome and indeed desire such
information. Hence, their intrinsic motivation is maintained or enhanced, and
subsequently their creativity is enhanced. In contrast, when the controlling aspect
of competition is relatively more salient, the individuals are likely to feel that they
are performing the task because an external factor forces or coerces them to do
so, and their intrinsic motivation and creativity are likely to be diminished.
On the basis of the above conceptual analysis, Shalley and Oldham (1997)
made the informational or the controlling aspect of competition more salient by
manipulating two experimental factors: the presence and visibility of competitors.
They had three competitor presence conditions (i.e. no competition, competing
with present others, and competing with absent others) with two visibility
conditions (i.e. visible or non-visible to others while working). Participants

worked on Torrance’s (1974) creativity task in which they generated unusual uses
for five objects. The researchers used three creativity measures: fluency (i.e. the
total number of new uses generated for the five objects), flexibility (i.e. the extent
to which each participant used different categories of ideas or approaches to a
problem), and overall creativity (i.e. the extent to which the uses generated were
both novel and practical). Results indicated that participants exhibited higher
levels of creativity in two informational conditions (i.e. when participants were in
competition with others present but not visible, and when they were in competition
with absent others and were visible to noncompetitive others) than in a control-
ling condition (i.e. when participants were in competition with present others
and visible to them), thereby supporting the informational versus controlling
competition hypothesis. However, other results failed to support the hypothesis.
In particular, participants who competed with absent others and were not visible
to noncompetitive others exhibited low levels of creativity. Taken together, results
of this study provided mixed support for the informational versus controlling
competition hypotheses.
The above study underscores the complexity of the competition – creativity
relationship. More systematic research is needed to untangle this complexity. We
may need to abandon the hope for finding a straightforward positive or negative
impact of competition on creativity. In fact, a host of personal (e.g. gender)
and social factors (intra-group versus inter-group competition) might need to
be taken into consideration in order to develop a fuller understanding of how
and why competition affects creativity (Amabile, 1996). In summary, the role of
others in affecting an individual’s level of creativity appears to largely depend on
whether others have exerted influences that the focal individual perceives as more
controlling or informational.
Leadership and Supervisory Behaviors

Theory and research also indicate that leadership and supervisory behaviors may
play an important role in the creative process. Notably, Oldham and Cummings
(1996) suggested that supportive, non-controlling supervisors create a work
environment that fosters creativity. Similarly, Andrews and Farris (1967) found
that scientists’ creativity was higher when their organizations were supportive
and when managers listened to their employees’ concerns and asked for their
input into decisions affecting them. A number of studies have shown that open
interactions with supervisors, encouragement, and support enhance employees’
creativity and innovation (e.g. Kimberly, 1981; Oldham & Cummings, 1996;
Tierney et al., 1999). Therefore, managers should work on personally encouraging
employees and developing nurturing relationships to promote creativity. If they
are supportive and provide adequate resources for employees to be creative (e.g.
Amabile et al., 1996), creative activity should be more likely to occur.
A number of field studies examined the relationship between supervisor
behaviors and employee creativity. For example, Oldham and Cummings (1996)
identified two types of creativity-relevant supervisor behaviors, namely supportive
supervision (e.g. encouraging employees to voice their concerns) and controlling
supervision (e.g. pressuring employees to think, feel, or behave in certain ways).
On the basis of the intrinsic motivation perspective, they argued that supportive
supervision would relate positively to creativity, and controlling supervision
would relate negatively to creativity. They collected data on three indicators of
creativity from a sample of manufacturing employees and their supervisors. The
first indicator was supervisor ratings of employee creativity. The second measure
was patent disclosures written, referring to the total number of internal patent
disclosures written by the employee over a two-year period. The third indicator
was whether employees’ contributions to their organizations’ suggestion programs
were accepted (1 = accepted and 0 = unaccepted). The prediction concerning the
main effect of supportive supervision on creativity did not receive support. Also,
the prediction concerning the main effect of controlling supervision received
partial support (i.e. controlling supervision negatively related to supervisor ratings
of creativity). Finally, and consistent with the interactional approach of creativity,
results of this study showed that personal and contextual factors interacted to
affect creativity. These latter results will be reviewed in more detail in the section
on individual differences later in this paper.
Using the interactional approach in understanding creativity, George and Zhou
(2001) examined the role that one specific supervisor behavior – close monitoring –
played in creating a context or situation in which conscientiousness was related
to individuals’ creative behavior. Conscientiousness is one of five traits in the
Five-Factor Model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It refers to individual
differences in organization, determination, impulse control, and conformity (Costa
& McCrae, 1992; Hogan & Ones, 1997). Individuals who are high on this trait
tend to have a strong sense of purpose and self-control. Conscientious individuals
are achievement-oriented and hard working, they obey rules and conform to
norms, and they are dependable, reliable and thorough (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Goldberg, 1992; Hogan & Blake, 1996).
While prior research has shown that conscientiousness was strongly and
positively related to job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson &
Rothstein, 1991), Costa and McCrae (1992) suggest that high conscientiousness
may result in excessive meticulousness, orderliness, or workaholic tendencies.
George and Zhou (2001) argued that these tendencies might not contribute
positively to creative performance. They argued that conforming, controlling
one’s impulses, following rules, and striving to achieve predetermined goals could
go counter to changing the status quo and coming up with new and better ways of
doing things. Thus, according to the interactional perspective of creativity, under
certain situations individuals high on conscientiousness may actually exhibit low
levels of creativity (Feist, 1998; Walker, Koestner & Hum, 1995).
Indeed, using a sample of office employees from a manufacturing company,
George and Zhou (2001) found no main effect for conscientiousness but there
was an interaction effect. Specially, conscientiousness resulted in low levels of
creativity when supervisors engaged in close monitoring and coworkers were
unsupportive (i.e. engaging in inaccurate communication, being unhelpful, and
creating a negative work environment).
Redmond, Mumford and Teach (1993) conducted a laboratory experiment in
which they manipulated different types of leader behaviors, such as contributing
to high or low subordinate self-efficacy, setting learning or performance goals, and
providing or not providing problem construction. Ninety-six students participated
in the experiment. They worked on a marketing task in which they played the
role of a marketing intern who was asked to develop an advertising campaign for
a novel fictional product, and one of three male confederates played the role of
their manager. Consistent with the consensual assessment technique (Amabile,
1983), 20 marketing executives served as judges and rated the originality and
quality of the participants’ solutions. Results showed that leader behaviors that
contributed to problem construction and feelings of high self-efficacy led to
greater subordinate creativity.
In a recent study of Korean companies, Shin and Zhou (in press) examined the
role of transformational leadership and conservation value on follower creativity
in a sample of 290 employees and their supervisors from 46 companies. Based
on Bass’ (1985) definition of transformational leadership, it is comprised of four
dimensions: intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, charisma, and
inspirational motivation. Transformational leadership was expected to positively
relate to follower creativity by boosting their intrinsic motivation. In addition, the
relationship between transformational leadership and creativity was expected to
vary for employees with different levels of the value of conservation. Conservation
value involves tradition, conformity, and security (Schwartz, 1992). Shin and Zhou
hypothesized that conservation value would moderate the relationship between
transformational leadership and creativity such that, for those followers with
higher levels of conservation, transformational leadership would have a stronger
positive relationship with creativity than for followers lower on conservation.
Further, they proposed that intrinsic motivation would mediate the moderated
relationship between transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity.
Indeed, results showed that transformational leadership was positively related
to follower creativity. Also, followers’ conservation value did moderate the

relationship between transformational leadership and creativity. Finally, intrinsic
motivation partially mediated the contribution of transformational leadership to
creativity and fully mediated the contribution of the transformational leadership by
conservation interaction to creativity. Therefore, this study lends some empirical
support to the intrinsic motivation perspective of creativity.
While most of the aforementioned studies examined specific supervisory
behaviors based on the intrinsic motivation perspective of creativity, and the Shin
and Zhou (in press) study integrated transformational leadership theory and the in-
trinsic motivation perspective, two other studies – the Scott and Bruce (1994) study
and the Tierney, Farmer and Graen (1999) study – used leader-member exchange
(LMX) theory (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987).
Scott and Bruce (1994) argued that LMX theory suggested that the quality
of the exchange or relationship between a supervisor and his or her subordinate
should be related to the subordinate’s innovativeness. The relationship between
the supervisor and different subordinates may differ in its quality. Over time,
the supervisor and some of his or her subordinates may develop a high-quality
relationship in which the subordinates gain trust, autonomy, and discretion in task
performance and decision-making, all of which would allow the subordinates to
have the opportunity to be innovative. On the other hand, the supervisor and other
subordinates may develop low-quality relationships in which the subordinates do
not have the supervisor’s trust and liking, and do not have autonomy or discretion
to come up with creative ideas. Hence, Scott and Bruce predicted that the quality
of leader-member exchange between an employee and his or her supervisor would
be positively related to his or her innovative behavior. In addition, the researchers
predicted that the quality of leader-member exchange between an employee and
his or her supervisor would be positively related to the employee’s perception of
an innovation-supportive climate.
To test their hypotheses, Scott and Bruce collected data from a sample of 172
engineers, scientists, and technicians and their managers from a research and
development (R&D) facility of a large company. They used the 6-item supervisor
rating scale discussed earlier under the measurement section of this paper to
measure innovative behavior. Results supported the hypotheses.
Tierney, Farmer and Graen (1999) examined the role of leadership for creativity
using an interactionist model of employee characteristics, leader characteristics
and LMX. They collected data from 191 R&D employees of a large chemical
company. In the study, they measured creative performance by having supervisors
rate their employees, and also by counting the number of invention disclosure
forms submitted and the number of research reports published by each employee.
Results suggested that employees’ intrinsic motivation orientation (a trait-like
characteristic; see Amabile, 1996 for a discussion concerning state and trait
intrinsic motivation), cognitive style, and LMX significantly affected their creative
performance. Moreover, there were significant interactions between employees’
intrinsic motivation orientation and leaders’ intrinsic motivation orientation,
and between LMX and employee cognitive style that were related to employee
creative performance.
Other Characteristics of the Work Environment

Researchers have examined the effect of other characteristics of the work environ-
ment on employees’ creativity. Although there has been less research on each of
these factors than the ones we reviewed above, it is informative to highlight their
preliminary findings.
First, some research has examined the effect of autonomy or discretion on
employee creativity. Both Shalley (1991) and Zhou (1998a) investigated how
personal discretion in working on a task may influence individuals’ creative
performance. Neither study found a direct or main effect of task autonomy or per-
sonal discretion on individual creativity. However, they both found that autonomy
or discretion interacted with other contextual factors to influence creativity.
More specifically, in Shalley’s (1991) study, participants with high personal
discretion had complete freedom in how they worked on the task and participants
with low discretion were told that they had to follow a fixed work procedure.
She found that individuals exhibited low levels of creativity when they had no
creativity goal and a productivity goal or no creativity goal and low personal
discretion. Further, this study suggested that the presence of a creativity goal
appeared to compensate for the negative effects of low task discretion on
creativity.
On the basis of the intrinsic motivation perspective of creativity, Zhou (1998a)
found that task autonomy interacted with feedback valence and feedback style
in such a way that when individuals received positive feedback delivered in an
informational style, and when simultaneously working in a high task autonomy
condition, they exhibited the highest level of creativity than working in all other
conditions involving feedback valence, style, and autonomy.
One important aspect of performance management that has received less
research attention concerns with effects of the provision of rewards on employee
creativity. Little field research has directly examined the effects of rewards on em-
ployee creativity in the workplace, although a few studies using schoolchildren as
research participants have been conducted in the behavioral laboratory (Amabile,
Hennessey & Grossman, 1986; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger &
Selbst, 1994). If creativity is one component of an employee’s role expectations,
one would expect it to be rewarded appropriately. It has been argued that
employees need to know that creative behavior is acceptable, that they may
actually take risks within certain bounds and possibly fail without punishment,
and that they should be aware that creative performance will be rewarded
(e.g. Shalley, in press).
For instance, Abbey and Dickson (1983) found that the climate of innovative
R&D units included rewards for recognition of performance and the willingness
to experiment with ideas. Rewards can be monetary or non-monetary recognition
or praise. Consistent with the intrinsic motivation perspective for creativity,
Eisenberger and Armeli (1997) have argued for the informational value of a
reward for creativity. Specifically, rewards should be seen as something given in
recognition of an individual’s competence, attempts to engage in creative activity,
and their actual creative accomplishments. When seen this way, rewards may be
perceived as informational and are likely to have a positive effect on employees’
creativity.
Most creativity research has examined effects of contextual factors on creativity
within an organization’s boundary. Few studies have examined the impact of
factors outside of the organization’s boundary. A notable exception is a study
conducted by Madjar, Oldham and Pratt (2002) on work and non-work support for
creativity. These researchers define support for creativity as the extent to which
other individuals aid and encourage employees’ creative performance. They
expected that two sources of support – support from co-workers and supervisors
and support from family and friends – would each enhance employees’ creativity.
In addition, the researchers hypothesized that the mood states (positive or
negative) experienced by the employees would mediate the relationship between
support for creativity from work and non-work sources and employee creativity.
They tested the hypotheses with 265 employees and their supervisors from three
organizations in the Bulgarian knitwear industry. Results showed that support
from both the work and non-work sources were each positively correlated
with employees’ creativity rated by their supervisors. Interestingly, hierarchical
regression results showed that support from family and friends contributed to
employees’ creativity over and above the contribution made by coworkers and
supervisors. In addition, results demonstrated that positive mood states mediated
the relationship between work and non-work support and employees’ creativity.
Whereas many prior studies focused on a subset of contextual factors in orga-
nizations, Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby and Herron (1996) examined effects of
the total work environment on creativity. Using Amabile’s componential model
of creativity as a point of departure, these researchers reviewed a diverse set of
literature and identified aspects of the work environment that stimulate or inhibit
creativity in the workplace. Amabile and colleagues developed and validated a
measurement instrument, which they called KEYS, to measure the aspects of the
work environment identified above. Through various rigorous tests, they found
that KEYS had satisfactory psychometric properties, and could readily distinguish
the work environments for high-creativity projects and low-creativity projects.
The aspects of stimulating environments include organizational encouragement
(e.g. an organizational culture that supports creativity), supervisor encouragement
(e.g. a supervisor who encourages creativity), work group supports (e.g. a diverse
and open work group), sufficient resources (e.g. sources necessary for creativity),
challenging work (e.g. work tasks are challenging and important), and freedom
(e.g. freedom in deciding what to work on or how to go about it). The aspects
of inhibiting environments include organizational impediments (e.g. internal
politics) and workload pressure (e.g. excessive time pressures).
Conclusion
There has been quite a bit of research conducted to examine the effects of contextual
factors on creativity. Some areas are more clearly defined than others, but overall,
there is still need for more work. Also, much of the prior research on the effects
of contextual conditions on creativity has focused on motivation as the underlying
explanatory factor, yet few studies have directly examined whether this relationship
actually exists. Further, the studies that have empirically examined this have not
yielded definitive results. For example, Shin and Zhou (in press) found that intrinsic
motivation partially mediated the contribution of transformational leadership for
individuals’ creativity. On the other hand, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) found no
significant mediation for intrinsic motivation in the relationship between expected
evaluation and creative performance. Therefore, more research identifying and
examining underlying or intervening psychological processes and how they affect
employee creative performance is warranted.
Antecedents of Creativity – Individual Differences
Creative Personality
Early research on creativity emphasized the importance of individual personality
and problem-solving ability or style that result in creativity (Barron, 1965;
Mackinnon, 1965). These researchers have argued that individuals differ in their
potential to come up with creative ideas or to produce creative outputs, although
identifying a stable set of personality traits that can be used to reliably and potently
predict actual creative performance over time and across situations, especially
in the workplace, continues to remain elusive (e.g. Barron & Harrington, 1981;
Martindale, 1989). One notable effort in isolating a set of creativity-relevant per-
sonality characteristics was exhibited by Gough (1979). Using a set of adjectives
that are said to be descriptive of creative (e.g. confident) or non-creative (e.g.

interest narrow) personalities, Gough developed and validated a measurement
instrument called Creative Personality Scale (CPS).
A study previously mentioned in this review (Oldham & Cummings, 1996) used
Gough’s (1979) CPS to examine the direct and moderated relationship between
creative personality and creativity. Results showed that CPS was positively
correlated with just one of the three indicators of creativity-patent disclosures
written. In addition, using the interactional approach, Oldham and Cummings
hypothesized that personal factors (i.e. creativity-relevant personal character-
istics) and contextual factors (e.g. job complexity, supportive supervision and
non-controlling supervision) would interact such that employees would exhibit
the highest creativity when they scored high on the CPS, worked on complex jobs
as indicated by a motivating potential score (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), and
were supervised in a supportive and non-controlling fashion. Results involving
two of the three indicators of employee creativity-patent disclosures written and
supervisor ratings of creativity – supported the researchers’ predictions.
Zhou and Oldham (2001) examined the main and interactive effects of creative
personalities and expected developmental assessment strategies on creativity. They
found that individuals with more creative personalities, which were measured by
the CPS, exhibited higher levels of creative performance. In addition, individuals
exhibited the highest level of creative performance when they expected a
self-administered assessment (i.e. an opportunity to assess their own work in order
to develop their creativity-relevant skills) and possessed creative personalities.
In a more recent study, Zhou (2003) noted that prior research focused on
conditions that maximize the creativity of individuals with creative personalities
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Zhou & Oldham, 2001). She raised an interesting
and practical question concerning how to promote creativity in employees
with less creative personalities (George & Zhou, 2001). Indeed, an unexpected
finding in the Madjar et al. (2002) study was that individuals with less creative
personalities exhibited greater creativity when they received support from family
and friends.
Thus, Zhou (2003) set out to investigate the possibility that individuals with
relatively less creative personalities would benefit more from the joint conditions
of low supervisor close monitoring (or high supervisor developmental feedback)
and the presence of creative coworkers than individuals with creative personalities.
She reviewed the literature that indicated that individuals with relatively low self-
esteem or less confidence in their own capabilities and behavior were more likely
to pay attention to competent role models than individuals with high self-esteem
(Bandura, 1986; Weiss, 1977, 1978). She noted that low self-confidence is a
hallmark of individuals with less creative personalities (Feist, 1998; Gough, 1979).
In addition, this literature showed that individuals with less prior experiences
on a given task tended to benefit more from models than individuals with more
experiences (Rakestraw & Weiss, 1981). On the basis of these diverse sets
of literature, Zhou concluded that individuals with less prior experience, less
confidence or lower self-esteem were more uncertain about appropriate behaviors,
approaches, or standards. These individuals would be more likely to look for and
be influenced by role models because the models’ behaviors and strategies could
serve as behavioral standards, guidance or sources of inspiration.
Following the same logic, Zhou argued that employees with less creative person-
alities would be more likely to seek out and benefit substantially from the presence
of creative models under conditions such as supervisors’ low close monitoring
or high developmental feedback. Under both of these two supervisor conditions,
individuals with less creative personalities, who were relatively less self-confident
and have less prior experiences or success in creative activities, should experience
enhanced interest in the task. This enhanced interest should allow them to find
creative models stimulating and instructive. Under the joint condition of low
close monitoring (or high developmental feedback) and the presence of creative
coworkers, then, they would not only learn a great deal of creativity-relevant skills
and strategies from coworkers, but also be motivated to experiment and use these
strategies and engage in creative endeavors. Consequently, they should become
more creative.
Results of Zhou’s (2003) study partially supported her predictions. Results
showed that creative personality moderated the joint condition of close monitoring
and the presence of creative coworkers. Specifically, employees with relatively
less creative personalities exhibited greater creativity when creative co-workers
were present and close monitoring was low than when creative coworkers were
present and close monitoring was high.
Big-Five Personality Factors

As previously discussed, the CPS, the creative personality measure, taps a set
of specific personality characteristics said to be related to creative performance.
Some researchers have argued that examining relations between creativity and
more global personality factors that are based on an agreed-upon personality
theory holds the promise of facilitating theory development and comparison
across studies (e.g. Feist, 1998, George & Zhou, 2001). In recent years, some
personality researchers have come to a consensus that the Five-Factor Model of
personality is a comprehensive and parsimonious representation of personality
(McCrae, 1989; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997; see Block, 1995, however, for
limitations of this model). According to the Five-Factor Model, personality traits
are hierarchically organized with five global factors sitting on top of this hierarchy
and more specific traits nested under each of the five factors. The five factors are
called conscientiousness, openness to experience, extraversion, neuroticism, and
agreeableness. An example of a facet of the broad conscientiousness construct is
dutifulness. Another is achievement orientation.
Of the five factors, conscientiousness and openness to experience are considered
to be most conceptually relevant to creative performance (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
McCrae, 1987). Indeed, in a meta-analytic review of studies based on samples
of artists and scientists, Feist (1998) concluded that creative artists and scientists
tended to be more open to experiences and less conscientious than their less
creative counterparts.
The Feist review did not speak directly about how conscientiousness and
openness to experience are related to creative performance exhibited by em-
ployees whose jobs do not revolve around creativity. In fact, the personality and
psychological processes underlying this latter everyday creativity in business
organizations might be different from the creativity of artists and scientists
(Feist, 1998; George & Zhou, 2001). With this in mind, George and Zhou (2001)
investigated when conscientiousness and openness to experience were related to
creativity in employees. As reviewed previously, conscientiousness was related
to low levels of creativity when supervisors engaged in close monitoring and
coworkers were unsupportive (i.e. engaging in inaccurate communication, being
unhelpful, and creating a negative work environment). Individuals with higher
openness to experience were more curious, flexible, imaginative, independent,
sensitive to aesthetics, sophisticated, and they were more open to change, new
ideas, experiences, and unconventional perspectives than individuals scoring lower
on openness. In contrast, individuals with lower openness were more conservative,
conventional, rigid and socialized (Costa & McCrae, 1992, 1995; Feist, 1998).
Taking an interactional perspective, George and Zhou (2001) argued that
although high levels of openness to experience predispose individual employees
to be creative, this predisposition may not manifest in organizations because
organizations sometimes present people with strong situations that shape their
behavior. In order for employees high on openness to experience to actually exhibit
creative performance, organizational contexts need to allow for and encourage
the manifestation of their predisposition to be creative. George and Zhou (2001)
identified two aspects of the organizational context that are especially helpful for
employees with high openness: positive feedback valence and heuristic tasks (i.e.
tasks with unclear ends, unclear means, or multiple means). Results showed no
main effect of openness to experience, but employees with high levels of openness
to experience exhibited greater creativity when feedback valence was positive and
tasks were heuristics (i.e. ends or means of the tasks were unclear. That is, they
were not predetermined for or imposed on the employees).
Self-Efficacy and Role Identity

An emerging area is employees’ beliefs about whether they can be creative or
not. One approach to address this issue is to examine creative role identity.
Creative role identity refers to whether an individual views him- or herself as
a creative person. Farmer, Tierney and Kung-McIntyre (in press) investigated
how creative role identity is associated with employees’ creative performance.
They surveyed a sample of engineers, software developers, research scientists,
doctors and pharmacists from eight Taiwanese organizations. Their results
showed that creative role identity was predicted by perceived coworker creativity
expectations, self-views of creative behaviors, and high levels of exposure to the
U.S. culture. Creativity was found to be the highest when a strong creative role
identity was paired with perceptions that the organization valued creative work.
Another approach focuses on the idea of creative self-efficacy. Using data from
two diverse firms, Tierney and Farmer (2002) tested a new construct, creative
self-efficacy. Creative self-efficacy refers to the employees’ beliefs that they can
be creative in their work roles. They found that job tenure, job self-efficacy,
supervisor behavior, and job complexity contributed to creative efficacy beliefs.
Creative self-efficacy also was associated with creative performance.
Future research will need to further explore the role of creative self-efficacy
and creative role identity and how these constructs may interact with various
contextual factors in influencing creative performance. Research also needs to
examine the links between creative role identity and creative self-efficacy. One
appears to be a more global measure (e.g. creative role identity), the other more
specific (e.g. creative self-efficacy), for the same kind of concept. Which construct
is more important for creative performance remains a subject for future research.
Conclusion
As demonstrated in the field studies reviewed above, individual differences
variables still cannot reliably and potently predict actual creative performance
across situations in the workplace. For example, CPS predicted one of three
indicators of creativity in the Oldham and Cummings (1996) study. In the George
and Zhou (2001) study, neither of the zero-order correlations between openness
to experience and creativity, and between conscientiousness and creativity
was statistically significant. Clearly, more studies are needed before a firm
conclusion can be drawn. Nevertheless, the existing literature suggests that to
the extent that it is consistent with theories being tested, it is advisable that
the person-situation interaction perspective be used as a guiding principle in
future field studies. In doing so, however, the researchers need to elaborate and
specify how exactly the person and the situation interact to affect employee
creativity (George & Zhou, 2001), instead of simply making a general statement
that both the person and the situation are necessary for creative performance
to occur.
Another fruitful avenue for future research in this area may involve exploring
the relative benefit of specific versus global personality factors in predicting
employee creativity. There already appears to be an advantage to using specific
personality characteristics (e.g. CPS) in terms of more reliable predictive ability
than more global personality factors (e.g. openness to experience). Similarly,
creative self-efficacy seems to be a promising new avenue to explore and research
is needed to examine whether it is more relevant than creative role identity.
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE

RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Thus far, we have reviewed prior theory and research on employee creativity in
the workplace. As evident in this review, employee creativity is a relatively young
field of research; yet, considerable progress has been made. Looking ahead,
researchers are faced with many conceptual and methodological challenges,
and exciting opportunities. We now turn to a discussion of these challenges and
opportunities for adding to our understanding of the creativity phenomenon. The
issues discussed below are meant to stimulate future research, rather than serve
as an exhaustive list of the research needed to be done.
Challenges and Unanswered Questions
The Paradox of Rewards

As reviewed earlier in this paper, few studies have focused on the effects of
rewards or compensation programs on creativity in the workplace despite the
important function and widespread use of rewards in organizations. Studies
conducted in the behavioral laboratory yielded rather mixed results. On one hand,
Amabile, Hennessey and Grossman (1986) demonstrated negative effects of
contracted-for-rewards (i.e. participants agree to work on a task in order to receive
a reward. As such, the task activity becomes a means to an end) on creativity.
On the other hand, Eisenberger and colleagues (e.g. Eisenberger & Armeli,
1997; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994) showed that rewards can have informational
value, which can be used to encourage creativity. Given that practitioners tend
to believe rewards should be used to promote a variety of work outcomes
including creativity, and many compensation programs (e.g. stock options and
gain-sharing plans) have been designed for this purpose, it is imperative to
systematically untangle the complexity of the impact of rewards on creativity in

the workplace.
Additional Contextual Factors

More studies are needed to identify and examine contextual factors using existing
theoretical perspectives (e.g. the intrinsic motivation perspective). For instance,
both of the main creativity models discussed earlier mention the importance of
the availability of slack resources for creative performance, yet little research
has empirically examined the effect of the availability of different levels of slack
resources or different types of slack resources on creativity at work. In addition to
the social context at work, we also need to examine effects of the physical work
environment (Oldham, Cummings & Zhou, 1995) on employee and work group
creativity. This is because it would be relatively easy to design offices or alter office
configurations in ways to facilitate creative performance if we know what specific
factors in the physical office space may enhance or stifle creativity. Furthermore,
research has not examined the effect of different types of organizational designs
(e.g. matrix, collateral group structures) on the creativity of individuals and groups
at work. These, along with others, are promising avenues for future research
to explore.
Psychological Mechanisms
We need to directly examine theorized psychological mechanisms linking con-
textual factors and employee creative performance. As reviewed earlier, studies
conducted by Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001), Madjar et al. (2002), and Shin and
Zhou (in press) represent important steps in this line of research. Clearly, more
studies of this type need to be conducted in organizations where the stakes for
creative performance are noteworthy.
Measurement Issues
As discussed earlier, research is needed to tackle unanswered questions con-
cerning measurement of creative performance in both lab and field studies. In
studies conducted in the behavioral laboratory, two approaches have been used
to assess creativity: the raters rate overall creativity vs. the raters rate separately
the originality and usefulness dimensions and then multiply these two scores to
create a creativity index. In the latter (and newer) approach, should the originality
and usefulness scores be multiplied, added, or weighted in a particular way? For
instance, is originality a more important component for creativity than usefulness
and hence should it be weighted more heavily, or should the two dimensions of
creativity be weighted equally? If some studies use the more established method
of averaging ratings of overall creativity and others use the newer method of
multiplying separate ratings of originality and usefulness ratings, does this affect
our ability to compare results of different studies? In addition, four types of super-
visory rating scales have been used in field studies. Systematic research is needed
to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of these four scales in terms of
their ability to measure the full range of creative performance in the workplace.
Breaking New Theoretical Grounds
While we need to continue to test, refine, and expand existing theories on creativ-
ity, perhaps more exciting research opportunities lie in breaking new theoretical
grounds. There are several possibilities in this regard. First, we need to formulate
and test models of work group or team creativity. Although social psychologists
have conducted many laboratory studies on idea generation in groups (e.g. Paulus,
Brown & Ortega, 1999), the groups involved in those studies were usually ad hoc
groups assembled for the sole purpose of conducting a laboratory study. Group
output was often the number of original ideas generated rather than the extent
to which the output was both original and appropriate, which is the definition of
creativity. In addition, much of this research has focused on one group creativity
technique – brainstorming (Paulus et al., 1999). More theory development and
empirical research are needed to specify the group and organizational factors that
may affect creative output produced by intact work teams, and how these factors
affect work team creativity. A study by West and Anderson (1996) on creativity in
top management teams in the health care industry represents an important step in
this direction.
Second, theory and research are needed for an understanding of how dissatisfac-
tion and bad mood affect employee creativity. George and Zhou (2002) observed
that research in this area is at an interesting crossroads. On one hand, researchers
have shown that positive mood, induced in laboratory settings, facilitates perfor-
mance on problem solving tasks that involve creative thinking (Isen, Daubman &
Nowicki, 1987; Isen, Johnson, Mertz & Robinson, 1985). And a recent field study
by Madjar et al. (2002) demonstrated the positive relation between positive mood
and employee creativity. On the other hand, studies have found that negative
mood can foster creativity and positive mood can discourage it (Hirt, McDonald
& Melton, 1996; Martin & Stoner, 1996; Tighe, 1992). In a study conducted at a
helicopter manufacturing facility, and using a mood-as-input model, George and
Zhou (2002) showed that negative moods were positively related to employee
creativity when employees perceived a high level of recognition and rewards for
creative performance and their clarity of feelings was high. In contrast, positive
moods were negatively related to creativity when perceived recognition and
rewards for creativity and clarity of feelings were high. As reviewed earlier in
this paper, Zhou and George (2001) showed that under certain conditions, job
dissatisfaction was positively related to employee creativity.
Third, contextual factors in the workplace exist at multiple levels (i.e. indi-
vidual, group, and organizational), and individual employees’ creativity is often
influenced by cross-level factors (Woodman et al., 1993). Field research has often
relied on questionnaire measures to assess contextual factors at only one level. In
reality, factors at different levels may either work in concert to promote or reduce
creativity or, more interestingly, contradict each other. This possibility makes un-
derstanding creativity more complex yet intriguing, and managing creativity more
challenging. Consider, for example, effects of feedback on individual employee
creativity. How would an employee respond to feedback if this particular feedback
provided by a co-worker contradicts aggregated feedback given by other people in
the employee’s group? Zhou (in press) argues that this contradiction is especially
salient when one feedback giver provides negative feedback and several other
people provide positive feedback. She speculates that this cross-level problem
may not be equally salient or detrimental for all individuals. It is possible that
employees with high levels of achievement motivation would be more responsive
to negative feedback from one co-worker even though at the same time the rest
of the group provided positive feedback. In fact, employees with high levels of
achievement motivation may actively seek negative feedback in order to become
more creative and to accomplish more. Employees with high levels of emotional
intelligence also may be more responsive to one single co-worker’s negative
feedback, even though the rest of the group has provided positive feedback. No
doubt, cross-level contradictions such as this one are common in organizations,
and theory and research are needed to fully explain and predict their effects on
employee creativity.
Fourth, we need to understand more about how patterns of relationships,
or social networks, affect creativity at work. Perry-Smith and Shalley (2003)
developed a social network perspective highlighting the social side of creativity
and suggested a variety of mechanisms through which the social context influences
creativity. Their propositions suggest that organizations interested in being inno-
vative and creative should consider facilitating interactions across work groups,
departments, and other discrete units. Also, they suggest that an organization
may want to support social activities that promote contact with professionals
outside of the organization that could lead to more creative strategies. Therefore,
it makes sense that many of the relationships they have proposed should be further
explored and empirically tested.
Fifth, we need to theorize and examine how the creative process unfolds over
time. Producing a creative idea may involve a series of stages, from the initial
identification of a problem to the actual generation of creative ideas to validation,

revision, and the eventual decision on a creative idea or solution. Research should
start to examine the different stages and what individual and contextual factors
are most important at each stage.
Last, but not least, we need to identify and investigate antecedents of employee
creativity in the international context. As businesses are becoming more global,
so should research on employee creativity. Traditionally, researchers doing
international work tend to use a comparative research design in which data
are collected from samples from two or more countries (typically a Western
country such as the U.S. and countries from other parts of the world) and the
researchers examine whether a conceptual model developed in the U.S. applies
to another country. Although this traditional approach is valuable, indigenous
research holds considerable promise in advancing our understanding of creativity
in the international context. In this context, indigenous research refers to a
type of design in which the researchers focus their attention on identifying and
uncovering unique creativity enhancing or restraining factors that are embedded
in a non-Western cultural context. For example, a relatively robust finding in
U.S.-based studies is that autonomy or choice is conducive to creativity. Will this
finding hold in all types of cultural contexts?
Implications for Human Resource Management
Research on employee creativity has profound implications for managing compa-

nies’ most valuable resources – their employees. Below we focus on discussing
implications of creativity research for human resource management. The reader
interested in implications beyond human resource management is referred to two
recently edited volumes. More specifically, Ford (in press) offers a broader treat-
ment of how creativity research is related to management practices in general,
and Shavinina (2003) offers a comprehensive and systematic treatment of how
employee creativity might be related to organizational innovation.
Performance Appraisal
All too often, researchers discover that top executives consider employee creativity
to be highly desirable in their organizations, but they do not have a system in
place to keep track of the extent to which their non R&D employees exhibit
creativity (cf. George & Zhou, 2001). If creativity is desirable and contributes
to an organization’s effectiveness and competitiveness, it must be measured and
appraised, the employees must be given feedback on the creative ideas they come
up with, and those who contribute truly new and useful ideas must be recognized
and rewarded. Toward this end, creative performance must be recognized in the
performance appraisal process. Past research and an abundance of anecdotal in-
formation support creativity as important for an organization’s long-term survival
and competitiveness.
However, having supervisors evaluate employees’ creative achievements is
not without difficulties and challenges. Supervisors may not be able to discover
and recognize creative ideas generated by their employees (Zhou, 1998b; Zhou
& Woodman, 2003). Thus, supervisors may need to be trained on a continuous
basis to become and remain as experts who are knowledgeable in certain domain.
Derived from the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1983), to the extent
possible, multiple supervisors may be used to evaluate an employee’s creativity.
In addition, supervisors sometimes cannot accurately perceive and evaluate
employee creativity. However, perceptual inaccuracies may not stem from their
being incapable of doing so, but from their belief that employee creativity threatens
their power (e.g. Staw, 1995). Indeed, creative ideas often represent a desire for
change and a rejection of the status quo, and managers may or may not like to
accept the proposed new ways of doing things (e.g. Zhou & George, 2001). To
somewhat minimize the adverse impact of this tendency, and to the extent possible,
organizations should periodically collect and evaluate more objective indicators of
employee creativity such as employees’ contributions to the organizations’ sugges-
tion programs (cf. Oldham & Cummings, 1996), in addition to supervisor ratings.
Reward and Compensation Programs

Although we have just stated above that creative achievements need to be acknowl-
edged and rewarded, we caution that managers be mindful about the intricacies
of effects of reward on creativity discussed earlier in this paper. We suggest that
managers be careful not to explicitly tie rewards to creativity (i.e. contracted-for-
rewards), because research has shown that contracted-for-rewards undermined
creativity (Amabile et al., 1986). However, it is also possible that certain types of
reward programs actually are more facilitative of creativity. For instance, organiza-
tions that use stock option plans or gain-sharing programs may find that employees
are more committed to the organization for the long term and more willing to
exert the kind of effort that is needed in order for them to be creative. Additionally,
if they experience negative mood states, they may feel more responsible for
doing something about this, and ultimately they may be more creative (George &
Zhou, 2002).
Employee Relations
Much of the research reviewed in this paper has indicated that employees will be
more creative when they are treated in a supportive manner. This does not mean
that managers should feel that they have to coddle their employees. Rather, the
research indicates that it is important to provide employees with information that is
conveyed in a supportive, constructive manner, whether or not this information is
positive or negative in nature. It makes sense that when employees are treated in a
supportive manner they will be more likely to listen to the information, potentially
be more willing to alter their behaviors, and learn from this information. Ultimately,
employees may demonstrate greater creativity.
Recruitment and Selection

While managers might be tempted to recruit and select employee with creative
personalities, the research reviewed in this paper suggests that it might be
problematic to primarily use recruitment and selection to boost an organization’s
creativity stock. Prior studies have shown that creative abilities and personalities
only provide individuals with the potential to be creative. Whether or not
individuals with high creative potential will actually exhibit creative performance
depends partly on the organizational context (e.g. George & Zhou, 2001), and
partly on whether the individuals are motivated to do so (Amabile, 1996).
Therefore, while recruiting and selecting employees with the right set of abilities
and personality characteristics for creative activity can be desirable, setting up
the right work context for creativity to emerge appears to be most promising.
Training
Although it has been argued that creativity is desirable in a wide variety of jobs in
the workplace, producing creative ideas is not a naturally high-probability event
for most people (Staw, 1995), and training may help to offset individuals’ inability
to produce truly new and useful ideas. Basudur and his colleagues showed that
training in creative problem solving can be very effective (e.g. Basudur, Graen
& Green, 1982; Basudur et al., 1990). Such training can be organized around
Amabile’s (1996) componential model of creativity. That is, the goal of such train-
ing is to enhance all three components – domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant
processes, and task motivation. For example, organizations may train employees so
that their domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant processes can be enhanced.
Organizations may also train employees to embrace what they do and hence foster
their task motivation. Further, organizations may train supervisors on how to set
up the nurturing and supportive environment to boost employees’ motivation to be
creative.
In summary, we sought to review and discuss the last 15 to 20 years of contem-
porary theory and research on employee creativity in the workplace. Before this
time, there was little organizational research on creativity. Since then, there have
been a tremendous number of advancements in the literature that both academics
and practitioners interested in human resources need to be aware of. On the basis of
this critical review and appraisal, we have proposed a number of future research di-
rections, and discussed implications of this research literature for human resource
management practices. Because employees’ creative ideas and accomplishments
are increasingly becoming the cornerstone of organizations’ competitiveness in
today’s knowledge-based economy, much more research is needed in this area
to enhance our understanding of what, how, and why certain contextual factors
and individual differences affect employees’ creative performance. It is our
hope that this paper provides a solid background for the reader by highlighting
the areas that have been well researched, noting emerging research areas, and
specifying other areas that deserve more research attention for truly understanding
how organizations can try to enhance the occurrence of employees’ creative
behaviors.
REFERENCES
Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organi-
zation: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276.
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 221–233.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment
for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation,
coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6–21.
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity:
The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
14–23.
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1967). Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific teams.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1–40). New York: Academic Press.
Barron, F. (1965). The psychology of creativity. In: T. Newcombe (Ed.), New Directions in Psychology
(Vol. 2, pp. 1–34). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Bartis, S., Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1988). Evaluation and performance: A two edged knife.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 242–251.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Basudur, M. S., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on
ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 41–70.
Basudur, M. S., Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1990). Individual problem-solving styles and
attitudes toward divergent thinking before and after training. Creativity Research Journal, 3,
22–32.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 187–215.
Bloom, B. S., & Sosniak, L. A. (1981). Talent development vs. schooling. Educational Leadership,
86–94.
Carson, P. P., & Carson, K. D. (1993). Managing creativity enhancement through goal setting and
feedback. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 36–45.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216–220.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within
formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes.
In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 39–80). New York:
Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Decker, P. J., & Nathan, B. R. (1985). Behavior modeling training. New York: Praeger.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organi-
zations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–307.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–
1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reduc-
ing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652–663.
Eisenberger, R., & Selbst, M. (1994). Does reward increase or decrease creativity? Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 66, 1116–1127.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,
14, 532–550.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, D. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Ettlie, J. E., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1982). Innovative attitudes, values, and intentions in organizations.
Journal of Management Studies, 19, 163–182.
Farh, J. L., Cannella, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1991). Peer ratings. Group and Organization Studies,
16, 367–386.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (in press). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An appli-
cation of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 4, 290–309.
Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of
Ford, C. (in press). Handbook of organizational creativity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are re-
lated to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
513–524.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones
don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 687–697.
Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among
managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787–805.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological
Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In: L. L. Cummings
& B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175–208).
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harackeiwicz, J. M., & Elliott, A. J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development
firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.
Harris, M. B., & Evans, R. C. (1974). The effects of modeling and instructions on creative responses.
The Journal of Psychology, 86, 123–130.
Hirt, E. R., McDonald, H. E., & Melton, R. J. (1996). Processing goals and the affect-performance
link: Mood as main effect or mood as input? In: L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds), Striving and
Feeling: Interactions among Goals, Affect, and Self-Regulation (pp. 303–328). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hogan, R., & Blake, R. J. (1996). Vocational interests: Matching self-concept with the work envi
ronment. In: K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations
(pp. 89–144). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In: R. Hogan, J. Johnson & S.
Briggs (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem
solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. R. (1985). The influence of positive affect
on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
1413–1426.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. B., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with
and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Jussim, L., Soffin, S., Brown, R., Ley, J., & Kohlhepp, K. (1992). Understanding reactions to feedback
by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive-abilities – An integrative aptitude
treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690.
Kimberly, J. R. (1981). Managerial innovation. In: P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds), Handbook
of Organizational Design (pp. 84–104). New York: Oxford University Press.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance:
1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships between feedback and self-
development. Group and Organization Management, 24, 5–27.
Mackinnon, D. W. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential. American Psychologist,
20, 273–281.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions
of work and non-work creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of
Mainemelis, C. (2001). When the muse takes it all: A model for the experience of timelessness in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 548–565.
Manske, M. R., & Davis, G. A. (1968). Effects of simple instructional biases upon performance in the
unusual uses test. Journal of General Psychology, 79, 25–33.
Martindale, C. (1989). Personality, situation, and creativity. In: J. Glover, R. Ronning & C. Reynolds
(Eds), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 211–232). New York: Plenum.
Martin, L. L., & Stoner, P. (1996). Mood as input: What we think about how we feel determines how
we think. In: L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds), Striving and Feeling: Interactions among Goals,
Affect, and Self-Regulation (pp. 279–301). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Matlin, M. W., & Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Social facilitation of word associations. Journal of Personality
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the Five-Factor Model: Joint factor analyses of the NEO-PI with
other instruments. In: D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds), Personality Psychology: Recent Trends
and Emerging Directions (pp. 237–245). New York: Springer-Verlag.
McGraw, K. (1978). The detrimental effects of reward on performance: A literature review and a
prediction model. In: M. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds), The Hidden Costs of Reward (pp. 33–60).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meichenbaum, D. (1975). Enhancing creativity by modifying what subjects say to themselves.
American Educational Research Journal, 12, 129–145.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and inno-
vation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In: R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity
(pp. 392–430). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oldham, G. R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee
reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 252–258.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.
Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A., & Zhou, J. (1995). The spatial configuration of organizations. In: G. R.
Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (pp. 1–37). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Paulus, P. B., Brown, V., & Ortega, A. H. (1999). Group creativity. In: A. Montuori & R. E. Purser
(Eds), Perspectives on Creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research
and development. New York: Wiley.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social
network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89–106.
Rakestraw, T. L., & Weiss, H. M. (1981). The interaction of social influences and task experience
on goals, performance, and performance satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 27, 326–344.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader
behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
55, 120–151.
Robinson, J. C. (1980). Will behavior modeling survive the 1980s? Training and Development Journal,
34, 22–28.
Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In: L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–31). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Schwartz, S. J. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests
in 20 countries. In: M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25,
pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual
innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on indi-
vidual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–185.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and
productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483–503.
Shalley, C. E. (in press). What managers can do to enhance creative activity: Role expectations for
creative performance. In: C. Ford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work
environment: Effects on satisfaction and intention to leave. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 215–223.
Shalley, C. E., & Oldham, G. R. (1985). Effects of goal difficulty and expected evaluation on intrinsic
motivation: A laboratory study. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 628–640.
Shalley, C. E., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Competition and creative performance: Effects of competitor
presence and visibility. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 337–345.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative perfor-
mance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 1–22.
Shavinina, L. V. (2003). International handbook on innovation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (in press). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Simonton, D. K. (1975). Sociocultural context of individual creativity: A transhistorical time-series
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1119–1133.
Simonton, D. K. (1984). Artistic creativity and interpersonal relationships across and within genera-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1273–1286.
Speller, K. G., & Schumacher, G. M. (1975). Age and set in creative test performance. Psychological
Reports, 36, 447–450.
Staw, B. M. (1995). Why no one really wants creativity. In: C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds), Creative
Action in Organizations (pp. 161–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job perfor-
mance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to
creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity:
The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.
Tighe, E. (1992). The motivational influences of mood on creativity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Brandeis University.
Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (1975). Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 358–376.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Directions manual and scoring guide.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26, 289–297.
Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 1, 170–182.
Walker, A. M., Koestner, R., & Hum, A. (1995). Personality correlates of depressive styles in autobi-
ographies of creative achievers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 75–94.
Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organiza-
tional socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 89–105.
Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
63, 711–718.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in Top Management Teams. Journal of Applied
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: The return of the Big Five. In: R. Hogan,
J. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 737–765). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Zhou, J. (1998a). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:
Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261–276.
Zhou, J. (1998b). Managers’ recognition of employee creative ideas: A social-cognitive approach.
Paper presented at “The 21st Century Change Imperative: Evolving Organizations & Emerging
Networks” Conference, Center for the Study of Organizational Change, University of
Missouri-Columbia, June 12th–14th.
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close
monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 413–422.
Zhou, J. (in press). Promoting creativity through feedback. In: C. Ford (Ed.), Handbook of Organiza-
tional Creativity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expres-
sion of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.
Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental
assessment strategies and creative personality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 151–167.
Zhou, J., & Woodman, R. W. (2003). Managers’ recognition of employees’ creative ideas: A social-
cognitive model. In: L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook on Innovation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the U.S. New York, NY: Free Press.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WORK-FAMILY HUMAN RESOURCE
PRACTICES AND FIRM
PROFITABILITY: A MULTI-
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
Michelle M. Arthur and Alison Cook
ABSTRACT
Few studies have investigated the relationship between work-family human
resource practices and firm-level outcomes. Several organizational studies
have addressed the antecedents to firm adoption of work-family initiatives;
however, the majority of work-family research investigates the relationship
between work-family practices and individual-level outcomes. The current
paper begins by providing a critical analysis and synthesis of the extant
work-family literature. In addition, we integrate the organizational learn-
ing research on firm commitment to work-family policies and the human
resource model. We suggest that the level of firm commitment moderates the
relationship between work-family policies, the human resource model, and
firm performance. Several propositions for future work-family research are
presented.

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22005-3
219
220 MICHELLE M. ARTHUR AND ALISON COOK
INTRODUCTION
One of the most significant changes in the last quarter of century is the entry
and continued presence of women in the working population. The percentage
of women that comprise the labor force has increased from 33% in 1977 to
46% in 2002 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003). Concurrently, the structure of
the family has changed. Dual-career marriages make-up 60% of families; these
couples comprise 45% of the workforce (Catalyst, 2002). One-quarter of all U.S.
households with children are headed by women alone (NCWO, 2002). Of these
women, 63% with children under six are in the labor force (NCWO, 2002). As the
demographic composition of the labor force and the structure of the family have
changed, organizations have introduced several types of work-family programs
to help employees deal with the work and family interface.
Organizations often cite the need for productive, stable and satisfied employees
as the underlying impetus to the adoption work-family programs (Mosanto, 2003).
In response, researchers have examined the effects of work-family programs on
psychological outcomes. Broadly, these studies have examined the relationship
between work-family programs and employee affective, cognitive, and behavioral
outcomes. The results suggest that work-family programs increase potential
employee attraction, generate more productive employees, and reduce employee
turnover. The implicit suggestion of psychological research is that work-family
programs increase employee performance, hence firm profitability. However, there
are few empirical papers linking work-family programs to firm-level outcomes.
The majority of institutional studies have investigated firm characteristics as
predictors of firm adoption of work-family programs. A few studies employing
institutional and symbolic action theories have found some support for a relation-
ship between work-family programs and firm value (Arthur, in press; Perry-Smith
& Blum, 2000). However, these studies have focused on perceptual measures
of firm performance such as company stock and perceived firm performance
(e.g. employee speculation of future firm performance). To date, work-family
researchers have investigated performance measures that rely on constituents’
expectations of firm performance. Since work-family programs have long been
considered progressive, and most recent arguments suggest a “best practice,” a
relationship beyond the perceptual level may exist. There is a lack of research
investigating a relationship between work-family programs and actual firm
performance.
The purpose of the current paper is to develop several propositions linking work-
family programs, the human resource model, and firm-level outcomes. We begin
with a discussion of the definition and evolution of work-family programs. Next,
we provide an overview of the psychological and sociological literature addressing
A Multi-Theoretical Perspective 221
work-family conflict and programs. Following, we synthesize two streams of

research, the organizational learning research and the human resource literature,
to develop propositions based on the idea that firm commitment to work-family
policies moderates the relationship between work-family programs and firm
performance. A discussion of future work-family research and a brief conclusion
follow.
We define work-family programs broadly as any program designed to alleviate
individual conflict between work and family. In general, work-family programs
fall into three categories; dependent care, family leave, and flexible working
hours. The earliest work-family programs focused on childcare concerns. During
World War II, when women temporarily entered the workforce, the government
provided childcare centers to increase the availability of women for work (Glass
& Estes, 1997). After World War II, firms faced with increased demand for
workers, followed suit and began to offer childcare centers. One of the first widely
cited childcare centers was established at Stride Rite in 1971. Early work-family
programs tended to focus on the single strategy of childcare centers.
In the 1970s, the operationalization of childcare centers evolved from onsite
childcare centers to numerous offshoots such as off-site resources, emergency
childcare, inter-organizational consortia, referral services and voucher programs
(Friedman, 1990). Similar to the evolution of childcare center programs, work-
family programs evolved to a broader definition. In the 1980s, firms tended to
focus on family-leave strategies (Friedman, 1990). In doing so, firm programs
included maternity leave, paid and unpaid, extended leave and the like. In the
1990s firms began to directly address the conflict presented by work-family
tensions with flexible work arrangements such as telecommuting, job sharing,
and alternative workweeks. Work-family programs have evolved substantively in
the past thirty years. Concurrently, scholars from many disciplines have examined
the work and family interface.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Researchers have explored the relationship between work and family from various
perspectives outside of organizational studies. The topics investigated include the
effects of a working mother or unemployed father on the family, such as examining
the intellectual development of children when the mother works outside the home,
or the loss of respect and status that may result when a father is unemployed
(Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983; Meneghan & Parcel, 1990); the effects of
work-family conflict on children, for example, its influence on their social out-
comes (Parcel & Menaghan, 1994; Perry-Jenkins et al., 2000); work-family issues
within political and legal domains, such as the arguable necessity of government
involvement in order to proliferate work-family initiatives (Edwards, 2001;
Ferber & O’Farrell, 1991; Guthrie & Roth, 1999; Haas, 1999; Kelly & Dobbin,
1999; Perry-Jenkins et al., 2000); and cross-cultural comparisons of work-family
conflict (Yang et al., 2000) among others. However, the next section of this
paper is limited to work-family issues within the domain of the organization;
a stream of research that builds on the foundation set forth by Kanter’s (1977)
seminal work.
Psychological Framework
Examining work-family issues at the individual-level of analysis, scholars

typically focus on one of two paths. One avenue of research investigates the
conflict individuals face as a result of involvement in multiple roles, and its effects
on the individual (Bacharach et al., 1991; Barling & MacEwen, 1991; Cooke &
Rousseau, 1984; Greenhaus, Parasuraman & Collins, 2001). The other avenue of
research examines the implementation of work-family policies and their effects
on the individual (Lambert, 2000; Roehling et al., 2001; Shinn et al., 1989; Tausig
& Fenwick, 2001). The outcomes measured often coincide; both lines of research
are interested in constructs such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
withdrawal, and work performance, to name a few.
The notable difference in the two streams of research is the variables investi-
gated between the work-family conflict and employee behavior relationship. For
example, in explaining intentions to turnover, scholars within the role conflict
perspective (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999) have examined role stress as a
predictor, whereas in the policy perspective (Grover & Crooker, 1995), scholars
have examined an employee’s accessibility to work-family policies. Currently,
the research is limited to integrating these two perspectives; nonetheless, some
scholars are making inroads by testing mediating variables of the work-family
policy to employee outcome relationship (Lambert, 2000; Thomas & Ganster,
1995). The first part of the psychological literature review focuses on role theory
and its derivatives. The latter part of the literature review focuses on work-family
programs.
Role Theory Perspective

Role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) provided the theoretical underpinnings for several
of the early investigations of work-family conflict (e.g. Cooke & Rousseau, 1984).
According to the theory, individuals are involved in multiple roles in the family and
work domains. These multiple roles have the potential to cause strain as a function
of two mechanisms. Given the likelihood that the roles in each domain do not
coincide, role overload and/or interrole conflict may result. Role overload occurs
when the multiple role expectations cause one to feel overwhelmed as a result of
increased workload. Interrole conflict results from the lack of compatibility among
the roles. One’s resources of time and energy are limited; therefore, fulfillment of
one role may prevent fulfillment of another role. Cooke and Rousseau’s (1984)
results support role theory with regard to work-role expectations. The multiple
roles led to stressors (work overload and interrole conflict), and those stressors led
to strain.
Though not routinely cited in the literature, role theory offers a basis from
which other theories and models have developed. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985)
expanded on role theory by proposing underlying dimensions of interrole
conflict. Their model includes time-based pressures, strain-based pressures,
and behavior-based pressures placed on the roles within both the work and the
family domains. Additionally, they noted the variation possible in the intensity
of the conflict given the salience of the role and the strength of the penalty for
noncompliance. Therefore, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) suggest factors that
reduce the negative consequences of interrole conflict will likely lessen role
pressures.
Burke (1988), using a similar framework of work stressors and non-work
stressors as antecedents of work-family conflict, investigated numerous variables
that may be affected. Consistent with Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) proposition
of time-based pressure, Burke (1988) found shiftwork resulted in higher levels
of work-family conflict. Shifting the balance slightly from the Greenhaus and
Beutell (1985) model, though, Burke (1988) noted work characteristics and work
stressors had a greater effect on work-family conflict than non-work stressors.
Furthermore, in his sample of over eight hundred police officers, he found
work-family conflict to be significantly related to intentions to turnover, job
burnout, and lower job satisfaction.
Confirming this relationship, Bacharach et al. (1991) found that work-family
conflict, indeed, was related to lower job satisfaction and job burnout. Other
researchers have also supported similar findings. Kossek and Ozeki (1998),
for example, conducted a meta-analysis of numerous studies that investigated
work-family conflict and its relationship to job satisfaction. Most studies in
their sample analyzed the conflict in the direction of work-to-family rather than
family-to-work; nonetheless, the results in the studies are noticeably consistent
with regard to the job satisfaction, work-family relationship. Adams et al.
(1996) also examined the work-family conflict, job satisfaction relationship;
however, they proposed a model integrating work-family conflict and social
support.
Involvement in Roles
The Adams et al. (1996) model is predicated on the belief that the work and
family relationship can concurrently experience support and conflict. In addition
to a standard work-conflict measure, they also incorporated emotional support and
involvement in their model. Therefore, they assessed job and family involvement;
instrumental and emotional support at home; family to work interference and work
to family interference; and job and life satisfaction. Adams et al.’s (1996) results
support the additions to the model. It is already established that the work and family
relationship affects job satisfaction, yet their expanded model offers further insight.
The level to which an individual is involved in a role affects that association. High
levels of job involvement are associated with increased job satisfaction, as well as
increased interference of family by work. High levels of family involvement are
associated with increased life satisfaction.
The initial model incorporating involvement was proposed by Frone et al.
(1992) to predict depression. Although Adams et al. (1996) borrowed from
this earlier model, each offers distinct contributions to the work-family field.
A primary contribution of the Frone et al. (1992) model was the bidirectional
nature of the work-family, family-work construct. Findings have substantiated
the influence of family stressors on family to work conflict; suggesting the effect
family has on work life. Adams et al.’s (1996) model notes the importance of role
involvement. Their findings support that family and job involvement affect the
relationship between work and family.
Enrichment and Depletion

Level of involvement also played a role in Barnett and Baruch’s (1985) study
investigating women in multiple roles and the effect it had on stress. They based
their work on two opposing views, the scarcity hypothesis and the expansion
hypothesis. The scarcity hypothesis contends the greater the number of roles a
person is involved with, the greater the role strain they may experience. The ex-
pansion hypothesis, on the other hand, asserts as a person accumulates more roles
the role strain lessens. The difference results from the quality of experience the
person has with the given role. Within this study, the quality of experience was
determined by the disparity between rewards and concerns reported for each role;
wife, mother, and paid worker. Barnett and Baruch (1985) found the role of a
paid worker was not related to their indicators of stress. Their results support
the expansion, rather than the scarcity hypothesis, contrary to typical beliefs of
multiple roles. The implication is that not all roles are equal in how they affect
individuals. The authors suggest women who are not employed experience some
deleterious effects resulting from a lack of structure and legitimacy. In the same
vein, Hochschild (1997) contends many women prefer to spend time in their
work role rather than their family role because of the structure and consistency of
rewards and appreciation. In essence, these findings assert the additional role of
a paid worker is energizing and enriching rather than depleting one’s resources.
Lending credence to the expansion hypothesis, Gutek and her colleagues (1991)
explored both the rational perspective and the gender-role perspective. The rational
view proposes a positive linear relationship between hours worked and work-
family conflict. The gender-role view predicts gender will influence the interaction
with the number of hours worked and the resulting conflict. The results of this
study, to some extent, offer a variation from the assertion that more roles create
added benefits, but they do suggest that additional roles, if in the “sex-appropriate”
domain, will not likely increase work-family conflict. A study of performance by
Barling and MacEwen (1991) surveyed female employees to determine the effects
of work-family conflict on performance, controlling for their level of satisfaction
and commitment to being a mother. A negative indirect effect on performance via
attention and concentration difficulties was confirmed.
Rothbard (2001), pursuing the concepts of scarcity and expansion, developed
a model of enrichment or depletion as a result of involvement in multiple roles.
In her model, the enrichment or depletion process occurs through an emotional
response mechanism. Depletion results in role strain and conflict. Enrichment,
on the other hand, argues against fixed resources and claims multiple roles will
result in added benefits. Her results demonstrate support for both arguments. In
fact, women experienced both depletion and enrichment. In the direction of work to
family, they experienced depletion; family to work, enrichment. Interestingly, men
did not experience depletion, and they only experienced enrichment in the direction
of work to family. Rothbard, noting the gender differences found, suggests work
and family domains are likely more permeable for women than for men.
Viewing depletion in another perspective, Grandey and Cropanzano (1999)
proposed the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a potential
framework from which work-family researchers could base future work. The
model’s premise is that individuals value resources. Threats to the resources one
possesses, or to the resources one expects to possess, will result in stress. For an
example, the conservation of resources model predicts multiple roles will result in
stress developing from the resources lost (extra time spent) attempting to balance
the roles. Findings were supportive of the model. Grandey and Cropanzano (1999)
examined sources and consequences of resource drain over time. Their results did,
indeed, support the drain of resources by both work and family stressors. Role
stress at home affected family to work conflict, just as role ambiguity and conflict
at work affected work to family conflict. Thus, family and work satisfaction
deteriorated. This deterioration exemplifies the drain of resources. Eventually, as
a response to replenishing needed resources, intentions to turnover may develop.
Social Identity and Role Investment

Withdrawal intentions have also been investigated within the social identity
framework (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Greenhaus et al. (2001) examined the level of
role investment with work-family conflict and withdrawal. He and his colleagues
found, consistent with social identity theory, the salience of the role affects an
individual’s reaction to the conflict. For instance, if one is highly invested in one’s
career and not as invested in the family, work-to-family conflict will most likely be
ignored. On the other hand, if one is not highly invested in one’s career and is more
invested in the family, work-to-family conflict will likely lead to turnover. Only
work-to-family conflict resulted in turnover intentions; family-to-work conflict
did not. This finding is expected given that family-to-work conflict is generated
from stressors at home, and leaving the job would not likely reduce the stress.
Within both the social identity approach and the utilitarian approach, Lobel
(1991) explored the differences between the underlying causes of work-family
conflict. The utilitarian approach perceives value of the role in terms of costs and
benefits. If one perceives valued rewards for greater role involvement, investment
will increase. Conflict will develop as the investment in the work and family
domains becomes more equivalent. As the involvement in the roles becomes more
uneven, work-family balance will increase. The social identity theory, in contrast,
predicts an increase in role investment will correspond to a greater sense of identity
within the role. Costs and benefits are not predictors of role investment within
the social identity framework. The salience of the role determines investment.
Work-family conflict results when the two roles become less aligned in their
underlying values. The more aligned, the greater the work-family balance.
Spillover, Compensation and Segmentation

The boundary between family and work has become permeable; therefore, the
assertion that work and family affect each other is largely accepted in the work-
family literature. Spillover and compensation both contend work flows into family
and vice versa. However, the difference is that compensation asserts a deficiency
in one domain will cause an individual to compensate for it in the other domain.
Therefore, work may not be going well, so an individual will attempt to gain
satisfaction from the family domain. Spillover, on the other hand, contends feelings
in one sphere will permeate into the other sphere. A positive outcome in one will
remit a positive to the other. Segmentation theory stresses separating the work and
family domains. As noted by Edwards and Rothbard (2000), segmentation is now
considered a deliberate strategy an individual may develop in order to keep the
two domains from overlapping.
Spillover: whether referred to as a theory (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999),
a hypothesis (Sumer & Knight, 2001), or a linking mechanism (Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000), is strongly supported in the work-family literature. Williams

and Alliger (1994) examined mood spillover between work and family. Results
suggest negative moods have greater spillover than positive moods, and women
exhibit more spillover in both directions than men. Doby and Caplan (1995)
also investigated spillover. Examining organizational stressors, they found
work-experienced anxiety spills over to home-experienced anxiety. Furthermore,
spillover is more likely to occur for high-threat stressors than low-threat stressors.
Applying a slightly different tactic, Sumer and Knight (2001) analyzed spillover
through an individual differences approach. Using attachment theory as their basis,
they found differences in how people experience the work-family relationship.
A personality perspective suggests some people have difficulty discriminating
between the two domains, resulting in maximum spillover.
Initially, role theory provided theoretical guidance into the relationship between
work and family. Increased scholarly interest spurred investigations of other
theoretical frameworks. No single theory has dominated the literature in this area
(Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Nonetheless, there seems to be some consensus in
the area, that work-family conflict, absent any support, may lead to organizational
outcomes such as turnover, lower commitment, job burnout, lower job satisfaction,
decreased job performance, and the like.
Newer investigations have led scholars to examine asymmetric predictions of
role theory for men and women. Furthermore, scholars have not only examined the
spillover from work to family but also from family to work. The idea of increased
social support at home as an intervening variable between work and family conflict
lends itself to the idea that support at work may also intervene in what would
otherwise be considered a seemingly consistent relationship between increased
work and family conflict and increased withdrawal type behaviors.
Human Resource Policies
The human resource perspective is predicated on the idea that human resource
programs, such as work-family programs, will increase employee productivity. It is
an efficiency-based perspective that suggests organizations’ policies and practices
can be wholly explained as a drive toward efficiency or profits. That is, the benefits
of work-family programs will outweigh the costs. The basic assumption is that,
if an organization helps employees balance work and family, organizations will
be better able to attract, retain, and extract increases in productivity from current
employees. Scholars have investigated several individual-level outcomes resulting
from organizational interventions such as dependent care, family leave policies
and flexible hours. While the results of studies have been, in some cases mixed,
on the whole the results suggest work-family programs provide employees with
the infrastructure to become more efficient.
Flexible Scheduling
Within the realm of work-family policies, flexible scheduling is the most diffuse.
However, unlike other work-family policies, the exact cost of implementing
flexible scheduling is difficult to quantify. Benefits to the organization, though,
have been substantiated. Christensen and Staines (1990) suggest flextime
programs decrease withdrawal behaviors such as tardiness, absenteeism, and
turnover, while Dunham et al. (1987) found minor, positive effects for several
general reactions as a result. Attendance and turnover were also investigated by
Dalton and Mesch (1990). Though no effect was found for turnover, absenteeism
dramatically decreased with flexible scheduling. A finding also supported in
an Israeli study conducted by Krausz and Freibach (1983). Dalton and Mesch
(1990) suggest their findings are consistent with an “ability-to-attend” dimension.
Flexible scheduling offers control of time to employees, which, in turn, potentially
decreases external conflicts (Tausig & Fenwick, 2001). The practical effects of
flexible scheduling are consistent with lower absenteeism, yet the theoretical
implication does not support a relationship with turnover. An indirect link to
turnover, however, has been suggested through the mechanism of job satisfaction.
Several scholars have affirmed a relationship between flexible schedules and job
satisfaction (Christensen & Staines, 1990; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).
Grover and Crooker (1995), using a national sample, found a positive relation-
ship between flexible scheduling and affective commitment. This is consistent
with Mellor et al. (2001) who suggest organizations should offer work-family
policies to help their employees feel less “trapped”; therefore, building affective
rather than continuance commitment. With affective commitment, employees
accept the values and beliefs of the organization and have a desire to maintain
membership and put forth effort; whereas with continuance commitment, em-
ployees have developed “side bets” and remain with the organization due to their
lack of alternatives that are able to match what they have accumulated (Meyer
& Allen, 1997). Pierce and Newstrom (1982), investigating workers in insurance
firms, found flexible schedules positively influence organizational commitment
and job involvement.
Extending the Grover and Crooker (1995) study, Roehling et al. (2001)
assessed employee loyalty as a function of flexible scheduling. Additionally,
they introduced the variables of life stage and gender. Their findings affirm that
flexible scheduling affects employee loyalty for both men and women at all life
stages. The positive results for all life stages, as well as for men, are somewhat
surprising given the belief that those experiencing greater work-family conflict
should be more affected by work-family policies. Nonetheless, the positive rela-

tionship demonstrated between flexible scheduling and employee loyalty should
be noted.
Dependent Care
Contrary to the consistent findings of flexible scheduling research, studies examin-
ing dependent care interventions have found mixed results. In Grover and Crooker’s
(1995) study, childcare information services were related to affective commitment,
yet childcare assistance did not yield a significant effect. Other scholars affirm a
positive relationship between childcare services and organizational commitment
(Goldberg et al., 1989; Youngblood & Chambers-Clark, 1984). In an extension
of the past work, Roehling et al. (2001) found a positive relationship between
childcare policies and employee loyalty, but not as expected. They hypothesized
that the individuals who benefit the most from the policy (women with preschool-
aged children) would demonstrate the greatest employee loyalty. This was not
confirmed, however. Women with school-aged children, rather than women with
preschool-aged children reported higher loyalty scores. A plausible explanation
is that women with school-aged children have more variable needs with regards
to childcare; therefore, the services provided by the organization are particularly
helpful to them.
Kossek and Nichol (1992) studied the effects of an on-site childcare center.
Although the center did not affect performance or absenteeism, it did positively
affect attitudes and behaviors such as recruitment and retention. These findings
mirror an earlier study by Goff et al. (1990). The authors did not find a link
between on-site childcare centers and absenteeism, but suggest on-site centers are
important in recruitment and retention. This consistent finding is understandable
given that most childcare centers are not generally equipped to take care of sick
children; therefore, parents must still be absent in specific situations.
Additionally, Kossek and Nichol (1992) introduced an idea termed the
“frustration effect.” They suggest employees become frustrated when their needs
at the childcare center cannot be accommodated; therefore, diminishing the
value of the childcare center for those individuals. Exploring the “frustration
effect,” Rothausen et al. (1998) conducted a study within an organizational justice
framework. The assertion is that employees wishing to, but not being able to use
the center should perceive it as less fair. Additionally, equity norms may be a
consideration for those who do not directly benefit from the center. Rothausen et al.
(1998), though, did not find a backlash. They found current users, past users, and
potential future users to have a more positive attitude toward the childcare center
than the general worker, but there was no frustration effect. At most, non-positive
attitudes were proximal to the center. In the same regard, the positive attitudes
reported by the users were strongest when they pertained to the childcare center.
General work attitudes were not significantly related.
Dependent care programs have been more consistently related with turnover
than with absenteeism. In a study of elder care assistance, Denton et al. (1990)
suggest the organizational intervention encourages employee retention. Grover
and Crooker’s (1995) results support a significant negative relationship between
childcare information services and intentions to turnover. And further, Youngblood
and Chambers-Clark (1984) found that corporate sponsored childcare centers
were linked to lower turnover intentions.
Family Leave Policies

The number of organizations offering maternity leave and other family-related
leave policies has increased substantially over the past quarter century. The Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993 has propelled this trend. As noted by Haas (1999),
though, exclusions in the legislation prevent all employees from being covered.
Firms with fewer than 25 employees are allowed to prohibit family leave, and “key”
employees of any size firm may also be denied the option. Moreover, it is often not
possible for an employee to bear the financial hardship of unpaid leave, essentially
rendering this benefit a moot point to them. Though not all organizations allow
family leave, especially paid leave; benefits have been demonstrated. Grover and
Crooker (1995) found that maternity leave was significantly related to affective
commitment, as well as lower intentions to turnover.
Offshoots of typical work-family studies have developed. Recent studies
have examined supportive climate as a moderator of the work-family program
and employee behavior relationship. These studies address the prominent idea
emerging in the work-family literature that firms that are not truly committed to
work-family programs will hinder employees from using the benefits. In doing so,
the firm does not gain the efficiencies or benefits associated with the work-family
programs.
Supportive Climate
Organizations, as a means of reducing work-family conflict and achieving firm

benefits or efficiencies, may exhibit supportive measures beyond adoption of
work-family programs. Examining emotional support, Thomas and Ganster
(1995) investigated the effects of supervisory support on work-family conflict,
absenteeism, job satisfaction, as well as various health issues. They concluded that,
indeed, a supportive workplace yields benefits. Results suggest a direct benefit of
supervisory support on job satisfaction. Additionally, indirect relationships to both
job satisfaction and depression were supported through a work-family conflict

link. Kossek and Ozeki (1998), in their meta-analysis, confirmed a consistent
negative relationship between work-family conflict and job satisfaction. The
importance of supervisory support on work outcomes has been consistently
positive (Roehling et al., 2001; Shinn et al., 1989).
Expanding beyond the notion of supervisory support, Nielson et al. (2001)
explored mentoring as a means of lessening work-family conflict. They proposed
mentoring as a unique form of social support within the organization. Findings
support their claim that a supportive mentor reduces work-family conflict. Al-
though more significant findings were reported in the direction of family-to-work
conflict than work-to-family conflict, each was negatively related to supportive
mentorship. An interesting correlation that deserves mention, though, is that
supportive mentoring was also negatively related to the number of hours worked.
Hours worked strongly influences work-to-family conflict, but it does not affect
family-to-work conflict; however, hours worked and job performance may be
related and is worth exploration. Other studies explored job performance as a
function of work-family interventions finding mixed results (Judiesch & Lyness,
1999; Kossek et al., 2001; Kossek & Nichol, 1992).
Kossek et al. (2001) also assert the importance of a supportive work climate.
Incorporating variables regarding dependent type and climates in the work and
family domains, they suggest a supportive work climate positively affects job
performance; a negative work climate hinders job performance. Affective com-
mitment, work-family conflict, and intentions to turnover were also affected by
work-family climate (Thompson et al., 1999). Thompson et al. (1999) investigated
work-family culture and its effect on organizational attachment, benefit utiliza-
tion, and work-family conflict. Their findings affirm a positive link to affective
commitment and benefit usage, and a negative link to intentions to turnover and
work-family conflict.
Due to a lack of theory beyond an efficiency-based framework in the work-
family policy perspective, scholars have recently investigated social exchange
theory as a theoretical underpinning to the work-family adoption and employee
behavior relationship. Social exchange theory provides a solid theoretical
framework for future work-family research.
Social Exchange
Social exchange theory predicts a relationship based on mutual, though not equal
reciprocation (Gouldner, 1960). Predicated on the assumption one does not like
to feel obligated, social exchange theory suggests when organizations provide
work-family benefits to their employees, the employees will reciprocate with a
positive action. It has been suggested that signaling theory would contradict this
assertion (Lambert, 2000). Signaling theory’s basic premise is that actions on part
of the organization have the potential to signal to the employees that they are
valued. The point in contention is whether a general work-family policy available
to all employees has the potential to signal value. Signaling theory contends for
employees to feel valued, the action must specifically target them. Lambert (2000),
however, believes employees will perceive greater organizational support as a result
of the work-family policies and react positively. Other scholars also support that
conclusion; when organizations implement work-family policies irrespective of
their target, all employees have the potential to feel valued (Drago et al., 2001;
Grover & Crooker, 1995).
As a direct measure of the obligation felt by employees, due to social exchange,
Lambert (2000) examined the impact of work-family policies on organizational
citizenship behaviors. She also investigated perceived organizational support
as a mediating variable. Results support the impact of work-family policies on
organizational citizenship behaviors, consistent with social exchange theory.
Surprisingly, however, an increase in organizational citizenship behaviors was
not a function of perceived organizational support. This finding seems contrary
to expectations and worth further exploration. Nonetheless, the benefits realized
for the organization were a function of the work-family policies and their direct
effect on employees’ willingness to exhibit citizenship behaviors.
In spite of the often-mixed results, work-family policy studies do not show
an increase in negative employee behaviors. For example, studies may not find
a significant negative relationship between childcare centers and absenteeism,
but they also do not find an increase in absenteeism resulting from childcare
centers. Therefore, if firm-level effects are positive, an interaction of individual-
and firm-level effects should produce a significant, incremental positive effect
on firm performance. The following discussion focuses on firm-level studies of
work-family programs.
Sociological Framework
The primary stream of research within the sociological framework examines the
characteristics of organizations that make them more likely to adopt work-family
initiatives. The variation among studies occurs in which antecedents scholars
believe drive the adoption decision. Examining the mechanisms that influence or-
ganizations to respond to work-family pressures and adopt progressive initiatives
dominates firm-level work-family research. Most scholars draw on institutional
theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), resource dependence theory (Pfeffer &
Salancik, 1978), organizational adaptation theory (Daft & Weick, 1984), or a
combination to explain firms’ actions. Organizational learning (Argyris & Schon,

1978) and management dominant logic (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) have also been
proposed as useful frameworks for addressing this issue.
Institutional Theory
According to institutional theory, organizations may adopt work-family initiatives
in order to gain legitimacy. The adoption occurs regardless of possible operational
efficiencies. Legitimacy occurs as a result of an organization’s alignment with its
environment. Three pressures are detailed in institutional theory that may influence
this alignment, or isomorphism: normative, coercive, and mimetic (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983). Normative pressures may be exerted by professional organizations
or groups that want the organization to be more legitimate.
An example is a group of female employees pressuring an organization to
implement a childcare center, not necessarily because they need it, but because
comparable occupations outside of their organization offer it and implementation
of the center would legitimize their job. Coercive pressures may be exerted by
those in power, often deriving from the control of resources or backing of the gov-
ernment; an example, organizations granting maternity leave only after legislation
has been passed. Mimetic pressures develop when the environment is changing
and the organizations seek legitimacy by mimicking successful competitors in
their industry. For instance, in order to appear family-friendly, the organization
may implement work-family policies comparable to those of their competitors.
This symbolizes to the environment that they are legitimate; therefore, appearing
acceptable to customers and potential employees. Organizational responsiveness
to the adoption of work-family policies is susceptible to all institutional pressures.
Coercive pressure has influenced the adoption of paid and unpaid mater-
nity leave policies examined the trend of organizations to offer maternity
leave programs (Guthrie & Roth, 1999; Kelly & Dobbin, 1999). They assert
these programs were adopted as a response to governmental pressure. Although
many programs were implemented prior to the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993, Kelly and Dobbin (1999) have linked that implementation to prior
government actions. Noting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC’s
administrative ruling in 1972, they examined the spread of maternity leave
programs and government interventions over a 30-year period. Some analysts,
however, claim the increase of maternity leave programs resulted from market
pressures to remain competitive in a changing labor force. Nevertheless, Kelly
and Dobbin (1999) conclude from their analysis that it was the interventions by
the government that aided in the proliferation of maternity leave programs.
Guthrie and Roth (1999) also examined the implementation of maternity
policies; however, they tied maternity leave to paid sick leave. This link was
made with the assumption that women, during pregnancy and childbirth, deviate
from their healthy body. They proposed that paid sick leave was a mechanism
by which organizations could effectively include pregnant women in existing
policies. With this link, Guthrie and Roth’s (1999) findings regarding paid sick
leave are in concordance with their underlying logic for paid maternity leave.
Consistent with coercive pressure, they found organizations governed by states
including pregnancy as employment discrimination were more likely to offer
paid sick leave. Contrary to Kelly and Dobbin (1999), though, they suggest some
organizations may take an active role in offering paid maternity leave or paid
sick leave. Guthrie and Roth (1999) found support that factors such as a female
CEO or a large proportion of women in the industry were related to paid sick
leave being offered in the organization. It should be noted, however, if they had
not linked maternity leave with sick leave, their conclusions would not have
been supported.
Integration of Resource Dependence Theory

Consistent with resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), other
scholars have also suggested the active role of management as an antecedent to
firm adoption (Goodstein, 1994; Ingram & Simons, 1995; Milliken et al., 1998).
Resource dependency refers to the acquisition of resources essential to survival. In
the realm of work-family, firms adopt initiatives as a survival response to ascertain
needed resources in the changing environment. In other words, with more women
in the workforce, organizations need to actively react in order to secure qualified
human resources. Although many scholars believe resource dependence theory
is relevant to the issue of work-family policy adoptions, they acknowledge its
influence in concurrence with institutional theory.
Suggesting organizations are able to strategically respond to institutional
pressures, Goodstein (1994) applied Oliver’s (1991) framework to assess orga-
nizational adoption of childcare programs and flexible scheduling. Oliver (1991)
proposes five factors in determining institutional response: cause, constituents,
content, control, and context. Cause refers to normative pressure. Goodstein
(1994) suggests that larger organizations, as a result of their visibility, will receive
more normative pressure to address work-family issues. Given the importance
of legitimacy for large organizations, they will likely comply. Constituents
represent important groups to the organization. Within the realm of work-family,
this is a key concern if the organization is dependent on a female labor force.
Work-family issues are particularly salient for working women; therefore,
Goodstein (1994) suggests that organizations dependent on female employees
and parents will be more responsive to family-friendly policies. Content is the
composition of institutional pressures. When institutional demands are aligned
with organizational goals, compliance is more likely. The contention is public,

rather than private sector organizations will be more responsive. This may be a
result of less pressure to thrive economically, or it may be a voluntary diffusion
on part of the organizations to exhibit legitimacy. Control represents the pressure
faced by an organization to conform to the norms set by its competitors. If an
organization does not conform (i.e. adopt a similar work-family initiative), it risks
its legitimacy. Context represents the interconnectedness of the organizational
field. The more interconnected the organizations, the greater the institutional
pressure to conform.
Goodstein’s (1994) findings confirm that organizational response varies
depending on the pressure exerted. For instance, he found organizational size and
responsiveness to be highly related; as well as responsiveness to be greater in
organizations highly dependent on female employees. Additionally, consistent
with control, mimetic pressures were greatest within the same industry and
geographic location. Replicating Goodstein’s (1994) study, Ingram and Simons
(1995) corroborated most findings; however, some discrepancies were found.
Unlike Goodstein’s (1994) study, Ingram and Simons (1995) found support for the
hypothesis that public rather than private sector organizations are more responsive.
Also, they added a refinement to the test of constituency. In addition to measuring
response as a function of the percentage of females in the organization, they also
measured the response as a function of the percentage of female managers. Only
the latter was found to be significant. Nonetheless, results from both Goodstein’s
(1994) study and Ingram and Simons’ (1995) study support the integration of a
strategic choice perspective with institutional theory.
Managerial Interpretation
Not discounting the importance of resource dependence theory and institutional
theory as determinants of organizational responsiveness, Milliken et al. (1998)
suggest managers’ interpretations of environmental concerns also affect re-
sponsiveness towards adoption independent of the two theories. Their findings
support the assertion that managerial interpretation plays an important role in
organizational actions. Benefits were more likely offered in organizations when
the managers interpreted them as relevant and tied to productivity. Milliken
et al. (1998) suggest different managers may react differently given the same
resource limitations and institutional pressures. The variance results from their
interpretation of the issue.
Osterman (1995) analyzed adoption of work-family programs within the frame-
work of the organization’s employment strategy. As with the Milliken et al. (1998)
study, Osterman (1995) found organizations were more likely to adopt programs
if they perceived them as relevant and tied to productivity. In Osterman’s (1995)
framework, however, the ties to productivity are indirect. Adoption of work-family

policies occurs in response to increasing problems of withdrawal or as an attempt
to build organizational commitment. He suggests high-commitment work systems
as an employment strategy is a strong predictor of adoption. For this strategy
to be effective, employee commitment is a necessity. Management chooses to
adopt work-family initiatives with the belief the overall level of commitment will
be enhanced.
Management dominant logic (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) has also been integrated
with institutional theory to predict responsiveness of organizations to adopt work-
family initiatives (Kossek et al., 1994). Prahalad and Bettis’s (1986) framework
suggests managers develop “dominant logic” based on their past experiences.
Demographic variables as well as environmental influences may affect a person’s
approach. Kossek and her colleagues (1994), examining adoption of childcare
initiatives, suggest managerial logic may influence an organization’s conformity
or lack thereof to institutional pressure. Results confirmed managerial influence in
the adoption of childcare programs; when the human resource manager perceived
the program favorably, as well as perceiving executive attitudes to be positive,
conformity to institutional pressures to adopt was most likely.
Organizational Adaptation
Expanding on Daft and Weick’s (1984) organizational adaptation model, Milliken
et al. (1990) proposed a framework in which organizations recognize and interpret
changes in order to better align themselves with the environment. Their model is
comprised of five phases: scanning, noticing, interpreting, choosing, and learning.
Scanning is the process of gathering relevant information regarding changes in the
environment. Noticing is the process of allocating time and energy to the issues that
may surface as a result of the change. The third step, interpretation, is an analysis
of the issue. Significance to and implications for the organization are assessed.
Some issues may not be interpreted to be significant factors for the organization.
Choosing which issues need response and which can be discarded is the fourth
step. The model is complete at the learning phase in which the organization selects
a fitting response to the issue.
Implementing Milliken et al.’s (1990) model, Goodstein (1995) examined orga-
nizational responsiveness to eldercare interventions. Consistent with the proposed
model of organizational adaptation, he suggests organizational responsiveness
will result from the recognition and interpretation of change in the environment.
Eldercare is a recent, yet significant concern for many working adults. The U.S.
Census Bureau (2000) reports more than 34 million Americans are currently
65 and older, and by 2020, that number is projected to exceed 53 million.
Furthermore, 42% of workers in 2002 have been estimated as being responsible
for elder care (Working Woman Magazine, 2000). Goodstein (1995) investigated
the internal and external awareness issues of eldercare, the interpretation of
potential implications of the issue, the scope of existing work-family benefits
offered, and organizational demography. Surprisingly, age and gender did not
influence organizational responsiveness. The findings did confirm the importance
of external and internal awareness, as well as the breadth of work-family pro-
grams offered. Additionally, if involvement in eldercare was perceived to impact
productivity or organizational commitment, organizations were more likely to
respond. This study illustrates the importance of interpretation in organizational
adaptation.
Morgan and Milliken (1992) conducted an exploratory study to determine key
factors of organizational response. Although not set within any specific theoretical
framework, they explored dynamics that pertain to the theories discussed above.
As indicated by organizational adaptation and managerial interpretation, their
findings of internal awareness and perceptions of productivity are consistent
with Goodstein’s (1995) study. Consistent with institutional theory, Morgan and
Milliken (1992) found geographic location, size of the organization, and industry
are all determinants of responsiveness. Extent of unionization was not significant
in their study and yielded mixed results in the Kossek (1987) analysis. Although
not finding support, their investigation of percentage female is consistent with
resource dependence theory.
Organizational Learning
Lee et al. (2000) explored organizational responsiveness to reduced-load work in
the framework of organizational learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978). They suggest
three paradigms: accommodation, elaboration, and transformation; viewed on a
continuum from exploitation to exploration. Exploitation increases efficiency by
reducing variety, whereas exploration increases variety by taking risks. Organiza-
tions need to both exploit and explore in order to adapt to a changing environment.
From their analysis, Lee et al. (2000) determined noticeable differences among
firms in their interpretation and implementation of reduced-load work. They
classified these differences as accommodation, elaboration, or transformation.
Accommodation represents minimalist organizations. Such firms treat a request
for reduced-load work on a case-by-cases basis, not something worthy of a new
routine (Lee et al., 2000). Elaboration represents supportive organizations. They
typically had formal policies supporting reduced-load work; however, employees
who take advantage of this policy may limit their career potential. A fast-moving
organization would be representative of the transformation paradigm. Regardless
of formal policies, reduced-load work is accepted and viewed as a measure taken
to retain quality employees. These firms accept and are amenable to change.
Firm-Level Outcomes
As demonstrated by scholars, perceptions of productivity may affect firms’ re-

sponsiveness to adopt work-family policies (Gonyea & Googins, 1993; Goodstein,
1995; Morgan & Milliken, 1992). Few scholars have examined the link between
work-family initiatives and firm-level outcomes; however, addressing the bottom
line is a compelling argument. Similar to research in the psychological frame-
work, this recent direction attempts to link adoption of work-family initiatives
to organizational benefits. However, the benefits are realized at the firm-level
rather than at the individual-level. For instance, scholars have investigated links
between work-family initiatives and firm-level outcomes such as perceived firm
performance and firm value. Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) investigated the link
between work-family policies and perceived firm-level performance, and Arthur
(in press) explored the link between work-family policies and firm value.
Perry-Smith and Blum’s (2000) study offers a connection between bundles
of work-family initiatives and benefits to the organization. In line with strategic
human resources, their analysis focuses on work-family bundles instead of single
initiatives. Bundles are comprised of complementary policies that are aligned
with the organization’s values. Work-family bundles likely include dependent
care services, flexible scheduling, and referral services. Perry-Smith and Blum
(2000) assert bundles are more suitable for examining firm-level outcomes since
they assure a broader effect. Their arguments are framed in resource-based and
symbolic action perspectives.
The symbolic action perspective (Pfeffer, 1981) asserts actions by the organi-
zation, such as offering work-family initiatives, signal to the employees they are
valued. In return, employees put forth extra effort and performance is increased.
Within the resource-based view, Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) contend work-
family bundles are difficult to imitate and, therefore, have the potential to create
a sustainable competitive advantage. Their findings support both perspectives
in that there is a positive relationship between perceived firm-level performance
and bundles of work-family initiatives. They divided firm-level performance
into profit-sales growth, market share, and organizational performance. All three
performance measures were positively related to organizations that offered a
wide range of work-family policies. A shortcoming exists, though, in that all
measures of performance are perceptual. Nonetheless, this study has a strong
impact. Not only do Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) link work-family policies to
firm-level performance, but they also assert the possibility of creating a sustainable
competitive advantage.
Arthur (in press), framing her argument in institutional theory, linked work-
family initiatives with firm value. Her underlying assumption is that organizations
will be better able to acquire scarce resources as a result of the legitimacy

gained by adoption of work-family policies. Realizing the potential benefits to
an organization, constituents of the firm, at the time of the work-family initiative
announcement, will react to influence the share price; hence, increasing the
firm’s value. Additionally, Arthur (in press) examined industry characteristics
such as percentage female, unemployment rates, and high-tech classifications as
potential moderators of this relationship. Her findings support the assertion that
work-family initiative announcements positively affect firm value. Moreover,
high-tech industries and industries with a large percentage of female employees
were found to moderate the relationship.
This study magnifies the importance of work-family policies beyond the contri-
bution of Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) in that its measure is objective. While an
argument could be made that share price is a function of constituents’ perceptions
of the firm’s value; it is, nonetheless, a bottom-line number to analyze. By only
assessing firm value at the time of the announcement, though, Arthur’s (in press)
study is a conclusion on reactions to announcements rather than a study on the
effectiveness of the policies. If a policy was announced and never implemented,
implemented and rarely used, or implemented and highly effective is unknown.
Also, the policy’s impact on an objective measure of firm performance is uncertain.
Summary
Although other frameworks have been suggested, institutional, resource depen-

dence, and organizational adaptation theories dominate firm-level research on
work-family policies. Scholars have found, by and large, consistent results in
identifying the antecedents to firm adoption of work-family initiatives. Further-
more, scholars have recently made inroads in the investigation of the relationship
between work-family initiatives and firm-level outcomes using macro-level
theories of the firm. Beyond organizational theory studies, the efficiency or the
human resource-based view of the firm implicitly suggests a relationship between
work-family programs and firm performance via increased human resource
efficiencies.
The next section summarizes what we know about work-family conflict
from the psychological literature. Second, a review of the literature on the
under-utilization of work-family policies is presented. Following, we develop
a model integrating the support literature with the human resource model of
work-family policies. In doing so, we present several propositions.
Numerous investigations in the psychological literature have revealed a
negative relationship between work-family conflict and attachment behaviors.
In general, work-family conflict has been related to lower job satisfaction, in-
creased job burnout, lower commitment, lower performance, intentions to turnover
and the like. In sum, the effects of work-family conflict have almost uniformly
been related to poor work outcomes. These analyses spurred research into the
effectiveness of organizational interventions in halting these deleterious outcomes.
As such, a human resource model was developed proposing that firm interventions
to alleviate work and family conflict would garner positive work outcomes
to firms.
The human resource or efficiency-based model proposes several advantages
to firms of work-family programs. In general, the model suggests that firms with
work-family programs will benefit via human resources with increased ability
to attract employees, retain employees and produce more efficiently. An implicit
assumption of this view is that work-family programs are interpreted, enforced,
and used uniformly across firms. However, several qualitative studies have found
considerable variation in the application of work-family programs across and
within firms (e.g. Lee et al., 2000).
Scholars have found considerable variance in the use of work-family programs.
Specifically, several scholars have noted the under-utilization of work-family
programs (Bailyn, 1997; Hochschild, 1997; Kamerman & Kahn, 1987; Kossek
et al., 1999; Kossek & Ozeki, 1999). Kamerman and Kahn (1987), for instance,
reported closures of childcare centers at AT&T during the 1970s as a result of lack
of use. Additionally, Hochschild (1997) found even when parents were offered
progressive programs at work they failed to take advantage of them. Recognizing
this phenomenon, several scholars have examined potential barriers facing the
utilization of work-family programs (Bailyn, 1997; Hochschild, 1997; Kossek
et al., 1999; Perlow, 1995; Powell, 1999; Secret, 2000).
Bailyn (1997), incorporating both societal perceptions and organizational
culture, offers a broad framework for understanding barriers that may exist. To
overcome barriers, she claims society must view work-family issues as a larger
concern, one for the organization and its culture, not just the individual. People’s
current perceptions regarding time at work, such as their beliefs about the impor-
tance of being visible in the organization, persuade some not to use the benefits
offered. Bailyn (1997) concludes that to overcome these barriers, perceptions will
have to shift.
A similar appeal is made by Perlow (1995). Consistent with Bailyn’s (1997)
view, she believes current perceptions regarding time and success need to change.
Furthermore, she asserts that work-family policies are only “band-aid” solutions
that may bring credit to the organization, but may thwart the long-term career
potential of those who use the policy. Perlow (1995) believes work-family policies
are treating a symptom rather than the problem. To progress, organizations need
to stop rewarding the old ways of working. For example, current assumptions hold
that one must be visible at work to be successful; one must work extended periods
of time to be committed; and one must always place work as the top priority. Perlow
(1995) contends these underlying assumptions create a contradiction. Work-family
policies are instigated in order to help the employee and the employer; however,
by using a work-family program one may violate the assumptions, which, in
turn, may hinder overall career advancement. This assertion is supported by both
Perlow’s (1995) finding on flexible scheduling and by Judiesch and Lyness’ (1999)
finding on leaves of absence. Both studies suggest deleterious consequences
for the employee such as being passed over for promotions or salary increases.
Therefore, the hesitancy on part of the employee to utilize a work-family program
is not surprising.
Kossek et al. (1999) proposed a suggestion to promote employee use of
work-family policies. In their study, approximately 1,000 managers and their use
of alternative work schedules were investigated. Consistent with previous work,
many employees did not take advantage of the work-family policy (Hochschild,
1997; Kamerman & Kahn, 1987; Kossek & Ozeki, 1999). To overcome appre-
hension of use within the workplace, Kossek et al. (1999) suggest organizations
need to foster cultural change within the firm. By encouraging managers to take
the first step within their work group and use the policy, they believe it will signal
to other employees the acceptability of the program. Supporting this assertion,
Thompson et al. (1999) and Secret (2000) found employees’ use of work-family
initiatives was positively related to perceptions of a supportive culture.
Expanding beyond workplace culture, Secret (2000) also investigated organi-
zational characteristics as predictors of employee use of work-family policies.
Secret (2000) asserts organizational characteristics such as size and industry are
valuable predictors of employee use; moreover, she found that organizational
characteristics are better predictors of use than individual differences. For instance
she surprisingly found parents were no more likely to use work-family programs
than other employees. However, Secret’s (2000) results confirm employees in
public and non-profit firms, as well as employees in larger organizations are more
likely to use the programs.
Clearly, the extent to which the culture or managers support work-family
practices is crucial to the efficiency gains in the human resource model and,
perhaps less so, for macro-level theories (e.g. institutional theories) of the firm.
A model excluding the level of managerial or firm commitment to work-family
policies would be remiss. In most cases, the gains in efficiency may not be realized
by firms without managerial support for the work-family program. The following
discussion focuses on support and what it means in the human resource model. In
the discussion, several propositions are introduced.
PROPOSITIONS LINKING WORK-FAMILY

PROGRAMS AND FIRM PERFORMANCE
The following propositions suggest that the relationship between work-family
programs and firm performance relies on a synthesis of the human resource model
and the level of managerial support for the program. We begin by discussing
the research presented by Lee et al. (2000) that examines the variation in the
levels of managerial support for work-family programs across firms. Next, we
combine this research with the underlying human resource model constructs of
attraction, retention and productivity gains from work-family programs. In doing
so, we propose that complete managerial support is necessary to maximize firm
performance in response to a work-family program.
Support Literature
Work-family policies can have various levels of support at the managerial level
(e.g. Perlow, 2000). As previously discussed, a typology presented by Lee et al.
(2000) classifies firm responsiveness to work-family policies as accommodation,
elaboration or transformation. That is, work-family policies could be in an accom-
modation phase, wherein minimal firm support is found. For example, a firm could
announce a policy or have a policy that does not change actual practices in the firm
or may accommodate one individual on a piecemeal basis. Second, a firm could be
in the elaboration phase, wherein firms have a new routine in response to a work-
family policy. However, the firm does not give up old ways of doing things. Thus,
a penalty may exist for violating previous work arrangements. If so, employees
may be penalized for use with lack of promotion, public admonition, and/or lack
of salary increases (Judiesch & Lyness, 1999; Perlow, 1995); thereby, illustrating
an overall lack of support for the work-family policy. Third, a firm could be in
a transformation phase, a phase wherein the work-family policy is accepted as a
new routine to help employees become more efficient. Depending on the stage of
responsiveness to a work-family policy, the relationship between a work-family
policy and the constructs of the human resource perspective should vary.
Human Resource Model
Attraction
The first link in the human resource model or the efficiency-based model of the
firm is attraction. That is, prospective employees being more attracted to a firm
because of a work-family human resource policy. The underlying assumption

is that employees who desire these policies will be more attracted to firms with
work-family policies than those without. In addition, prospective employees
who do not desire these types of policies will not be repelled from the firm,
perhaps, because other factors such as pay, career advancement potential, and
the like may be more salient human resource considerations to them. Thus,
the overall effect is an increase in the applicant pool. If workers characteristics
are normally distributed and selection processes are reliable, firms should have
more productive workers from which to select from the applicant pool (Hannon
& Milkovich, 1996). Attracting and selecting productive employees should
allow a firm to gain a competitive advantage (Hannon & Milkovich, 1996).
In spite of this implicit chain of events, there are few empirical studies that
examine the relationship between work-family policies and candidate attraction
(Carmichael, 1984).
Attraction may be a firm-level response to a work-family policy. Therefore, one
would expect that, to the extent that a candidate is unfamiliar with the internal
application of a work-family policy, the level of support within a firm would not
moderate the level of attraction for individuals outside the firm with no knowledge
of the level of support. However, attraction also takes place by way of internal
recommendation (Kossek & Nichol, 1992). Kossek and Nichol (1992) found that
employees were more likely to recommend potential employees to an organization
due to an on-site childcare center. We expect current of former employees to
strongly recommend a firm for employment that is fully committed to a work-
family policy. Thus, more potential employees will be drawn to firms with full
managerial commitment to work-family programs than firms with lower levels of
commitment. Hence,
Proposition 1a. Firms with work-family programs in a transformational phase
will attract more candidates than firms in an elaboration phase.
Furthermore,
Proposition 1b. Firms with work-family programs in an elaboration phase will
attract more candidates than firms in an accommodation phase.
Retention
The second often cited efficiency-based gain from work-family programs is
retaining skilled employees. Several studies have examined the relationship
between work-family programs and retention or similar constructs. Studies
directly examining retention have found a relationship between work-family
programs and retention (Denton et al., 1990; Kossek & Nichol, 1992). Both studies
found work-family programs increase employees’ desire to stay with a firm.

Similarly, studies have suggested that work-family programs decrease intentions
to turnover (Christensen & Staines, 1990; Grover & Crooker, 1995; Youngblood
& Chambers-Clark, 1984) and increase employees’ affective commitment and
organizational commitment (Goldberg et al., 1989; Grover & Crooker, 1995;
Mellor et al., 2001; Pierce & Newstrom, 1982; Youngblood & Chambers-Clark,
1984). Recently, Roehling et al. (2001) found work-family programs increase
employee loyalty for all employees, regardless of applicability to their personal
needs. Last, studies suggest work-family programs increase job satisfaction
(Christensen & Staines, 1990; Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Job satisfaction is,
perhaps, the strongest predictor of retention. Tests of retention and its underlying
constructs have produced the most consistent results of the relationships between
the human resource model and work-family policies.
The underlying assumption is that work-family programs provide a benefit
because they provide employees with better capabilities to balance work and
family, hence higher job satisfaction and retention. That said, the programs
must be functional to provide balance between work and family. Furthermore, a
relationship between a work-family program and retention relies on managerial
commitment to the work-family program. Therefore,
will retain more employees than firms in an elaboration phase.
Similarly,
retain more employees than firms in an accommodation phase.
Productivity Gains
Productivity gains are the final link in the human resource model. Clearly, produc-
tivity gains are realized through attraction and retention. However, studies have
investigated a few other constructs. The underlying idea is that if employees can
balance work and family or minimize work and family conflict, employees may
be more productive at work. Employees may become more productive for several
reasons. Studies have shown that employees may be mentally healthier (e.g.
Frone et al., 1992). Also, studies suggest employees are less likely to be absent
(Christensen & Staines, 1990; Dalton & Mesch, 1990; Krausz & Freibach, 1983)
and tardy (Christensen & Staines, 1990). Mental health and steady attendance at
work should allow employees to be more productive. However, this is only the
case if the work-family program applies to them, and the program has thorough
managerial commitment. Thus,

will extract more productivity gains from employees than firms in an elaboration
phase.
Likewise,
extract more productivity gains from employees than firms in an accommodation
phase.
Based on the human resource model of the firm, work-family programs that are
in a transformational phase should increase the level of benefits realized by the
firm. It is commonly understood by human resource scholars that if a firm can
acquire good employees, retain skilled workers and allow employees to work
more efficiently at work, we expect a firm to be able to reduce employee per unit
costs (e.g. Hannon & Milkovich, 1996). That is, if a firm can attract, keep, and
increase the efficiency of its employees, we expect future recruiting, hiring, and
training costs to decrease. Concurrently, if employees are more productive, firms
should be able to extract more profits from the employees work.
We must also acknowledge that the costs of a program increase when it requires
commitment to cultural change and, potentially, a restructuring of work. Clearly,
the costs of work-family programs vary with program type. However, studies have
suggested that the benefits of work-family programs outweigh the costs (Grover &
Crooker, 1985). Changing the structure of work to accommodate work and family
is a long-term approach to employees. That said, the benefits at a specific moment
in time are difficult to measure. Longitudinal studies are necessary to accurately
estimate the costs and benefits of such programs. Several work-family scholars
have made a call for more longitudinal research (e.g. Kossek, 1987). Aside from
real gains in employee efficiency, work-family programs affect performance at
the macro-level as well.
Macro-level studies suggest firm value increases via reputational gains or
the “intangible wealth” of an organization following adoption of work-family
programs (Arthur & Cook, 2003). Two recent studies have shown the adoption
of work-family programs has a positive effect on firm performance, measured as
stock price and perceived performance (Arthur, in press; Perry-Smith & Blum,
2000). These studies have not investigated the level of managerial commitment
to the work-family programs. For symbolic action and institutional theories, the
level of managerial commitment is not as important to theoretical predictions as
the human resource model. Nonetheless, a positive relationship exists. In sum,
macro-level research tends to suggest firm adoption of work-family programs
positively affects firm-level outcomes.
Based on the discussion above, we expect a positive relationship to exist between

adoption as well as transformational work-family programs and firm performance.
That is, both micro- and macro-level research suggests a positive relationship be-
tween work-family programs and firm performance. Several investigations of the
relationship between the constructs of the human resource model and work-family
policies have suggested positive work outcomes to firms; others have found no
relationships for some constructs. No study, has found that work-family programs
have no effect for all of the outcomes predicted. Similarly, no study has found that
work-family programs have a negative effect on any of the constructs measured.
That said, if research of the human resource model generally supports a positive
relationship at the micro-level for transformational firms and the institutional
models exhibit a positive effect, the overarching effect of a work-family program
should be positive.
Proposition 4a. Firm adoption of a transformative work-family program will
increase firm performance more than firm adoption of an elaborative work-
family program.
Likewise,
Proposition 4b. Firm adoption of an elaborative work-family program will
increase firm performance more than firm adoption of an accommodative work-
family program.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Firm-level studies must move beyond measuring firm performance in response

to the adoption of work-family policies. We propose that firms with managerial
commitment to work-family programs will reap more benefits that those with less
commitment. Measures of program use and firm performance seem an obvious
direction for future work-family research. We acknowledge that this is somewhat
of a Catch-22 for researchers. That is, firm adoption often requires that managers
believe that there are bottom-line outcomes of work-family programs. However,
managerial commitment is an antecedent to showing a relationship between work-
family programs and firm performance. Nonetheless, causality may be investigated
with longitudinal studies.
Work-family research is dominated by cross-sectional studies. Thus, accurate
costs and benefits are difficult to measure. More longitudinal studies would pro-
vide insight into the actual benefits and costs of work-family programs. We know
that firms that adopt work-family policies, specifically at the transformational
level, are taking a long-term view of employees. That said, an accurate estimation
of the costs and benefits must also take place over time.
Aside from firm-level performance, more research of the under-investigated
human resource model constructs must be tested. More specifically attraction and
direct productivity have been largely overlooked in the work-family research. We
know people are more likely to recommend a firm with work-family programs
(Kossek & Nichol, 1992). However, actual applicant pool fluctuation would pro-
vide further support for the human resource model. Direct productivity, perhaps,
is the most under-investigated construct. Several studies have examined variables
that suggest productivity increases. However, a longitudinal study of employee
productivity before and after a work-family intervention would be discerning.
CONCLUSION
It is essential to recognize and accept the demographic transition in the labor
force. Several scholars assert organizations must take an active role in assisting
their employees in the balance of work and family domains (Bailyn, 1993; Glass,
2000; Jacobs & Gerson, 2001; Kossek et al., 1999). Glass (2000) and Bailyn
(1993) both recognize the importance of abandoning the traditional assumptions
of work and time. Bailyn (1993), acknowledging the importance of productivity,
asserts personal needs still need to be addressed. Haas (1999), however, contends
organizations’ responsiveness to work-family issues will only stem from an eco-
nomic concern. As illustrated throughout the review, researchers have consistently
demonstrated positive work outcomes as a result of firms addressing work-family
issues. It is time for researchers to connect the use of work-family programs to
firm performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors deeply appreciate the comments and suggestions of Joe Martocchio
on previous versions of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement, family
social support, and work-family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arthur, M. M. (in press). Work-family initiatives and share price reaction: An institutional perspective.
Academy of Management Journal.
Arthur, M. M., & Cook, A. (2003). Taking stock of work-family initiatives. Unpublished manuscript.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and
engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39–53.
Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men, and time in the new corporate world. New York:
Free Press.
Bailyn, L. (1997). The impact of corporate culture on work-family integration. In: S. Parasuraman &
J. H. Greenhaus (Eds), Integrating Work and Family: Challenges and Choices for a Changing
World (pp. 209–219).
Barling, J., & MacEwen, K. E. (1991). Maternal employment experiences, attention problems and
behavioral performance: A mediational model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12,
495–505.
Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. R. (1985). Women’s involvement in multiple roles and psychological
distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 135–145.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Crouter, A. (1983). Work and family through time and space. In: S. B. Kamerman
& C. D. Hayes (Eds), Families that work: Children in a changing world. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 3, 287–302.
Carmichael, H. L. (1984). Reputations in the labor market. The American Economic Review, 74,
713–724.
Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work/family conflict? Journal
of Family Issues, 11, 455–476.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role expectations.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy
Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance and
turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370–387.
Denton, K., Love, L. T., & Slate, R. (1990). Elder care in the 90s: Employee responsibility, employer
challenge. Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 349–359.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 23, 111–136.
Doby, V. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1995). Organizational stress as threat to reputation: Effects on anxiety at
work and at home. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1105–1123.
Drago, R., Costanza, D., Caplan, R., Brubaker, T., Cloud, D., Harris, N., Kashian, R., & Riggs, T. L.
(2001). The willingness-to-pay for work/family policies: A study of teachers. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 55, 22–41.
Dunham, R. B., Pierce, J. L., & Castaneda, M. B. (1987). Alternative work schedules: Two field
quasi-experiments. Personnel Psychology, 40, 215–242.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25,
178–199.
Edwards, M. E. (2001). Uncertainty and the rise of the work-family dilemma. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 63, 183–196.
Ferber, M. A., & O’Farrell, B. (1991). Work and family: Policies for a changing work force. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
65–78.
Glass, J. (2000). Envisioning the integration of family and work: Toward a kinder, gentler workplace.
Contemporary Sociology, 29, 129–143.
Glass, J., & Estes, S. B. (1997). The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23,
289–313.
Goff, S. J., Mount, M. K., & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/family
conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43, 793–809.
Goldberg, W. A., Greenberger, E., Koch-Jones, J., O’Neil, R., & Hamill, S. (1989). Attractiveness of
child care and related employer-supported benefits and policies to married and single employees.
Child and Youth Care Quarterly, 18, 23–37.
Gonyea, J. G., & Googins, B. K. (1993). Linking the worlds of work and family: Beyond the productivity
trap. Human Resource Management, 31, 209–226.
Goodstein, J. D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in
work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350–382.
Goodstein, J. (1995). Employer involvement in eldercare: An organizational adaptation perspective.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 5, 444–479.
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work-family
conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K. M. (2001). Career involvement and family involvement
as moderators of relationships between work-family conflict and withdrawal from a profession.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 91–100.
Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The
impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family
conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.
Guthrie, D., & Roth, L. M. (1999). The state, courts, and maternity policies in U.S. organizations:
Specifying institutional mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 64, 41–63.
Haas, L. (1999). Families and work. In: M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds), Handbook of Marriage
and the Family. New York: Plenum.
Hannon, J. M., & Milkovich, G. T. (1996). The effect of human resource reputation signals on share
prices: An event study. Human Resource Management, 35, 405–424.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hochschild, A. (1997). The Time Bind. New York: Metropolitan.
Ingram, P., & Simons, T. (1995). Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness
to work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1466–1482.
Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2001). Overworked individuals or overworked families? Explaining trends
in work, leisure, and family time. Work and Occupations, 28, 40–63.
Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on managers’
career success. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 641–651.
Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn. A. J. (1987). The responsive workplace: Employers and a changing labor
force. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and Family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research
and policy. New York: Russell Sage.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1999). Civil rights law at work: Sex discrimination and the rise of maternity
leave policies. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 455–492.
Kossek, E. E. (1987). Human resources management innovation. Human Resource Management, 26,
71–92.
Kossek, E. E., Barber, A. E., & Winters, D. (1999). Using flexible schedules in the managerial world:
The power of peers. Human Resource Management, 38, 33–46.
Kossek, E. E., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance:
The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climates.
Kossek, E. E., Dass, P., & DeMarr, B. (1994). The dominant logic of employer-sponsored work and
family initiatives: Human resource managers’ institutional role. Human Relations, 47, 1121–
1149.
Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of on-site child chare on employee attitudes and
performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 485–509.
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relation-
ship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal
Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap: A literature
review. Community, Work and Family, 2, 7–32.
Krausz, M., & Freibach, N. (1983). Effects of flexible working time for employed women upon satis-
faction, strains, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 155–159.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801–815.
Lee, M. D., MacDermid, S. M., & Buck, M. L. (2000). Organizational paradigms of reduced-load
work: Accommodation, elaboration, and transformation. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 1211–1226.
Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories and
implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 16, 507–521.
Mellor, S., Mathieu, J. E., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2001). Employees’ nonwork
obligations and organizational commitments: A new way to look at the relationships. Human
Resource Management, 40, 171–184.
Mellor, S., Mathieu, J. E., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2001). Employees’ nonwork
obligations and organizational commitments: A new way to look at the relationships. Human
Resource Management, 40, 171–184.
Meneghan, E. G., & Parcel, T. L. (1990). Parental employment and family life: Research in the 1980s.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1079–1098.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milliken, F. J., Dutton, J. E., & Beyer, J. M. (1990). Understanding organizational adaptation to change:
The case of work-family issues. Human Resource Planning, 13, 91–106.
Milliken, F. J., Martins, L. L., & Morgan, H. (1998). Explaining organizational responsiveness to
work-family issues: The role of human resource executives as issue interpreters. Academy of
Morgan, H., & Milliken, F. J. (1992). Keys to action: Understanding differences in organiza-
tions’ responsiveness to work-and-family issues. Human Resource Management, 31, 227–
248.
Nielson, T. R., Carlson, D. S., & Lankau, M. J. (2001). The supportive mentor as a means of reducing
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16,
145–179.
Osterman, P. (1995). Work/family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 681–700.
Parcel, T. L., & Menaghan, E. G. (1994). Work, Family, and Young Children’s Lives, 157–178.
Perlow, L. A. (1995). Putting the work back into work/family. Group & Organization Management,
20, 227–239.
Perry-Jenkins, M., Repetti, R. L., & Crouter, A. (2000). Work and family in the 1990s. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 981–998.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organi-
zational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1107–1117.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational
paradigms. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior
(Vol. 3, pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper and
Row.
Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1982). Employee responses to flexible work schedules: An inter-
organization, inter-system comparison. Journal of Management, 8, 9–25.
Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 485–501.
Roehling, P. V., Roehling, M. V., & Moen, P. (2001). The relationship between work-life policies and
practices and employee loyalty: A life course perspective. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 22, 141–170.
Rothausen, T. J., Gonzalez, J. A., Clarke, N. E., & O’Dell, L. L. (1998). Family-friendly backlash –
fact or fiction? The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers. Personnel Psychology, 51,
685–706.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles.
Secret, M. (2000). Identifying the family, job, and workplace characteristics of employees who use
work-family benefits. Family Relations, 49, 217–225.
Shinn, M., Wong, N. W., Simko, P. A., & Ortiz-Torres, B. (1989). Promoting the well-being of working
parents: Coping, social support, and flexible job schedules. American Journal of Community
Sumer, H. C., & Knight, P. A. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work
and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 653–663.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel
& W. G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2001). Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life balance.
Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 101–119.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family
conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough:
The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and
Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family
conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837–868.
Yang, N., Chen, C. C., Choi, J., & Zou, Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S.
comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
113–123.
Youngblood, S. A., & Chambers-Clark, K. (1984). Child care assistance can improve employee attitudes
and behavior. Personnel Administrator, 45–46, 93–95.
TOWARD UNDERSTANDING AND
MANAGING STEREOTYPICAL BELIEFS
ABOUT OLDER WORKERS’ ABILITY
AND DESIRE FOR LEARNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
Todd J. Maurer, Kimberly A. Wrenn

and Elizabeth M. Weiss
ABSTRACT
A model of stereotypical beliefs that older workers have difficulty learning
and developing and are not motivated to learn is presented. Three categories
of antecedents of the stereotypical beliefs are addressed: (1) experience
with stereotype-consistent behaviors and promulgation of the stereotype
by others; (2) perceived learning and development inhibitors internal to
the older worker; and (3) perceived learning and development inhibitors
external to the older worker. Potential consequences of the stereotypical
beliefs for older workers and employing organizations are also explored.
Individuating information and knowledge of within-older-group differences
are posited to attenuate the influence of group-based stereotypes. Processes
and tactics within organizations that should increase this information and
knowledge are presented. The proposed model provides a framework to help

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22006-5
253
254 TODD J. MAURER, KIMBERLY A. WRENN AND ELIZABETH M. WEISS
guide future research on this topic and also some suggestions for managing
a work place where these beliefs may exist.
INTRODUCTION
Learning and development has become increasingly important to career success
and longevity. The workplace is changing rapidly and work itself is being redefined,
increasingly requiring constant learning (Kiechel, 1993). Consistent with these
changes, Hall and Mirvis (1995) have described a shift from the organizational
career to a “protean” career. In the former, one spends an entire career with the
same organization and type of work. In the latter, the focus is heavily oriented
toward learning and adapting to new organizations and careers. According to Hall
and Mirvis, “learning how to learn and continuous learning have become core
career competencies” (pp. 280–281). Similarly, Greller and Stroh (1995) note that
changes in technology and business strategies mean that “pursuing a career requires
considerable commitment to learning and reshaping one’s skills. Workers who do
not take the steps necessary to stay skilled and knowledgeable may be forced to
cut short their careers as their skills become obsolete or irrelevant” (p. 236). In the
business community, learning and development are increasingly more important.
One survey asked 400 HR executives to judge the importance of 29 employee
qualities (AARP, 2000). Scoring in the top 15 were “Flexible in doing different
tasks,” “Will participate in training programs,” “Try new approaches,” “Up-to-
date skills,” and “Learn new technology.” All of these things relate to training and
continuous learning of new job skills. In the same study, “Training your current
workforce,” “Introducing new information technology into the workplace,” and
“Retraining your workforce” were ranked in the top ten general employment issues
that the HR executives considered important for today’s workforce. Further, given
the nature of changing job content, cognitive (as opposed to physical) skills seem
increasingly important.
While these changes are taking place, the demographics of the workforce are
changing dramatically. One of the most important changes is what has been referred
to as the “graying of the work force,” which is the increasing average age of workers.
Likewise, Capowski (1994) notes that the median age of the work force is projected
to reach 40 by the year 2010. The number of people age 50–65 will increase at more
than twice the rate of the overall population by the end of the century. Fullerton
(1999) reports that the highest population growth over the 1998–2008 period is
expected to occur in the 45–64 age group.
From this discussion we can conclude that training and development are becom-
ing increasingly important in today’s changing work environment, and the work
Toward Understanding and Managing Stereotypical Beliefs 255
force affected by these changes is composed of an increasing number of older

workers. This clearly indicates the importance of a focus on the development and
training of older workers. However, some research and work place literature, to
be discussed below, has suggested that stereotypical beliefs exist in which older
workers are thought to lack both ability and inclination to learn and develop. In
light of the discussion above, these beliefs pose a serious potential problem in the
work place.
A Need for Better Understanding of Stereotypical Beliefs in the Work Place
Stereotypical beliefs may influence both decision-makers and older workers

themselves. To the extent that decision-makers and other key people are influ-
enced by these beliefs, this may result in a relative lack of opportunity or support
for older workers to participate in training and development activities. They
may be excluded or discouraged from participation, may not be selected for
particular assignments, or may not be encouraged or supported in more subtle, but
psychologically meaningful ways. This may be especially true to the extent that
decision makers are trying to maximize their returns on investments in training
or learning resources. To the extent that older workers themselves are exposed
to or hold stereotype-consistent beliefs, this may influence their motivational
state of mind and behavior (Maurer, 2001; Salthouse & Maurer, 1996). Maurer
and Rafuse (2001) outlined the legal and behavioral implications of differences
in both opportunities and support for development as a function of age. Also,
while most people have been sensitized to offensive sexist or racist stereotypes
at work, the idea that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” seems not to
have acquired the same taboo status, even though workers over the age of 40
are legally protected from discrimination, just as minorities and women are.
However, beyond the recognition that this stereotypical belief exists in the work
place and that it may influence behavior, there has been relatively little analysis of
the nature of that belief, and more importantly, its specific origins and basis. An
analysis of the origins and basis for these beliefs not only enhances understanding
of them but also provides clues regarding how to deal with them effectively in the
workplace.
In the present paper, a model is presented of beliefs about older workers’
capacity for and inclination toward learning and development in organizational
settings (see Fig. 1). This model is intended to be relevant to settings in which older
and younger workers alike are in need of continuous learning and development,
as described earlier in this paper. Situations in which a need for development or
learning are precluded are not the concern here (such as when workers already
256
TODD J. MAURER, KIMBERLY A. WRENN AND ELIZABETH M. WEISS
Fig. 1. Model of Stereotypical Beliefs About Older Workers’ Ability and Desire for Learning and Development.
possess needed knowledge or skill, or when they have announced an immediately

impending retirement or departure from the organization).
The model draws on literature in aging, organizational behavior, management,
and industrial-organizational psychology to help explain the origins and basis
for beliefs about older workers’ capability and inclination to learn and develop.
Within the framework, a system of antecedents and potential outcomes of these
beliefs is presented. The role that individuating information and knowledge
of within-age-group variability can play in reducing effects of stereotypes is
highlighted and ideas are offered regarding interventions that may provide
individuating information within organizations. An important and unique aspect
of this model is that it shows not only the potential effects the stereotypes
have on decision-makers in the workplace (supervisors, peers, subordinates),
but also the potential effects of stereotypes on the behavior of older workers
themselves. The overall model can help guide future research on this topic. Also,
the framework is intended to be one which is not only based on research literature
and theory, but also one which is practical enough to provide sound and reasonable
suggestions for practice in dealing with stereotypical beliefs about older workers
in organizations.
In the next section of this paper, a description of the model will begin with
a discussion of the belief that older workers are less capable of learning and
developing and less inclined to participate in such activities. Some potential
outcomes of these beliefs will be discussed. Following this, three general
categories of factors which are proposed to contribute to this belief will be
described, including: (a) experience with stereotype-consistent behaviors and
promulgation of the stereotype by others; (b) perceived learning and development
inhibitors internal to the older worker; and (c) perceived learning and develop-
ment inhibitors external to the older worker. In the final section of the paper,
data on variability in actual age differences will be described and the way in
which knowledge of this information may reduce the effects of group-based
stereotypes on decisions and behavior will be illustrated. Based on this, ideas for
providing individuating information and knowledge of within group variability
are offered, along with suggestions for managing a work place where these beliefs
may exist.
Definition of “Older Worker”
First, however, some discussion is warranted on the subject of what defines an

“older worker.” This issue is relevant in age research because there is no universal
operationalization of the term, and it may depend on the specific context at hand.
Legally, an older worker is defined as anyone in the workforce at or above the age of
40 (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). However, in the research literature,
the definitions are much more varied, from 35 and over (Downs, 1967; Newsham,
1969), to 36 through 60 (Caplan & Schooler, 1990) to 55 through 67 (Elias, Elias,
Robbins & Gage, 1987) to people aged 58–84 (Zandri & Charness, 1989). Adding
to the confusion is the fact that many of these studies seem to lack any rationale for
choosing a particular age at which to define a worker as “older” (e.g. Downs, 1967;
Elias, Elias, Robbins & Gage, 1987; Zandri & Charness, 1989) while others used
a median split in order to separate a group of participants into younger and older
adults (Caplan & Schooler, 1990). In a review of 105 studies that defined the term
“older worker,” Ashbaugh and Fay (1987) found the average chronological age as
operationalized in research of an older worker to be 53.4 years. Thus, perhaps this
can serve as a reasonable lower bound for the term “older worker,” although what
is considered old may depend on the context.
A MODEL OF STEREOTYPICAL BELIEFS ABOUT

OLDER WORKERS’ ABILITY AND INCLINATION
TO LEARN/DEVELOP AND POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCES OF THESE BELIEFS
We present the rationale for the specific links of the model in the following
sections.
Ability to Develop
Research has suggested that there is a common belief that older workers have
less potential for learning and development. In a study by Rosen and Jerdee
(1976a), 65 items were developed and classified into four work-related scales:
performance capacity, potential for development, stability, and interpersonal
skills. Respondents were asked to respond to each item twice, once as it applies to
the average 60-year-old man and once as it applies to the average 30-year-old man.
In the category of “potential for development,” the mean rating was significantly
higher for the 30-year old man than for the 60-year-old man.
In a study by Perry and Varney (1978), targets varied on age and level of
competence. The older worker was rated lower than the younger worker on two
dimensions: catching on to new ideas and contributions made in future. In research
performed by the Institute of Personnel Management (1993), a large-scale survey
was conducted in five European countries. Older workers were perceived to

“Learn less quickly” and they “Are less able to grasp new ideas.” These items
were part of factor termed Adaptability. Older workers were rated significantly
below the scale midpoint on this factor.
A recent article by Forte and Hansvick (1999) partially supported the idea that
people believe older workers are less capable of development. They asked 98
employers about their attitudes toward older workers on 12 dimensions related
to work. Overall, older workers were rated lower on the attributes of computer
skills, ability to learn quickly, energy and stamina, and flexibility. They were rated
higher than younger workers on academic skill levels, attendance, ability to get
along with co-workers, work ethics, salary expectations, and supervisory skills.
The dimensions on which older workers were rated lower are those closely related
to learning and development. Interestingly, this study did show evidence of an
ingroup bias among younger employers toward older workers. Employers who
were 50 or over themselves rated workers of similar age as being more desirable
on all attributes except “possesses stamina and energy to perform job.” Thus,
older employers viewed older workers as more able in development-related areas
than did younger employers. Warr, in his (1994a) review article, notes that several
other articles (e.g. Doering, Rhodes & Schuster, 1983; Heron & Chown, 1961;
Stagner, 1985) have “documented the common tendency to view older workers
as slower, less interested in new training, less flexible, and more likely to become
weary than their younger colleagues (p. 488).”
Summarizing many of these kinds of studies, Finkelstein, Burke and Raju
(1995) conducted a meta-analysis which showed that older workers were
rated lower than younger workers on having potential for development. The
studies included in this review addressed perceived differences (based on group
membership) between older workers and younger workers as opposed to actual
differences. It might be noted that older adults were not included as subjects in this
research. The results of the Rosen and Jerdee (1976b) and the Perry and Varney
(1978) studies were based entirely on the responses of undergraduate students.
Rosen and Jerdee’s (1976a) study and the Forte and Hansvick (1999) research did
include some adult participants from the work force; however, undergraduates still
comprised half of the Rosen and Jerdee (1976a) sample. This raises the question
of whether age would moderate the difference in development potential ratings
observed for older and younger workers if greater numbers of older respondents
participated. But overall it seems that, based on the research literature, older
adults are perceived as less capable of learning and development. However, it
also seems that people may have the perception that older workers are not only
less capable, but are also less motivated or inclined to participate in learning and
development activities.
Desire to Develop
A common stereotype of older people is that they have no interest in adapting to

the times. In fact, Capowski (1994) describes research which showed that 57%
of businesses claim that older employees show resistance to training. The AARP
(1995) has suggested two obstacles to the hiring and training of older workers:
(1) perceptions of a lack of flexibility or perceived unwillingness to do more
and new tasks, and unwillingness to adapt to new work environment (e.g. older
workers = old ways); and (2) perceptions of resistance to technology – unwilling
to adapt to new technology in the work place. In a large study conducted in Europe
by the Institute of Personnel Management (1993), results reflected a perception
that older workers less readily accept the introduction of new technology, and are
less interested in being trained. This research suggests that some people perceive
older workers as being less interested in or motivated toward engaging in learning
and development activities.
Additionally, studies finding stereotypes that characterize older adults as being
unable to develop often report that older adults are also seen as not wanting to
develop. Warr (1994a) cites previous reviews as characterizing older adults as
being less interested in new training opportunities. The Rosen and Jerdee (1976b,
1977) studies also found that older workers are seen as being less interested in
training. It should be noted that these studies investigating beliefs about older
workers’ ability and inclination to learn and develop are to be distinguished from
studies which examine actual differences between younger workers and older
workers. The above studies refer to judgments of older workers as a group and not
appraisals of individual workers and their ability or willingness to successfully
participate in development activities.
Potential Consequences of the Beliefs: Behavior by Administrators,

Peers and Observers
There are several potential consequences of these types of beliefs to people

in organizational settings. One significant outcome, given the importance of
learning and development opportunities to careers, is a possible lack of access to
training and development opportunities. If decision-makers possess these beliefs,
older workers may not be nominated, selected, or informed of opportunities
to be involved in training or development activities such as training classes,
conferences, seminars, on-the-job training, special temporary job assignments,
learning-rich job rotations, committee or task force assignments, coaching from
supervisors (or mentors, peers), opportunities for feedback, or career planning.
Rosen and Jerdee (1976b) provided evidence for the link between stereotypes
against older workers and discrimination against older workers in terms of rec-
ommended action. In their study of simulated managerial decisions, participants
reacted to a scenario involving either an older or a younger target. Six of these
scenarios represented different stereotypical beliefs about older workers. Results
showed that respondents viewed older targets as being more difficult to persuade
to change, significantly less motivated to keep up to date, and less desirable for re-
training opportunities (preferring termination and replacement to retraining). In a
replication of this study using Harvard Business Review subscribers ranging in age
from younger than 30 to over 60, similar results were found (Rosen & Jerdee, 1977).
In addition to the research described above, literature on actual workforce
behavior suggests that older workers may not participate in and/or may not have
access to some types of development activities. We cannot be sure across all of
these settings whether they are not participating because they don’t want to, don’t
need to, or because their employers do not give them the opportunity. However,
some of this literature suggests that older workers might be sometimes excluded
or may be influenced to choose not to participate, and either of these explanations
could be influenced by stereotypical beliefs held by decision-makers or older
workers themselves.
For example, Simon (1996) asserts that many older workers are being denied
the opportunity to improve their skills, citing that 55–64-year-olds are only a third
as likely as 35–44-year-olds to receive training in the workplace, according to
a study by the U.S. Department of Labor. Simon suggests that many employers
may discourage older workers from obtaining training. Boerlijst (1994) found
that participation in training and development courses relevant to one’s functional
area decreases with age. Also, 65% of workers over 40 had never or hardly
ever participated in training and development courses outside of their functional
area. In the 1995, Study of Employer-Provided Training (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics) researchers reported that 50.7% of employees who were aged 55 and
over received formal training from their employers in the 12 months prior to the
survey. In contrast, 78.5% of their counterparts in the 25–34 age group received
formal training from their employers.
Capowski (1994) reports that a study by the AARP found that only three out of
ten companies include older adults in their training programs. A study conducted
by SHRM and AARP (1995) found that 47% of respondents’ organizations
provide training to upgrade skills of older workers. Greller and Stroh (1995)
assert that “the message conveyed to older workers . . . may be that they no longer
have any potential” (p. 235).
Hall and Mirvis (1995) suggest several barriers to career development in the
form of stereotypes about older workers. Among them is the perception that it is
too costly to continue to invest in developing older employees, the belief that the
older worker is too inflexible and difficult to train, and the perception that retrain-
ing for the older worker would represent too much effort for a relatively small
group of employees. And in simulated hiring decisions, age can have a significant
effect on a decision to hire (younger workers being more likely to be hired)
(Haefner, 1977).
There is little experimental research that documents age discrimination in actual
work place decisions or simulated decisions. Simple differences in participation
rates do not reflect direct evidence of discrimination. Several types of decisions
and judgments should be addressed in future research. First, the most overt types
of decisions are those in which a learning-rich job or a training opportunity is
being formally sought and an acceptance (or funding) or rejection decision must
be made. This is the type of decision made in the Rosen and Jerdee studies
described previously. Are older workers’ applications for learning-rich jobs
or requests for training opportunities accepted to the same degree as younger
workers? Likewise, when a temporary job assignment or transfer from an existing
job must be made that will involve a high degree of learning, is an older worker
nominated or chosen for this assignment? Job assignments are a significant source
of development. A related type of judgment is an evaluation of an individual’s
potential for development, and/or his/her learning and development capabilities
as part of a performance appraisal process or perhaps ratings of promotability
or even as part of a reduction in force. Another measure or action might be the
amount of attention and effort devoted to the developmental part of an annual
performance evaluation. Does a judge and feedback-provider invest more effort
into development and future-oriented learning for a younger as opposed to an older
feedback recipient?
Another set of variables has to do with more subtle social effects, including
support or dissuasion from developmental experiences. For example, does a su-
pervisor or co-worker provide encouragement and prodding toward a challenging,
developmental situation or task or is there a subtle “silence” on the part of the
would-be supporter when it comes to considering a challenging task or learning
experience on the part of the older worker? Likewise, another type of action
is informing an older worker of developmental opportunities. If an opportunity
came along to attend a workshop or participate in a challenging skill development
task, does the person pass the information along to an older worker in case
he/she might be interested? Likewise, does a co-worker share recently learned
information and skills with an older person (for example, a new computer software
technique)? Are older workers kept “in the loop” when it comes to learning and
development?
Based on the literature reviewed above along with the research suggestions just
described, several research propositions are given below.
Proposition 1. People in organizational settings who believe that older workers

are typically neither able nor interested in learning and development will be
less likely to:
(a) make decisions that are favorable toward older workers (selection into
learning-rich jobs, acceptance/funding of training requests, choose for a
temporary and learning-rich job assignment or task, etc.);
(b) make judgments that are favorable toward older workers (potential for
development or learning ability judgments made in performance appraisal,
promotability ratings, or human capital judgments made in reductions in
force, etc.);
(c) provide support for learning and development (encouragement and prod-
ding toward challenging learning, informing about opportunities, sharing
of knowledge and skills, etc.).
While some research has shown age effects in decisions and judgments and
other research has documented beliefs that older workers are not able nor
inclined to learn and develop, research has generally not investigated actual
empirical linkages between the beliefs and decisions, judgments and support
constructs described above. Although relationships have been inferred, causal
(or even empirical) relationships have not been investigated directly. Future
research should include both constructs (beliefs and outcomes) in investigations
to determine if they are related. Further, most research has not addressed social
support constructs as outcomes (e.g. encouragement, information sharing, etc.)
despite the fact that these variables may have an influence on older workers’
behavior and work life. Additionally, the Rosen and Jerdee studies that are highly
cited in this area were conducted over 25 years ago. A replication of Rosen and
Jerdee’s (1976b) study conducted by Weiss and Maurer (in press), using primarily
engineering and computer science majors, failed to replicate the original findings,
suggesting that this research may be in need of updating. It is unclear whether
effects in prior literature are cohort-based, or if they will continue to be observed
as time goes on. More current research on the effects of stereotypes is needed
that addresses decisions, judgments and social support involving older workers
in learning and development settings. Perhaps this research can examine different
characteristics of decision-makers and of their contexts for relationships with
age-related stereotypes, and tendency to make age-based decisions and judgments.
Potential Consequences of Beliefs: Behavior by Older Workers Themselves
One unique aspect of this model is that the possibility of stereotypes influencing
behavior by older workers themselves is recognized. Based on the literature,
it seems that stereotypes might indirectly influence behavior of older workers

themselves through a self-fulfilling prophecy. They may influence older workers’
perceptions of what is appropriate or possible for individuals in their age group.
Greller and Stroh (1995) cite Areis – “Like people at other stages in their lives,
older people come to understand what is expected of them by looking for cues and
role definitions provided by others (Aries, 1962; Cole, 1992)” (p. 235). Greller and
Stroh suggest that stereotypes may “influence workers’ concepts of appropriate
aging behavior, which may lead older individuals to conform more closely to
others’ expectations. They may resist taking on challenging work assignments,
for example, or ‘decide to retire’ even though they would rather continue to
work.” (p. 239). Capowski (1994) also cites Denise Loftus (of the AARP) – “In
many cases, older people were passed over for training because it was assumed
that they couldn’t learn – this gets reinforced, and it just becomes a self-fulfilling
prophesy. It’s sad, because the ability to learn continues” (pp. 12–13). Capowski
(1994) asserts that older employees may become disillusioned, and as a result,
unmotivated. Maurer (2001) and Salthouse and Maurer (1996) describe how
exposure to negative age stereotypes may influence older workers’ self-efficacy
or self-confidence for learning and development, a key factor in motivation.
Maurer and Rafuse (2001) describe how a workplace which is not supportive
of the development of older workers could adversely affect the older workers’
“terms, conditions, and privileges of employment,” a legal term used to define
illegal discrimination.
Perceived discrimination may also have influences on older worker’s self-
esteem, personal control, and satisfaction. In a study by Hassell and Perrewe
(1993), perceived age discrimination was measured by assessing employees’
personal experiences with age discrimination in their workplaces. Perceived
discrimination had a significant interaction with age in terms of global self-esteem.
The global self-esteem of older workers who perceived age discrimination was
lower than those who did not. Also, both age and perceived age discrimination had
an interactive effect in relation to personal control. While perceptions of control
generally increased with age, they were found to decrease in cases where age
discrimination was perceived. Older workers who perceived age discrimination
were also less satisfied with growth opportunities.
In a study by Miller, Cox, Gieson, Bean, Adams-Price, Sanderson and Topping
(1993), older employees who believed that perceived performance deterioration
of older employees exists and who perceived preferential treatment of younger
employees were more likely to experience a low degree of job involvement.
Also, older employees who believe that perceived performance deterioration
of older employees exists were more likely to experience alienation from
the job.
Although stereotypical beliefs about older workers’ learning and development

behavior might be possessed by older workers themselves, this is not to say that
all older workers or even most of them will have strong stereotypical beliefs.
Perhaps older workers would be less likely to possess strong beliefs along these
lines. However, there may be individual differences in the degree to which all
people possess these beliefs, including older workers. Possessing these beliefs
to varying degrees may be related to actions by the older workers. To the extent
that older workers believe that, in general, older workers do have more difficulty
and also generally are less interested in learning and development, this may affect
their specific beliefs about their own ability to develop and the utility of that
pursuit. However, research has generally not explored these potential linkages,
and more research seems warranted.
It seems likely that these stereotypical beliefs could influence several self-
relevant cognitions and motivationally important variables. As mentioned above,
stereotypes may influence self-efficacy for development, to the extent that such
stereotypes help persuade the person that he/she is less capable of performing
learning tasks or serve as abstract “models” depicting older workers as incom-
petent (Bandura, 1997; Maurer, 2001; Salthouse & Maurer, 1996). Likewise, as
older workers look to their context for role definitions and appropriate behavior
(Greller & Stroh, 1995), stereotypes may influence self-concepts regarding
learning-relevant capabilities. Further, stereotypical beliefs that older workers
typically cannot develop and do not want to develop may lower perceptions by
older workers that engaging in learning and development will be intrinsically
rewarding or that financial and tangible rewards are linked to that activity. These
are two perceived benefits that have been tied to motivation and participation
in development (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). To the extent that both self-efficacy
and perceived rewards are lower, motivation and interest in development should
also be lower.
Proposition 2. Older workers who possess beliefs that aging workers typically
are not able nor interested in learning and development will have lower
self-relevant cognitions related to learning (e.g. self-concept as “developer,”
lower self-efficacy for development, fewer perceived personal benefits for
development such as intrinsic or extrinsic rewards), and their motivation and
participation in development will also be lower.
Additionally, although research has addressed predictors of retirement such as
finances, work characteristics, and non-work characteristics (cf. Beehr et al.,
2000), research has generally not investigated the potential effects of stereotypical
beliefs about learning and development capability in relation to this decision. This
is critical because learning and development are getting increasingly important
for job performance in the work place. Based on the literature described above,
beliefs about the appropriateness of learning and development for older workers
may impact subsequent intentions for job-related behavior, including continuing
to work.
Proposition 3. Older workers employed in jobs requiring learning who possess
beliefs that aging workers typically are not able nor interested in learning and
development will be more likely to have intentions to retire sooner than older
workers who do not possess these beliefs, holding other predictors of retirement
constant.
In summary, more research on this topic is clearly needed. It appears that not only
may beliefs exist that older workers are neither able nor inclined to successfully
pursue learning and development activities at work, but also there may be serious
consequences of such beliefs. Such beliefs may contribute to a lack of access
to and support for learning and development activities and resources by older
workers, self-fulfilling prophecies, reduced motivation, and higher probability of
withdrawal (e.g. retirement). Additionally, if older workers are not maintaining
and developing knowledge and skills, then this could represent a significant
liability for employing organizations.
Although literature does suggest the existence of these beliefs and the potential
effects they have, there is relatively less understanding of the specific origins and
basis for these beliefs. In this model, the possible antecedents of such beliefs are
outlined next. An understanding of antecedents is likely to be helpful for providing
ideas for future research and clues on how to affect the beliefs in practice.
Antecedents of Beliefs About Older Workers’ Ability and

Inclination to Learn/Develop
This section will describe three major categories of factors that will have an influ-
ence on beliefs about older workers’ ability and inclination to learn and develop:
Experience and promulgation, Perceived learning and development inhibitors
internal to the older worker, and Perceived learning and development inhibitors ex-
ternal to the older worker. These antecedents are posited to be based on aggregated
experiences and information which lead to beliefs about typical behavior (e.g. older
workers in general). However, in a later section of this paper these antecedents
will also be contrasted with another key component of the model: Individuating
information and knowledge of within-group variability. This information can
operate to attenuate the influence of beliefs about typical behavior of older
workers on behavior by administrators and behavior by older workers themselves.
Experience and Promulgation
The first category of influences on the belief that older workers cannot and do
not want to develop is “Experience and Promulgation.” This category consists
of three influences. These influences are: first-hand observations of stereotype-
consistent or confirming behavior, insufficient information to disconfirm or negate
the stereotype, and promulgation of the stereotype by others.
First-hand observations of stereotype-consistent behavior can come from many
different sources. Observation of instances of failure and/or lack of participation
or interest on the part of an older person at work can have a very strong effect
on an individual’s beliefs. The fact that some older workers do not participate in
training as often as younger adults also helps to reduce the number of available
stereotype-disconfirming instances. Rosen, Williams and Foltman (1965) reported
that younger adults are more likely to volunteer for training. Cleveland and Shore
(1992) reported that age was negatively related to developmental experiences.
Tucker (1985) investigated training needs of technology and management workers
in the U.S. Geological Survey. Most of the workers indicated that their last
training experience was less than one year ago. The majority of those who
answered “more than three years ago” were in the sixty and over age group. Warr
(1994b) reported from the 1991 Labor Force Survey that the proportion of older
workers participating in job-related training in the last four weeks and the hours
of off-the-job training in the last week declined across age. In the 1992, Institute
of Management Survey, age predicted training incidence and duration negatively
irrespective of tenure. Those under forty reported a median of ten days training
in 1991; those over sixty reported half as many days. This difference was due
to activities during work time. Days of training activities on their own time were
the same.
Some older workers may not be able to succeed in training under the same
conditions as younger workers. Studies conducted in laboratory settings using
real-world training simulations have demonstrated several adjustments that may
be necessary for older trainees to succeed. Using exercises that are self-paced
rather than those with a time limit (Gomez, Egan & Bowers, 1986), allowing
plenty of time (Elias, Elias, Robbins & Gage, 1987; Siemen, 1976; Zandri &
Charness, 1989), different social contexts for training (Zandri & Charness, 1989),
having plenty of help available (Elias, Elias, Robbins & Gage, 1987), and reducing
stress associated with the training environment (Jamieson, 1969) are all strategies
that may facilitate older workers’ performance in training. In traditional training
situations where such accommodations are not available, some older learners’
performance may suffer, providing a situation in which the stereotype of older
learners as less capable will be supported.
Regardless of the underlying reasons, the point remains that older adults are
viewed less frequently in training and development situations, and their perfor-
mance may be, on average, lower than that of their younger colleagues (Kubeck,
Delp, Haslett & McDaniel, 1996). This can have a profound impact on one’s beliefs
about older workers’ capability and motivation for professional development.
People may, in addition to observing stereotype-supporting situations, lack
the information they need to invalidate their beliefs. Research on stereotypes
has put forth several ways in which individuals may end up with a lack of
information to disconfirm their stereotypes. People may be more likely to attend
to things that confirm their stereotype, so they may not remember disconfirming
occurrences even when they are available. People may attend longer to confirming
than to disconfirming information, and prefer to receive stereotype-confirming
information when given a choice (Erber & Fiske, 1984; Neuberg & Fiske, 1987;
Ruscher & Fiske, 1990). Individuals may also encode less information when they
can use existing stereotypes to fill in missing information, so even if disconfirming
information is available, it may not be encoded and thus, may not be remembered
(Von Hippel et al., 1993). So even if there are disconfirming instances available
(older adults engaging in development, etc.), people may preferentially recall the
instances in which the stereotype is confirmed.
Even recognizing and remembering a few notable exceptions need not change
the more global stereotype. If an individual creates a “subgroup,” or a smaller
stereotype within the larger main stereotype, then the main stereotype can stay
intact. For example, if an individual knows an older employee who has attended
multiple training seminars on computer use and is an expert user, he may classify
this older adult as a sort of “exception to the rule” and place him in his own category
away from other older adults. This subgrouping process is especially likely when
the subgrouped individual does not fit the existing stereotype in other ways too
(Lambert, 1995), because then he is not seen as being representative of the larger
stereotyped group. In order for disconfirming information to have an impact on an
individual’s stereotype, it must be widely dispersed throughout several members
of the group who are typical of the group in other ways (Crocker, Hannah &
Weber, 1983; Hewstone, Johnston & Aird, 1992; Hewstone et al., 1994; Johnston
& Hewstone, 1992). In this way, subgrouping may perpetuate the stereotype, even
in the face of contradictory behavior by a few individuals (Allport, 1954).
Another phenomenon that would make stereotype-confirming incidents more
salient than disconfirming ones occurs within the context of ingroup–outgroup
perceptions. For example, if younger workers see themselves as part of a “younger
worker” ingroup and place older workers into an outgroup, the younger workers
will thus perceive older workers as having very little variability as a group
(Mullen & Hu, 1989). This would mean that a single instance of an older worker’s
failure in training or absence from a training program would be very likely to

be integrated into the younger worker’s stereotype of older workers as a group.
Since the outgroup is perceived as having little variability, the actions of a single
member are easily generalized to the rest of the group (Judd, Ryan & Park, 1991).
In cases in which sufficient motivation is present, people can sometimes
override their automatic stereotypical response (Fiske, 1998). However, if one
is not exposed to older workers engaging in various development activities and
being successful in them, or does not encode this information when it is present,
they will not have enough disconfirming information available to process.
One can also be exposed to stereotypical beliefs through statements of opinion
by others. This type of stereotype promulgation might occur in the context of
explicit managerial justification (i.e. not allocating money for training older
workers), or it could occur implicitly as an employee notices that older adults
are not selected to attend training. It could also occur more directly when others
express the stereotype-consistent opinions directly through statements that older
workers are too hard to train (e.g. “old dog, new tricks”) or don’t want to learn (e.g.
“stuck in their ways”). According to social information processing theory (Zalesny
& Ford, 1990), attitudes and ideas in the work environment can have a powerful
effect on an individual’s own development of or adherence to similar attitudes.
Although it seems likely that experience with stereotype-consistent behavior
and promulgation of the belief by others should have an effect on the belief
that older workers are not able nor motivated to learn and develop, little or no
research has examined these linkages. Research on this seems needed. Based on
this discussion, the following propositions are offered.
Proposition 4a. First-hand experiences and observations of older workers per-
forming lower in training and learning experiences and not participating in
learning and development experiences will increase the beliefs that older work-
ers are not able nor interested in learning and development.
Proposition 4b. Promulgation of the beliefs by others at work will increase the
stereotypical beliefs by observers.
Perceived Internal Inhibitors
This category of influences includes both the beliefs about general changes or
differences with age in mental and physical characteristics as well as changes in
motives that may be relevant to many domains of behavior, including learning
and development at work. These beliefs are antecedents or contributors but are
conceptually distinct from the belief about learning and development activities.
That is, one’s beliefs about the decline of abilities with age and the controllability
of these changes, general physical and mental health stereotypes, and beliefs about
interests, needs, values, or motives may have implications for many behaviors,
including training and development. Thus, these more general age-related beliefs
could contribute to beliefs that older workers are not able and/or interested when
it comes to learning and developing at work. This set of factors is a potentially
important influence, especially since these factors involve negatively valenced
personal characteristics of the older worker that may be considered stable personal
and dispositional aspects of the person (Pettigrew, 1979).
In fact, there is good reason to believe that individuals may hold many negative
beliefs about older people. Nuessel (1982) looked at terms in society that are
used to describe older individuals and found that they were overwhelmingly
negative. Nussbaum and Robinson (1984) examined fifty articles from popular
magazines in order to observe the portrayal of aging and they were found to
reinforce negative stereotypes held by the population in general. In fact, people
may hold beliefs about older people in many different domains (e.g. physical
characteristics, health, personality, social characteristics, emotions, cf. Schmidt
& Boland, 1986), and many (though not all) of these beliefs may be negative.
To the extent that these domains have implications for learning and development
behavior, they may have implications for beliefs about that behavior.
For example, research has shown that aging people may be increasingly likely
to be thought of as being forgetful, absentminded, or slower (Heckhausen, Dixon
& Baltes, 1989; MacNeil, Ramos & Magafas, 1996), less creative (Rosen &
Jerdee, 1976b), and possessing lower physical abilities (Netz & Ben-Sira, 1993;
Rosen & Jerdee, 1976b; Slotterback & Saarnio, 1996). In fact, there may be a high
consensus about the nature of expected changes during adulthood, and research
has suggested that people believe that there is an increasingly larger proportion of
expected losses and fewer expected gains associated with older ages. Heckhausen
and Baltes (1991) show that increases in undesirable attributes were expected to
be more likely in older adulthood and that aging-related increases in undesirable
attributes may be less controllable (e.g. nothing can be done to mitigate the
negative changes). Research has shown a relationship between one’s age and a
perception of decline in memory abilities (Ryan & See, 1993; see Dixon, 1989, for
a review), and has also shown a decline in various cognitive reasoning capabilities
with age (Verhaeghen & Salthouse, 1997).
Other research has suggested that the motives and needs of older people may
change (cf. Salthouse & Maurer, 1996). Learning, growth and challenge may
have less importance to older workers as suggested in a meta-analysis by Engle,
Miguel, Steelman and McDaniel (1994) in which small mean age differences
in growth needs were observed. Hall and Mansfield (1975) reported that the
importance of esteem, security, and affiliation increased with age while the
importance of self-actualization decreased. Markus and Herzog (1991) assert that
older adults may have a greater interest in the prevention of feared outcomes and
a lesser interest in occupational or career-oriented goals.
If people perceive negative changes to occur with age in general characteristics
of the person which are also relevant to learning and development at work, these
general beliefs may lead one to hold the more specific beliefs that older workers
are not very capable of successful learning and development due to declines in
these key characteristics. Further, to the extent that the general motives or needs
of older people are perceived to change, beliefs about their interest in pursuing
learning and self-development activities may change in kind. Moreover, if people
believe these changes are not controllable or changeable, then it is likely they
will be perceived as stable, internal to the individual and potentially capable
of negatively influencing development. Research has generally not examined
these types of variables for relationships with beliefs about the learning and
development behavior of older workers.
Proposition 5. Those people who have greater beliefs in general age-related
decline of mental and physical characteristics will be more likely to possess the
more specific beliefs that older workers are less likely to be able and willing to
learn and develop at work.
Note that research should attempt to identify which specific types of mental
or physical characteristics are most closely associated with beliefs about
development behavior. At this point, the literature provides very little guidance.
Perceived External Inhibitors
This category includes beliefs about organizational and social processes outside
of the older person that inhibit his/her ability and motivation to learn and develop
at work. This includes a perceived lack of access to training and development
resources by older workers as well as discriminatory practices. These perceptions
may contribute to the belief that older workers have great difficulty at learning and
development. Likewise, perceived social and organizational constraints such as less
frequent membership in important social networks, less support or incentives from
colleagues, superiors, or non-work social members with respect to learning and
development may also contribute significantly to a belief that older workers will
not learn and develop effectively at work, nor be interested in that goal. When the
context is perceived to impede the person, it is likely that observers’ expectations
for success by the person will be eroded.
Maurer and Tarulli (1996) found that subordinates and peers of managers
within an organization were more likely to believe that the managers were capable
of developing their skills to the extent that they also believed the managers had
social support for development, had access to resources that would help the
mangers develop, and also had time available to them at work which they could
use to improve and develop their skills. While this research can be applied to
employees of any age, it has particular relevance to this model in that it suggests
that beliefs about important factors in another employee’s work context may
influence beliefs about that person’s ability to develop. That is, perceived external
inhibitors in an individual’s environment can impact others’ perceptions of him or
her. Applied to older workers, it implies that if people believe there are external
constraints on an older person’s pursuit of learning and development at work, they
logically are likely to believe that the older worker is less likely to be able to learn
and develop.
Stagner (1985) reviews some research that suggests that people are aware
of discriminatory treatment and obstacles that older workers may face when it
comes to the pursuit of training. Mercer (1981) reported that 61% of a sample
of executives agreed that older workers are discriminated against, although these
executives denied that such discrimination took place in their own firms. Likewise,
Tieger (1994) notes that “the well known and rather widespread consequences
(of prejudice against older workers in terms of their learning capabilities) are that
workers are then excluded . . . especially from access to the continuous training
given in companies” (p. 79). Older workers may also be confronted with dimin-
ishing social support from others regarding their learning and development, and
social support has been shown to be significantly related to employee development
activities (Maurer & Tarulli, 1996; Noe & Wilk, 1993; Tharenou, Latimer &
Conroy, 1994). Likewise, older workers are less likely to receive career counseling
from supervisors (Cleveland & Shore, 1992). Kram and Isabella (1985) suggest
that older workers may not form peer relationships that would lead to psychosocial
support.
Adding to the potential problem of restricted access is the fact that many
managers think that the amount it would cost to train older employees would not
be recovered because their potential years of service to the company are fewer
(Stagner, 1985; Warr, 1994a). That is, training older workers is not seen as being
worth the investment. Fossum, Arvey and Paradise (1986) discusses this dilemma
with regard to human capital theory. Fossum et al. suggest that from a managerial
standpoint, organizations must decide which employees will receive specific
human capital (SHC) investments, and these judgments may consider the rate of
return expected on the investment. From this point of view, older workers may be
considered more prone to obsolescence.
Perceptions of decreasing access to resources, impediments, diminishing

incentives and a shrinking support for workers’ learning and development with
age may contribute to a belief that older workers will find it difficult to learn and
develop, and they may not have much interest in this pursuit. Thus, perceived
inhibitors external to the older worker may also contribute to beliefs that he/she
is not able or does not want to develop and learn.
Proposition 6. Those people who hold greater beliefs that organizational and
social processes generally inhibit older workers’ learning and development
behavior will be more likely to possess the beliefs that older workers are
typically less able and willing to learn and develop at work.
Although it seems that the antecedents described above should have effects on the
stereotypical beliefs, and as discussed previously, the beliefs could have effects
on important outcomes (behavior by others, behavior by older workers), it also
seems likely that people can possess individuating information and knowledge of
within-group variability, and that this information/knowledge could attenuate the
effects that stereotypical beliefs will have.
Individuating Information and Knowledge of Within-(Older) Group Variability
It is important to note that many stereotypes have some truth as a basis. There
are older workers who have difficulty learning and/or who have lost interest in
learning and developing at work. However, there are younger workers with these
characteristics too. Most importantly, the variation in ability and desire among
older workers is notable.
When considering the experience and promulgation effects discussed above, it
is important to examine certain data reported in the meta-analysis by Kubeck et al.
(1996) that addressed age differences in training performance. Those authors
reported that in 35 of the 43 samples providing variance data, the variance for older
adults’ performance was larger than for younger adults. They suggest that this
indicates greater individual differences among older adults than among younger
adults. In light of these results, the characteristics of individuals need to be con-
sidered independently from aggregate findings about a group of which he or she
is a member.
Further, the study by Kubeck et al. (1996) found that although there was a
negative relationship between age and training mastery performance (−0.26),
based on data from five samples and three studies there was a negative relationship
between age and pretraining competence of similar size (−0.21). This suggests
that much if not all of the performance differences associated with age after
training could be accounted for by existing competence differences before

training. There was little data available to directly reflect actual amount learned
in training (gain scores), but available data from four studies showed only a
comparatively much smaller negative relationship (−0.09) between age and
amount learned in training. This suggests that existing cohort differences between
age groups (e.g. education, experience/skill with technology, etc.) might be
causing the pretraining differences. This means that if equally competent older
and younger workers are selected for training, the negative effects on success
might be much smaller. In a later study, Warr, Allan and Birdi (1999) found
that knowledge gain scores before and after training were associated with age
−0.25 (p < 0.01), although the association could be accounted for in multivariate
analyses by other variables. The authors linked that finding to age differences
in constructs such as technical qualification, use of a help-seeking learning
strategy, and learning confidence. Those authors found no age differences in later
behavior on the job in terms of frequency of use of the learned technology, a goal
of the training.
These facts from the Kubeck et al. (1996) meta-analysis and the Warr et al.
(1999) study have important implications. First, there is great variability within
groups of older workers in training performance – more so than younger workers.
This means that group averages do not represent older individuals very well,
and thus, stereotypes based on averages may not be very accurate in describing
individual behavior. Second, if individual differences are considered in selecting
people for training (e.g. pre-training competence and other training-relevant
characteristics), the negative age effects suggested in this prior research may be
significantly smaller. Knowledge of the variability and individuating effects should
help to attenuate effects of group-based stereotypes on assessments of individuals.
To the extent that there is individuating information provided about an
individual, the impact of stereotypes may be reduced. In the meta-analysis on age
discrimination effects by Finkelstein, Burke and Raju (1995), one study looked
at the effects of providing positive information about both older and younger
targets. In this study, older workers about whom there was positive information
got higher ratings on potential for development, as opposed to findings in other
research which found lower ratings when positive information was not provided.
Further, directly relevant to effects of perceived internal inhibitors discussed
above, in an analysis of results from several studies published in Psychology and
Aging and the Journal of Gerontology (Morse, 1993) reported that older adults
as a group are more variable than younger groups in basic and general abilities
like memory, fluid intelligence and reaction time. This suggests that there are
more differences among older people in general abilities relevant to learning and
development than among younger people. Further, differences in motivational
constructs such as growth needs that are associated with age are quite small (Engle
et al., 1994), bringing to question the importance of the any mean differences in
defining older adults as a group.
Finally, although literature discussed above illustrated that external inhibitors
such as social exclusion and discriminatory practices might affect older workers’
ability and inclination to learn and develop, it is possible that individuating
information regarding potential inhibitors within one’s own organization may
lead people to perceive it as being free from ageism. For example, as discussed
in Stagner (1985), 61% of a sample of executives agreed that older workers are
discriminated against, although the executives denied that such discrimination
took place in their own firms. There are steps that organizations can take to rid
their cultures of ageism and perceived roadblocks for older workers (cf. Maurer,
2001; Maurer & Rafuse, 2001).
This discussion is not meant in any way to suggest that there are not important
age differences and changes that could negatively affect learning and development
behavior by older workers. In fact, there is research to suggest that negative
age-related effects do exist that are both meaningful and potentially practically
significant (cf. Kubeck et al., 1996). However, it is interesting to contrast the
literature on aging, which reflects important differences in performance and
personal characteristics between older and younger groups, with literature on
race and sex. In literature on race and sex differences, there are also important
differences in certain job-relevant characteristics such as general mental ability
or physical strength. However, just as important in that literature is the idea that
people should be treated as individuals because of wide variability within race and
sex category. Stereotypical ideas that broadly portray members of those categories
in an unfavorable light are offensive. However, as reported by Maurer and
Rafuse (2001), although most employees are very sensitive to sexism and racism,
somehow the idea that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” does not seem to
carry the same taboo status in society and the work place. It is just as important
in this area to be sensitive to the fact that one size does not fit all, and there can be
older individuals who are both interested in and able when it comes to learning.
Given this discussion, it appears that some research has found significant
variability in training performance by older workers and also important age
differences in preexisting competence and other variables which may account for
performance differences at the conclusion of training. Other research has exam-
ined the influence of individuating information on age discrimination in ratings of
potential for development. Still other research has found larger variability in basic
and general abilities like memory, reaction time and fluid intelligence among
older people. Also, in the literature it has been illustrated that steps can be taken
to attempt to rid an organization of ageism and to potentially reduce perceptions
that there are constraints on older workers’ learning and development. However,
no research has examined the interrelationships of: (a) beliefs about older workers
ability and inclination to develop; (b) knowledge of the performance variability
within older groups in training and in basic, general abilities and motives; (c)
individuating information about specific older workers; (d) actions taken by orga-
nizations to eliminate perceptions of constraints on older workers; and (e) behavior
by observers or older workers themselves. Based on the discussion above, several
predictions seem possible.
Proposition 7. Higher amounts of individuating information regarding specific
older workers’ ability and desire for learning and also knowledge about within-
(older)group variability in relevant characteristics will:
(a) be associated with weaker beliefs that older workers are typically unable
and unwilling to learn and develop;
(b) attenuate the effect of the stereotypical beliefs on behavior by others and
by older workers. Higher amounts of individuating knowledge about the
organization’s attempts to eliminate constraints on older workers in learning
and development will have similar effects.
Processes and Tactics that Should Provide Individuating Information and

Knowledge of Within-(Older) Group Variability
There are numerous reasons to avoid stereotype-based decisions and actions in the
area of training and development. First, there are potential legal implications in
this area (Maurer & Rafuse, 2001), and avoiding litigation is always a motivator.
Second, differential treatment may have implications for the effectiveness of older
workers themselves, given the importance of continuous learning at work. Third,
utilization of the human resources offered by older workers is a key opportunity in a
very tight workforce increasingly populated by larger numbers of older workers. A
good business case can be made for effectively managing this aspect of workforce
diversity.
While the review above highlights places where research is necessary, the
review and framework provide some basis for tentatively offering ideas for
dealing with age stereotypes in the workforce. Specifically, in the previous section
of this paper, individuating information and knowledge of within older-group
variability was described as key to dealing with older workers as individuals
and to attenuating the effects that general stereotypical beliefs may have. In the
next section of this paper, several processes and tactics will be outlined that
may provide this knowledge. These will be covered within the three categories
of factors proposed to contribute to the stereotypical beliefs: Experience and

Promulgation, Perceived Internal Inhibitors, and Perceived External Inhibitors.
Experience and Promulgation

In the “Experience and Promulgation” category, the key is to provide the
information that people need to move beyond their general stereotypical beliefs.
Research in the stereotyping literature provides support for the idea that increasing
the individuality of members of the “other” group can reduce inter-group dis-
crimination. For example, in a simulated group situation, people were less likely
to discriminate against an outgroup when they were told that the group did not
unanimously agree on something; knowledge of even one dissenter was enough
to reduce the amount of discrimination (Wilder, 1978). Lee and Clemons (1985)
reported that, in a simulated employment decision context, interviewers made
more favorable decisions about older applicants when they had specific behavioral
performance information about that individual. Taylor, Crino and Rubenfeld
(1989) found that actually having worked with older employees was related to
more positive impressions of job performance of workers over age sixty-five,
suggesting that actual exposure to and contact with older workers has enhanced
impressions of members of that group.
From this kind of research, we can conclude that stereotypical information
is most diagnostic when little or no other information is available to the person
forming the impression. When additional information becomes available about
an individual, he or she becomes less a member of a uniform group and more an
individual. Taylor et al. (1989) suggested that perhaps employers should assign
older workers to jobs involving frequent interactions with younger workers. Along
these lines, perhaps managers should mix older workers and younger workers in
work teams to increase exposure and interaction to foster the perception of older
workers as individuals.
In addition, organizations should strive to ensure that employees are considered
for work-related opportunities based on their individual qualifications and char-
acteristics, rather than on group-based stereotypes or impressions. For example,
explicit individual development plans and discussions with all employees may
help to develop perceptions of each worker as an individual and avoid assumptions
based on age (cf. Maurer & Rafuse, 2001).
Another important strategy for reducing promulgation of stereotypes is to
reduce the amount of ageism in an organization. This can be done by “signaling
the inappropriateness of ageist remarks, jokes and attitudes just as you would
for racist or sexist ones” (Maurer, 2001, p. 135). Ageism should be incorporated
into the company diversity awareness curriculum. Maurer and Rafuse (2001)
suggest providing training for managers concerning the Age Discrimination and
Employment Act (ADEA) and the possible effects of stereotypes. This may be
another strategy for decreasing promulgation of stereotypes in an organization.
Perceived Internal Inhibitors

With regard to internal inhibitors, it seems critical to provide an education to
employees in some form regarding the idea that the variability within groups is
much greater than the variability between groups, just as efforts have been made
in dealing with race and sex. As with any group, older people posses a wide range
of abilities related to training and development. While age-related differences
between older and younger groups are present, in any one group, people of all ages
would likely be performing at many different levels, and quite possibly some older
workers could be outperforming younger ones. Steps could be taken to include
information regarding the variability among older workers in company diversity
awareness programs. Perhaps through exposure to effective older workers in work
groups or teams, the knowledge could also be obtained.
Perceived External Inhibitors

Because external inhibitors are largely environmental characteristics, one way
these can be addressed is through formal policies and procedures. Ensuring ad-
equate training opportunities at all ages and in all levels of the company would
imply an open training system. The organization needs to create an environment
of equal access for all employees to receive the training they need. Maurer and
Rafuse (2001) summarize ways in which organizations can scrutinize management
practices and policies to ensure equal treatment of older workers in training and
development, avoiding the pitfalls of stereotype-based actions. For example, man-
agers can be rewarded for meeting employee training and development goals of
all employees. Upward feedback systems can help monitor managers’ success in
developing their employees. Also, employees should receive feedback regarding
their development behavior, and goals for future behavior should be set. These
actions serve to encourage the learning and development of all employees. They
also ensure that the organization is perceived as one that provides learning and
development to all employees, including older workers. This serves to decrease
the number of perceived external inhibitors to the development of older workers.
Each of these three categories of recommendations has a place in a company
or organizations’ larger effort to reduce unfair treatment of its employees. Many
of the ideas presented here might be folded into a training program designed to
reduce stereotyping. Special training could be given to personnel decision-makers
regarding appropriate use of individuating information in selection, promotion,
and training situations.
Proposition 8. Tactics and processes that provide: (1) exposure to successfully-

performing older workers actively learning/developing; (2) information about
the variability of older workers’ learning-relevant attributes and motives; and
(3) information that reflects a lack of ageism and obstacles to development
in an organization will increase the amount of individuating information and
knowledge of within-(older) group variability that people possess.
Additional Considerations for Future Research
While the above propositions provide a multitude of opportunities for exploration

into the area of stereotypical beliefs about older workers’ ability and desire
to develop, there are also a number of methodological issues which warrant
consideration. As mentioned earlier, there has been considerable disagreement
among researchers as to what constitutes an “older worker.” According to
Ashbaugh and Fay (1987) a variety of mostly arbitrary methods have been used
to define the threshold age. Perhaps careful attention in future research can be
given to operationalizing the term “older worker.” Ashbaugh and Fay’s (1987)
finding that the mean age used to define older worker was 53.4 years provides a
useful starting point; however, it may be difficult to identify an age that applies to
every setting. The relative ages of others in a given setting or industry (Cleveland,
Shore & Murphy, 1997; Lawrence, 1984) may make a widely generalizable
definition of “older” elusive. Research which explores constructs such as relative
age in relation to individual, situational, motivational and employee development
constructs may help to further delineate age-related constructs as they specifically
relate to the learning and development of older workers (cf. Maurer, Weiss &
Barbeite, 2003).
Another methodological issue mentioned earlier is the range of research
participants age. The majority of research examining perceptions of older workers
seems to have been conducted using undergraduate students (Finkelstein, Burke &
Raju, 1995). While undergraduates serve as a very valuable research population,
perceptions of older workers’ ability and desire to develop should be examined
using participants of varying ages, and more work using adults beyond traditional
college age is needed. In order to obtain maximum generalizability a variety of age
groups including older workers themselves should be included in such research.
This is particularly important given that there is some evidence to suggest that
younger people and older people may differ in their perceptions of older workers
(Finkelstein, Burke & Raju, 1995). It may also be important to examine any rele-
vant cohort or period effects. That is, are perceptions of older workers such as those
studied by Rosen and Jerdee almost thirty years ago similar to those found among
people today? Do Baby Boomers and Gen X’ers perceive older workers differently?
Legislation such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act may also have had
an impact on people’s beliefs about older workers, resulting in cohort effects. A
replication of Rosen and Jerdee’s (1976b) study conducted by Weiss and Maurer
(in press), failed to replicate the original findings, suggesting that this research may
be in need of updating. The use of a wide range of participants and the investigation
of cohort effects could help to further understand perceptions of older workers’
ability and desire to develop and to establish important boundary conditions
for findings.
Finally, it would be useful to attempt to bridge the gap between research
on perceptions of older workers’ capabilities (and perceptions of declines) and
research on actual capabilities and declines. Knowing where stereotypes depart
significantly from actual, mean trends in performance data and where they
do seem to correspond to true group differences might be useful not only in
enhancing understanding, but also as a point of departure in working to manage
both older workers and those who work with them.
General Summary
Given the importance of continuous learning and development for both workers
and organizations, combined with an increasing number of older workers in the
workforce, the issue of training and development of older workers is increasingly
critical. However, stereotypical beliefs exist which portray older workers as typi-
cally unable and uninterested in learning and development. These beliefs may have
detrimental effects not only on evaluators and decision-makers in organizations,
but also possibly older workers themselves. Therefore, an understanding of the
origins and basis for these beliefs is important, as is an understanding of how the
effects of these beliefs on individuals can be attenuated. A model was presented in
the current paper which is intended to enhance understanding of these beliefs and
which may help guide future research on this topic. The framework also provides
some suggestions for dealing with these beliefs in practice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Conference of
the Academy of Management, Washington, DC, August 2001. Preparation of
this article was partially supported by National Institute on Aging grant R01
AG1 4655.
REFERENCES
AARP (1995). American business and older workers: A road map to the 21st century. Washington,
DC: DYG.
AARP (2000). American business and older employees. Washington, DC: Author.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life. New York: Vintage Press.
Ashbaugh, D. L., & Fay, C. H. (1987). The threshold for aging in the workplace. Research on Aging,
9, 417–427.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Beehr, T. A., Glazer, S., Nielson, N. L., & Farmer, S. J. (2000). Work and nonwork predictors of
employees’ retirement ages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 225–260.
Boerlijst, J. (1994). The neglect of growth and development of employees over 40 in organizations:
A managerial and training problem. In: J. Snel & R. Cremer (Eds), Work and Aging: A European
Perspective (pp. 251–271). London: Taylor & Francis.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (1995). Survey of employer-provided training. Washington, DC: Author.
Caplan, L. J., & Schooler, C. (1990). The effects of analogical training models and age on problem-
solving in a new domain. Experimental Aging Research, 16, 151–154.
Capowski, G. (1994). Ageism: The new diversity issue. Management Review, 83, 10–15.
Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. M. (1992). Self and supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 469–484.
Cleveland, J., Shore, L., & Murphy, K. (1997). Person and context oriented perceptual age measures:
Additional evidence of distinctiveness and usefulness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18,
239–251.
Cole, M. (1992). Culture in development. In: M. H. Bornstein, M. E. Lamb et al. (Eds), Developmental
Psychology: An Advanced Textbook (3rd ed., pp. 731–789). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Crocker, J., Hannah, D., & Weber, R. (1983). Person memory and causal attributions. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 55–66.
Dixon, R. A. (1989). Questionnaire research on metamemory and aging: Issues of structure and function.
In: W. L. Poon, D. C. Rubin et al. (Eds), Everyday Cognition in Adulthood and Late Life
(pp. 394–415). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doering, M., Rhodes, S. R., & Schuster, M. (1983). The aging worker. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Downs, S. (1967). Labour turnover in two public service organizations. Occupational Psychology, 41,
137–142.
Elias, P. K., Elias, M. F., Robbins, M. A., & Gage, P. (1987). Acquisition of word-processing skills by
younger, middle-age, and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 2, 340–348.
Engle, E. M., Miguel, R. F., Steelman, L. A., & McDaniel, M. M. (1994, April). The relationship
between age and work needs: A comprehensive research integration. In: H. Sterns (Chair), Age
related differences in work attitudes and behaviors. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Erber, R., & Fiske, S. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709–726.
Finkelstein, L. M., Burke, M. J., & Raju, N. S. (1995). Age discrimination in simulated employment
contexts: An integrative analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 652–663.
Fiske, S. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In: D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey
(Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 357–411). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Forte, C. S., & Hansvick, C. L. (1999). Applicant age as a subjective employability factor: A study of
workers over and under age fifty. Journal of Employment Counseling, 36, 24–34.
Fossum, J. A., Arvey, R. D., Paradise, C. A., & Robbins, N. E. (1986). Modeling the skills obsoles-
cence process: A psychological/economic integration. Academy of Management Review, 11,
362–374.
Fullerton, H. N. (1999, November). Labor force projections to 2008: Steady growth and changing
composition. Monthly Labor Review, 122, 19–32.
Gomez, L. M., Egan, D. E., & Bowers, C. (1986). Learning to use a text-editor: Some learner charac-
teristics that predict success. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 1–23.
Greller, M. M., & Stroh, L. K. (1995). Careers in midlife and beyond: A fallow field in need of
sustenance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 232–247.
Haefner, J. E. (1977). Race, age, sex, and competence as factors in employer selection of the disad-
vantaged. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 199–202.
Hall, D. T., & Mansfield, R. (1975). Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of engineers
and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 201–210.
Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1995). The new career contract: Developing the whole person at midlife
and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 269–289.
Hassell, B. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (1993). An examination of the relationship between older workers’
perceptions of age discrimination and employee psychological states. Journal of Management
Issues, 5, 109–120.
Heckhausen, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1991). Perceived controllabilty of expected psychological change
across adulthood and old age. Journal of Gerontology, 46, 165–173.
Heckhausen, J., Dixon, R. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1989). Gains and losses in development throughout
adulthood as perceived by different age groups. Developmental Psychology, 25, 109–121.
Heron, A., & Chown, S. M. (1961). Aging and the semi-skilled: A survey in manufacturing industry
on Merseyside. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Hewstone, M., Johnston, L., & Aird, P. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: II. Percep-
tions of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22,
235–249.
Hewstone, M., Macrae, C., Griffiths, R., & Milne, A. (1994). Cognitive models of stereotype change:
Measurement, development, and consequences of subtyping. Journal of Experimental Social
Institute of Personnel Management (1993). Age and employment: Policies, attitudes and practice.
London: Institute of Personnel Management.
Jamieson, G. H. (1969). Age, speed, and accuracy: A study in industrial retraining. Industrial Geron-
tology, 8, 50–51.
Johnston, L., & Hewstone, M. (1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: III. Subtyping and the
perceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 28, 360–386.
Judd, C., Ryan, C., & Park, B. (1991). Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 366–379.
Kiechel, W. (1993). How we will work in the year 2000. Fortune, 130, 38–52.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career
development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110–132.
Kubeck, J. E., Delp, N. D., Haslett, T. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). Does job-related training
performance decline with age? Psychology and Aging, 11, 92–107.
Lambert, A. (1995). Stereotypes and social judgment: The consequences of group variability. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 388–403.
Lawrence, B. S. (1984). Age grading: The implicit organizational timetable. Journal of Occupational
Lee, J. A., & Clemons, T. (1985). Factors affecting employment decisions about older workers. Journal
MacNeil, R. D., Ramos, C. I., & Magafas, A. M. (1996). Age stereotyping among college students:
A replication and expansion. Educational Gerontology, 22, 229–243.
Markus, H., & Herzog, R. (1991). The role of the self-concept in aging. Annual Review of Gerontology
and Geriatrics, 11, 110–143.
Maurer, T. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy
for development. Journal of Management, 27, 123–140.
Maurer, T., & Rafuse, N. (2001). Learning not litigating: Managing employee development and avoiding
claims of age discrimination. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 110–121.
Maurer, T., & Tarulli, B. (1994). Perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in
relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 3–14.
Maurer, T., & Tarulli, B. (1996). Acceptance of peer/upward performance appraisal systems: Role of
work context factors and beliefs about managers’ development capability. Human Resource
Maurer, T., Weiss, M., & Barbeite, F. (2003). A model of involvement in work-related learning and
development activity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational and age variables.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(4).
Mercer, W. M. (1981). Employer attitudes: Implications of an aging work force. New York: William
M. Mercer.
Miller, D. M., Cox, S., Gieson, M., Bean, C., Adams-Price, C., Sanderson, P., & Topping, J. S. (1993).
Further development and validation of an age-based equal opportunity measure for organiza-
tions: An operational definition of ecological dissonance. Psychology, A Journal of Human
Morse, C. K. (1993). Does variability increase with age? An archival study of cognitive measures.
Psychology and Aging, 8, 156–164.
Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analytic inte-
gration. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 33–252.
Netz, Y., & Ben-Sira, D. (1993). Attitudes of young people, adults, and older adults from three-
generation families toward the concepts “ideal person,” “youth,” and “old person.” Educational
Gerontology, 19, 607–621.
Neuberg, S., & Fiske, S. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome depen-
dency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Newsham, D. B. (1969). The challenge of change for the adult trainee. Industrial Gerontology, 3,
32–33.
Noe, R., & Wilk, S. (1993). Investigation of factors that influence employees’ participation in devel-
opment activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291–302.
Nuessel, F. H. (1982). The language of ageism. Gerontologist, 22, 273–276.
Nussbaum, J. F., & Robinson, J. D. (1984). Attitudes toward aging. Communication Research Reports,
1, 21–27.
Perry, J. S., & Varney, T. L. (1978). College student’s attitudes toward workers’ competence and age.
Psychological Reports, 42, 1319–1322.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of
prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476.
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1976a). The influence of age stereotypes on managerial decisions. Journal
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1976b). The nature of job-related stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 61, 180–183.
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1977). Too old or not too old? Harvard Business Review, 7, 97–108.
Rosen, N., Williams, L., & Foltman, F. (1965). Motivational constraints in an industrial retraining
program. Personnel Psychology, 18, 65–79.
Ruscher, J., & Fiske, S. (1990). Interpersonal competition can cause individuating processes. Journal
Ryan, E., & See, S. (1993). Age-based beliefs about memory changes for self and others across
adulthood. Journal of Gerontology, 48, 199–201.
Salthouse, T. M., & Maurer, T. J. (1996). Aging, job performance, and career development. In: J. E.
Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds), The Handbook of Aging (pp. 353–364). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Schmidt, D. F., & Boland, S. M. (1986). Structure of perceptions of older adults: Evidence for multiple
stereotypes. Psychology and Aging, 1, 255–260.
Siemen, J. R. (1976). Programmed material as a training tool for older persons. Industrial Gerontology,
3, 183–190.
Simon, R. (1996). Too damn old. Money, 25, 118–126.
Slotterback, C. S., & Saarnio, D. A. (1996). Attitudes toward older adults reported by young adults:
Variation based on attitudinal task and attribute categories. Psychology and Aging, 11, 563–
571.
Society for Human Resource Management/AARP (1998). Older workers survey.
Stagner, R. (1985). Aging in industry. In: J. Birren & W. Schaie (Eds), Handbook of Psychology of
Aging (2nd ed., pp. 789–817). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Taylor, G. S., Crino, M. D., & Rubenfeld, S. (1989). Coworker attributes as potential correlates to the
perceptions of older workers’ job performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Business and
Tharenou, P., Latimer, S., & Conroy, D. (1994). How do you make it to the top? An examination of
influences on women and men managerial advancement. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
899–931.
Tieger, C. (1994). We are all aging workers: For an interdisciplinary approach to aging at work. In:
J. Snel & R. Cremer (Eds), Work and Aging: A European Perspective (pp. 65–84). London:
Taylor & Francis.
Tucker, F. D. (1985). A study of the training needs of older workers: Implications for human resources
development planning. Public Personnel Management Journal, 14, 85–95.
Verhaeghen, P., & Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Meta-analyses of age-cognition relations in adulthood:
Estimates of linear and nonlinear age effects and structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
122, 231–249.
Von Hippel, W., Jonides, J., Hilton, J., & Narayan, S. (1993). Inhibitory effect of schematic processing
on perceptual encoding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 921–935.
Warr, P. B. (1994a). Age and employment. In: H. C. Triandis & M. D. Dunnette (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 485–550). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol-
ogists Press.
Warr, P. (1994b). Training for older managers. Human Resource Management Journal, 4(2), 22–38.
Warr, P., Allan, C., & Birdi, K. (1999). Predicting three levels of training outcome. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 351–375.
Weiss, E., & Maurer, T. (in press). Age discrimination in personnel decisions: A reexamination and
extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Wilder, D. A. (1978). Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1361–1374.
Zalesny, M., & Ford, J. (1990). Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to
attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
47, 205–246.
Zandri, E., & Charness, N. (1989). Training older and younger adults to use software. Educational
Gerontology, 15, 615–631.
CURRENT DIRECTIONS AND ISSUES
IN PERSONNEL SELECTION AND
CLASSIFICATION
Walter C. Borman, Jerry W. Hedge, Kerri L. Ferstl,

Jennifer D. Kaufman, William L. Farmer
and Ronald M. Bearden
ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a contemporary view of state-of-the science research
and thinking done in the areas of selection and classification. It takes as a
starting point the observation that the world of work is undergoing important
changes that are likely to result in different occupational and organizational
structures. In this context, we review recent research on criteria, especially
models of job performance, followed by sections on predictors, including
ability, personality, vocational interests, biodata, and situational judgment
tests. The paper also discusses person-organization fit models, as alternatives
or complements to the traditional person-job fit paradigm.
INTRODUCTION
The world of work is in the midst of profound changes that are likely to result in
different occupational and organizational structures in the future. Technological

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22007-7
287
288 WALTER C. BORMAN ET AL.
modernization will only accelerate these changes. Changing technologies will

alter the nature of work, with workers required to adjust to new equipment and
procedures, adapt to ever-changing environments, and continue to enhance their
job-related skills. Some have speculated that there will be no stable jobs in the
future; instead, work will be organized around specific projects and initiatives
that workers will move to and from (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Pearlman, 1995).
This means much more fluidity in the way jobs are performed. Flexibility and
adaptability will be necessary to deal effectively with these less well-defined
roles.
As organizations increasingly operate in a wide and varied set of situations,
cultures, and environments, workers will likely need to be more versatile and able to
handle a wider variety of diverse and complex tasks. In an age of rapid technological
changes and globalization, individuals will be required to be in a continual learning
mode. Recognizing that fundamentally new ways of thinking and acting will be
necessary to meet these dramatic changes, one critically important intervention,
and the focus of this paper, is personnel selection and classification.
Historically, the preponderance of predictor validation work has centered on
forecasting performance in training, early in a career, or the tenure of employees
has been variable (as in concurrent validation studies). However, because finding
and training workers in the future will be much more complex and costly than it is
today, success on the job during and beyond the first few years will be increasingly
important. The prediction of such long-term success indicators as retention and
long-term performance will require the use of more complex sets of predictor
variables that include such measures as personality, motivation, and vocational in-
terests. To effectively develop measures to predict long-term performance, it will be
crucial to better understand the context for the workplace of the future, including the
environmental, social, and group structural characteristics. Ultimately, combining
the personal and organizational characteristics should lead to improved personnel
selection models that go beyond the usual person-job relations, encouraging a
closer look at theories of person-organization (P-O) fit (see Borman, Hanson &
Hedge, 1997).
As we learn more about the organizational needs of the future, we must develop
measures of aptitude, knowledge, skill, and personality to address these changes.
We can map these requirements onto current selection instruments, and see what is
being measured, what is not being measured, and what is being measured poorly.
This knowledge would then allow us to focus research efforts on developing new
measures to select and possibly classify applicants into future jobs. Expansion
of both the predictor and criterion domains will allow organizations to select ap-
plicants with a greater chance of long-term success. What follows is a detailed
explication of the state-of-the-science relevant to the changing nature of jobs, and
Current Directions and Issues in Personnel Selection and Classification 289
what this means for the future of workplace selection and classification. The next
section describes recent research on criteria, with subsequent sections focusing
on predictor measurement, in particular, ability, personality, vocational interests,
biodata, and situational judgment tests. The paper concludes with a section on
an alternative selection model to the traditional person-job fit strategy, person-
organization fit.
CRITERION RESEARCH
The central dependent variable of concern in industrial and organizational psy-
chology is job performance. Performance criteria are often what we attempt to
predict from our major interventions, including personnel selection, training, and
job design. Traditionally, in our field, by far the most attention has been focused
on models related to predictors. For example, models of cognitive ability (e.g.
Carroll, 1993; Guilford, 1967; Spearman, 1927), personality (e.g. Hogan, 1982;
Wiggins, 1985), and vocational interests (e.g. Holland, 1973) have been developed
and discussed extensively in the literature.
Models of Job Performance
More recently, job performance models and research associated with them are
beginning to foster more scientific understanding of criteria. These models have
at least two forms. One type examines relations between elements of performance
(e.g. job knowledge and proficiency) directed at learning more about criteria.
A second type attempts to explicate the central latent variables that can best
characterize all performance requirements in work.
The first type of performance model emerged in Hunter (1983). His path
analysis results suggested that cognitive ability primarily has a direct effect on
individuals’ acquisition of job knowledge. Job knowledge in turn influences
technical proficiency. Supervisory performance ratings were a function of both
job knowledge and technical proficiency, with the job knowledge-ratings path
coefficient three times as large as the technical proficiency-ratings coefficient.
This line of research continued, with additional variables being added to the
models. Schmidt, Hunter and Outerbridge (1986) added job experience to the
mix; they found that job experience had a direct effect on the acquisition of job
knowledge and an indirect effect on task proficiency through job knowledge.
A series of studies by Borman and colleagues (Borman, Hanson, Oppler,
Pulakos & White, 1993; Borman, White & Dorsey, 1995; Borman, White,
Pulakos & Oppler, 1991) added additional variables to the models, and changed
somewhat the conceptual focus of these models. Borman et al. (1991) included two
personality variables, achievement and dependability, and behavioral indicators of
achievement (number of awards and commendations) and dependability (number
of disciplinary infractions) in a sample of first tour U.S. Army personnel. The path
model results showed that the personality variables had indirect effects on the
supervisory performance ratings through their respective behavioral indicators.
The best fitting model also had paths from ability to acquisition of job knowledge,
job knowledge to technical proficiency, and technical proficiency to the super-
visory job performance ratings, arguably the most comprehensive measure of
overall performance.
Perhaps the most important result of this study was that the variance accounted
for in the performance rating exogenous (dependent) variable increased substan-
tially with the addition of personality and the behavioral indicators of personality
beyond that found with previous models including only ability along with job
knowledge and technical proficiency. Also important, results were interpreted as
demonstrating that overall job performance ratings were influenced primarily by
ratees’ technical proficiency and behaviors relevant to personality.
The Borman et al. (1993) model essentially extended the Schmidt et al. (1986)
model to a supervisor sample. They found that contrary to the Schmidt et al.
findings, the ability-job experience path was significant. The authors interpreted
this path substantively as showing that high ability soldiers are more likely to
be given opportunities to supervise others, thus leading to this significant path
coefficient. The 1995 study (Borman et al., 1995) had the same basic design
as the 1991 study, but included several additional ratee personal characteristic
and rater-ratee relationship variables beyond ability, job knowledge, technical
proficiency, and supervisory performance ratings. Results from this first tour U.S.
Army sample showed that ratee dependability and technical proficiency related
highest with the supervisory performance ratings. In a peer rating model, the same
two variables plus ratee obnoxiousness (in a negative direction) had significant and
approximately equal path coefficients to the overall performance ratings. Again,
the interpretation of both sets of results was that ratee dependability and ratee
technical proficiency are primary cues supervisors use to make overall judgments
about subordinate job performance; peers use the same two cues or factors for
these overall performance judgments, but also weight ratee obnoxiousness almost
as highly.
Regarding the second type of model, Campbell, McCloy, Oppler and Sager
(1993) posited eight latent criterion factors that summarize the performance
requirements for all jobs. These constructs are: (1) job specific task proficiency;
(2) non-job specific task proficiency; (3) written and oral communication;
(4) demonstrating effort; (5) maintaining personal discipline; (6) facilitating

peer and team performance; (7) supervision/leadership; and (8) manage-
ment/administration. Several of these latent constructs emerged consistently in the
Project A research, a large-scale selection and classification study conducted in
the U.S. Army (Campbell, 1990), across the several jobs studied in that program.
Accordingly, there is some impressive empirical support for at least part of this
performance taxonomy. The importance of this research direction is considerable.
The criterion domain should be carefully mapped, just as various predictor areas
have already been. This specification of criterion content should importantly shape
the way selection research gets done (Campbell et al., 1993). Consistent with one
theme of this review, a criterion taxonomy will help to organize accumulating
research findings by addressing questions about links between predictors and
individual criteria rather than predictors and overall performance.
Research by McCloy, Campbell and Cudek (1994) supports this view of
predictor-criterion relations. These authors divided the criterion space into declar-
ative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skill, and motivational components.
Using data from eight jobs in Project A, they demonstrated that declarative
knowledge is predicted primarily by cognitive ability, whereas the motivational
element of performance (indexed by ratings) is linked to personality. Also,
Pulakos, Borman and Hough (1988) found very different patterns of personality
predictor-criterion relations across three different performance constructs in a
sample of Navy recruiters.
Task and Citizenship Performance
Another useful way to divide the job performance domain has been according
to task and citizenship performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Borman and
Motowidlo argue that organization members may engage in activities that are
not directly related to their main task functions but nonetheless are important
for organizational effectiveness because they support the “organizational, social,
and psychological context that serves as the critical catalyst for task activities and
processes” (p. 71). These authors initially presented a five dimension taxonomy that
they believed captured the contextual or citizenship performance domain. More
recently, Borman, Motowidlo and colleagues have settled on a three-dimension
system: (1) personal support; (2) organizational support; and (3) conscientious
initiative (Borman, Buck, Hanson, Motowidlo, Stark & Drasgow, 2001; Coleman &
Borman, 2000). The notion is to characterize the citizenship performance construct
according to the recipient or target of the behavior – other persons, the organization,
and oneself, respectively.
It should be noted that citizenship performance is related to several previously

derived concepts. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) point out that important forerun-
ners to this construct are organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988; Smith,
Organ & Near, 1983), prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo,
1986), and a model of soldier effectiveness (Borman, Motowidlo & Hanser,
1983).
Additional research directions have emerged based on the distinctions among
criterion constructs. First, building on the task-citizenship performance distinction,
research has examined the weights especially supervisor raters place on ratee task
and citizenship performance when making overall performance or similar kinds
of global worth-to-the-organization judgments. This research, using various types
of methodologies, has consistently found that task and citizenship performance
are weighted roughly the same when raters make these overall effectiveness judg-
ments. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) recently summarized
these studies. Across eight studies (e.g. Allen & Rush, 1998; Borman et al., 1995;
Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), they found an average of 9.3% of the variance
in overall performance ratings was accounted for by task performance; for citi-
zenship performance, the average was 12.0%. Further, Conway (1999) conducted
a meta-analysis targeted toward the same issue, and found that collapsing across
supervisor and peer raters the respective percentage of variance accounted for
in overall performance ratings by task and citizenship performance was 11.5
and 12.0%.
The task-citizenship performance distinction has also led to the discovery of
different patterns of individual differences predictors being linked to the two
different performance domains. For example, the Project A validation results
(Campbell & Knapp, 2001) show that ability best predicts performance on
the technical proficiency criteria, and personality, especially dependability,
best predicts performance on the citizenship dimension, personal discipline.
Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994) and Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996)
found that personality predictors generally correlated higher with citizenship
performance than with task performance.
More recently, Borman, Penner, Allen and Motowidlo (2001) reviewed studies
conducted since 1995 on personality predictors of citizenship performance. They
concluded that several personality constructs have at least modest correlations
with citizenship performance and that personality-citizenship performance
linkages are stronger than personality-task performance links. Hurtz and Donovan
(2000) arrived at a similar conclusion based on their meta-analysis, although
differences between the personality-citizenship and personality-task performance
relations were not large.
Adaptability
A potentially important criterion domain that may not fit neatly into the task-
citizenship taxonomy is adaptability. Adaptive job performance is characterized
by the ability and willingness to cope with uncertain, new, and rapidly changing
conditions on the job. Adaptive performance has become increasingly important
in today’s workplace. As mentioned previously, today’s technology is changing
at an unprecedented rate. To adapt, personnel must adjust to new equipment and
procedures, function in changing environments, and continuously learn new skills.
Technological change often requires the organization of work around projects
rather than well-defined and stable jobs (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; London & Mone,
1999), which in turn requires workers who are sufficiently flexible to be effective
in poorly defined roles.
Employees must also be able to adapt to increasing diversity: women and non-
whites are moving in growing numbers into roles traditionally held only by white
men (Edwards & Morrison, 1994). Furthermore, workers may be assigned to a
variety of locations throughout the world during their careers. They must be able
to adapt to unfamiliar situations, cultural values, and perspectives. Thus, selection
and classification practices may have to be updated in accordance with the changing
nature of job performance.
If job performance has expanded to include adaptability requirements, it is
important to consider how these fit into existing job performance models. Some
suggest that adaptive performance should be included as a broad category of job
performance, on the same order as task performance and citizenship performance
(Hesketh & Neal, 1999; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan & Plamondon, 2000).
For example, Pulakos and her colleagues (Pulakos et al., 2000), based on
analysis of the literature and a large number of critical performance incidents
collected from a group of 21 diverse jobs, identified eight dimensions of adaptive
job performance: (1) handling emergencies or crisis situations; (2) handling
work stress; (3) solving problems creatively; (4) dealing with uncertain and
unpredictable work situations; (5) learning work tasks, technologies, and proce-
dures; (6) demonstrating interpersonal adaptability; (7) demonstrating cultural
adaptability; and (8) demonstrating physically oriented adaptability.
Others assert that dimensions of adaptive performance can be classified as
being most strongly tied to either task performance (e.g. learning work tasks,
technologies, and procedures) or citizenship performance (e.g. demonstrating
cultural adaptability) (Mumford, Meiman, Russell & Crafts, 1998). This approach
can be difficult because the distinction between task and citizenship performance
can depend on the nature of the job in question (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
For example, depending upon the job and setting, handling work stress might deal
primarily with technical job elements, citizenship elements, or a mix of the two.
Others, recognizing that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive, take an
integrated perspective. Johnson (in press) subsumes under task and citizenship per-
formance those adaptability dimensions that are clearly related to one or the other of
those domains.
In sum, adaptive performance appears to be an important additional construct
in the criterion domain. It may be possible to categorize elements of adaptability
into task or citizenship performance, as appropriate, or the entire adaptability
construct may be considered separate from task or citizenship performance.
Whichever approach seems more appropriate, adaptability appears to be an
important and salient criterion construct.
Work Commitment
Another highly important criterion construct is work commitment. Work com-

mitment has been a topic of interest for many years, with theory and research
continuing to evolve at a steady pace over the last decade. Some of the earliest,
influential work examined employees’ commitment to their employers, thus
the early focus addressed “organizational” commitment as a unidimensional
construct. Today, however, it is widely recognized that commitment can take
different forms, and is characterized as a multidimensional work attitude. In this
section, we will briefly highlight principal research findings, with emphasis on
recent meta-analytic results; discuss the emerging viewpoint of commitment as a
multi-faceted construct; and note relevant future directions.
Organizational Commitment
Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974) defined organizational commitment as
“the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular
organization” (p. 604). They suggested that the construct was characterized by
three factors: (1) belief in and acceptance of the organization’s values and goals; (2)
willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization; and (3) desire to maintain
organizational membership. This affective or emotional attachment perspective
toward organizational commitment dominated the literature during the 1970s and
1980s. In fact, when Mathieu and Zajac (1990) conducted an exhaustive meta-
analytic review of the organizational commitment literature, more than 75% of the
studies that were included operationalized organizational commitment in this way.
Mathieu and Zajac (1990) examined organizational commitment’s relation
to 26 antecedents, 14 correlates, and eight consequences. Strongest correlations
within the antecedent category included perceived competence, work ethic, job
scope, leader communication, participatory leadership, leader consideration,
leader initiating structure, and role conflict. The most noteworthy relationships
within the correlates category included overall motivation, internal motivation,
job involvement, stress, occupational commitment, union commitment, overall
job satisfaction, satisfaction with supervision, and satisfaction with the work
itself. Notable correlations within the consequences category included intention
to search for job alternatives, and intention to leave one’s job.
In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, Meyer and Allen (e.g. Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Meyer & Allen, 1984) sought to broaden the nature of organizational commitment.
They identified three common themes that they labeled affective, continuance,
and normative commitment, and argued that all three forms of commitment reflect
an employee’s relationship to an organization. They suggested that affective
organizational commitment reflects an emotional attachment to the organization;
continuance commitment involves perceived cost associated with discontinuing
employment; and normative commitment is characterized by feelings of moral
obligation to remain with the organization. Generally, the perspective was that
employees with strong affective occupational commitment remain in their occupa-
tion because they want to, those with strong normative occupational commitment
remain because they feel they ought to, and those with strong continuance
commitment remain out of necessity. Meyer and Allen developed item sets to test
the three-component model of commitment and, as noted by Meyer (1997) each of
the three scales have been subjected to fairly extensive psychometric evaluation,
and have received considerable support. Nonetheless, further refinements may
be necessary, as several studies have questioned whether affective and normative
commitment are truly distinguishable forms of commitment (e.g. Hackett, Bycio
& Hausdorf, 1994), and whether continuance commitment is a unidimensional
construct, or is in fact composed of two subscales (e.g. McGee & Ford,
1987).
In a recent study, Meyer, Allen and Topolnytsky (1998) summarized research
findings pertaining to the three facets of commitment. They suggested that affec-
tive commitment appears to be strengthened by work experiences that contribute
to employees’ comfort in the organization (e.g. good interpersonal relations; role
clarity), as well as their sense of competence and self-worth (e.g. participation,
feedback, challenge). Increases in continuance commitment result from actions
or decisions (in or outside of the workplace), that link the retention of valued
assets (e.g. company benefits; status in the community) to continued employment
in the organization. Normative commitment appears to be influenced by family,
culture, or organization socialization experiences that underscore the appropri-
ateness of continued service, or by the receipt of benefits from the organization
(e.g. investments in education or training) that create a sense of obligation or

reciprocity in the employee.
Stanley, Meyer, Topolnytsky and Herscovitch (1999) conducted a series of
meta-analyses to examine the relationship between Meyer and Allen’s organi-
zational commitment scales and turnover, turnover intention, absenteeism, job
performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. They found that in all cases,
affective commitment correlated most strongly with these outcome variables,
followed by normative, and then continuance commitment. The magnitude of
these correlations with affective commitment was most notable for turnover
intention (−0.43), organizational citizenship behavior (0.29), turnover (−0.23),
and job performance (0.16).
Occupational Commitment
Carson and Bedeian (1994) have suggested that coping with the uncertainty
associated with changes such as mergers, acquisitions, and layoffs has caused
many employees to intensify their focus on, and commitment to, the aspect of
their working life that they can control – their occupation. Irving, Coleman and
Cooper (1997) reinforced this notion by suggesting that increased emphases on
outsourcing and downsizing, as well as changes in organizational structures such
as virtual organizations, may have led to a shift in organizations’ relations with
their employees – and as a result, individuals may focus their attachment more on
their occupations than the organizations for which they work.
Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) tested the generalizability of the Meyer and
Allen three-component model of organizational commitment to the domain of
occupational commitment. Using a sample of student nurses and registered
nurses, they found that: (1) reliable measures of affective, continuance, and nor-
mative occupational commitment could be developed; (2) the three components
of occupational commitment are differentially related to variables considered
to be antecedents or consequences of commitment; and (3) organizational
and occupational commitment contribute independently to the prediction of
important organizationally-relevant outcome variables such as turnover intention,
performance, and citizenship.
In a recent meta-analysis of the occupational commitment literature, Lee,
Carswell and Allen (2000) reported correlations between occupational com-
mitment and work-related attitudes, work experiences, and outcome variables.
With work-related attitudes they found occupational commitment correlated most
strongly with job involvement, overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with the work
itself, endorsement of work ethic, and career satisfaction.
The magnitude of the correlations between occupational commitment and
work experiences was not as great as was found with attitudes, but was most
noteworthy with stress, role ambiguity, role conflict, supervisor support, coworker
support, and autonomy. Also, occupational and organizational commitment were

relatively strongly inter-correlated (0.45), a finding quite similar to the correlation
reported by Mathieu and Zajac (1990). The authors also found that the patterns of
the correlations were similar for the professional and non-professional categories,
although they pointed out that this does not necessarily mean that the mechanisms
through which organizational commitment and occupational commitment become
correlated are the same for the two groups. The authors speculated, for example,
that for professionals, the occupational socialization process likely begins prior
to any organizational socialization, whereas they may develop concurrently for
those in the non-professional category.
In terms of occupational commitment and outcome variables, occupational
commitment was most strongly related to occupational turnover intention,
organizational turnover intent, organizational turnover, and supervisory ratings
of performance. The moderator analyses found some differences between pro-
fessional and non-professional occupations, however. For professional jobs, the
occupational commitment-occupational turnover intention correlation was −0.62,
but only −0.50 for non-professionals; and −0.29 vs. −0.15 for organizational
turnover intent. Thus, it appears that for professional employees, identification
with and attachment to their profession is a particularly important factor in making
the decision to leave the profession or the organization.
Multiple Perspectives of Work Commitment

Although the bulk of research and theorizing has focused on organizational com-
mitment, and more recently occupational commitment, over the years comments
have been made about the importance of viewing work commitment even more
broadly as a multi-faceted concept. For example, Mowday, Porter and Steers
(1982) suggested that researchers attend to the potential influence of multiple
commitments, as well as the potential for conflict that multiple commitments may
generate. Reichers (1985, 1986) argued that in reality, organizations comprise
various coalitions and constituencies (e.g. owners, managers, rank-and-file,
customers) whose goals and values may or may not be compatible with those
of the organization. Becker (1992) developed commitment indices to measure
commitment at a number of levels within the organization, and demonstrated that
employees’ commitments to top management, immediate supervisor, and work
group accounted for variance in job satisfaction, intention to quit, and prosocial
organizational commitment beyond what was accounted for by a unidimensional
measure of organizational commitment.
The notion here is that employees develop commitments not only to the
organization, but also to various constituencies within or outside the organization.
In fact, there may be certain circumstances that dictate encouraging commitment
at sub-organization levels. For example, as noted by Meyer et al. (1998), under
uncertain economic conditions, an organization may not be able to guarantee

employment even to its most loyal and effective workers, and thus it might be
difficult to get employees to commit to work toward organizational goals for the
sake of the organization. However, it might be possible to get employees to work
toward those same goals if they can be shown to be relevant to a different target.
For example, an employee who is highly committed to his/her own personal career
is more likely to work hard on projects seen as instrumental for the development
of marketable skills. Some of the changes employees face will cause them to
look beyond the organization and more carefully consider the nature and limits of
organizational attachment.
Although the multiple-constituency framework has not been tested extensively,
preliminary evidence indicates that there may be some value in measuring
commitments to more specific foci within and outside the organization. Several
research studies have explored this line of thinking. For example, Gordon,
Philpot, Burt, Thompson and Spiller (1980) developed and tested a model of
employee commitment to the union. More recently, Lok and Crawford (2001)
investigated the relative importance of the organizational culture and subculture of
the employee’s local work environment as predictors of employee commitment,
and found that subculture had a greater influence on commitment than did the
broader organizational culture. The authors suggested that greater attention and
resources might need to be given to influencing subcultures in organizations.
Allen and Grisaffe (2001) focused on the relations between organizational
commitment and customer reactions, reviewing relevant theory and research,
discussing methodological issues associated with examining this issue, and
making recommendations for both researchers and HR practitioners. McElroy,
Morrow and Laczniak (2001) focused on what they labeled external organizational
commitment (EOC), that reflects employees involvement and identification with
another organization (supplier, customer, partner organization), external to the
one in which they are employed. Gallagher and McLean Parks (2001) focused
attention on the need for more research to address an increasingly large group
of workers – contingent workers. This group is interesting because there is no
explicit or implicit expectation of long-term or “ongoing” employment. Gallagher
et al. suggested that not only must research focus on determining the level and
interrelationships among the facets of commitment within the context of different
work arrangements, but also researchers must examine the generalizability of
existing commitment measures to the contingent workforce.
Changing Perspectives on Work Commitment

As mentioned, organizations worldwide are undergoing unprecedented change,
with shifts in workforce demographics, technological innovations, and global
competition. Responding to a rapidly changing environment can sometimes place

conflicting demands on organizations. On the one hand, organizations need to be
flexible in order to be able to adapt to changes as they occur. Thus, they may be
required to shrink and expand their workforce as needed – or, they may need a
workforce that is flexible with the skills needed to do whatever is required to get
the job done. The requirements for flexibility in employment and in employees
may not be compatible. As organizations consider the future for selection and
retaining their workforce, work commitment may play a vital role in ensuring
both near-term and long-term success.
To provide some perspective for our review of the work commitment research
to date, at least three points are relevant. First, it is becoming increasingly evident
that researchers should attend closely to multiple levels and facets of commitment,
understanding that they may complement or conflict with the broader goals
of organizational commitment. Second, changes in the workplace may affect
different components of commitment differently. For example, Meyer et al. (1998)
hypothesized that affective commitment is likely to be influenced by changes in
comfort – and competence – related work experiences. In addition, they suggested
that continuance commitment might be affected by organizational change that
draws attention to the costs and benefits of continued employment in the organiza-
tion. They also suggested that normative commitment might change as a function
of altered perceptions of the organization’s willingness to invest in its employees.
Consequently, it is possible that the commitment profiles of organizational person-
nel following organizational change will be much different than they were before
the change.
Finally, Beck and Wilson (2001) presented the case for viewing work commit-
ment as a developmental process. The authors noted that most of the empirical
work reported in the commitment literature has been designed to examine static
levels of commitment rather than assessing changes in commitment over time.
While noting that little research has been done using a developmental focus, they
suggested that researchers should begin to study critical times in individuals’
tenure with an organization when levels of commitment may be volatile, and begin
to search for the organizational and individual variables that are causing changes.
Conclusions
In summary, criteria have always been important in personnel selection research

(e.g. Smith, 1976; Toops, 1944; Wallace, 1965; Weitz, 1961), but a recent trend has
been to study job performance in its own right in an attempt to develop substantive
models of performance. The vision has been to learn more about the nature of
job performance, including its components and dimensions, so that performance

itself, as well as predictor-performance links, will be better understood (Borman,
Hanson & Hedge, 1997; Campbell et al., 1993, 1996; Campbell & Knapp, 2001).
Again, if we can make more progress in this direction, the cumulative evidence for
individual predictor construct-performance construct relationships will continue
to progress and the science of personnel selection will be substantially enhanced.
It will also be important to attend to related constructs such as adaptability and
work commitment because they are becoming increasingly critical for the modern
workforce. Ideally, selection and classification predictors of the future will forecast
not only employees’ early career job performance, but also the additional criterion
constructs discussed in this section.
ABILITY
Abilities are relatively stable individual differences that are related to performance
on some set of tasks, problems, or other goal oriented activities (Murphy, 1996).
Another definition, offered by Carroll (1993), conceptualizes abilities as relatively
enduring attributes of an individual’s capability for performing a particular range
of tasks. Abilities are similar to traits in that they exhibit some stability over time,
yet they are different in the sense that they may develop slowly with exposure
to multiple situations (Snow & Lohman, 1984). Despite various definitions of
ability, ultimately every ability is defined in terms of some kind of performance,
or potential for performance (Carroll, 1993).
Although the term ability is widely used in both the academic and applied
literature, several other terms have been related loosely to abilities. For example,
the term competency has been used to describe individual attributes associated with
the quality of work performance. Specifically, competencies have been defined as
underlying characteristics of individuals causally related to effective performance
in a job (Boyatzis, 1982). This definition of competency is clearly redundant with
the definition of ability offered above. However, in practice, lists of competencies
often include a mixture of knowledge, skills, abilities, motivation, beliefs, values,
and interests (Fleishman, Constanza & Marshall-Mies, 1999).
Another term that is often confused in the literature with abilities is skills.
Whereas abilities are general traits inferred from relationships among perfor-
mances of individuals observed across a range of tasks, skills are more dependent
on learning and represent the product of training on particular tasks (Fleishman
et al., 1999). In general, skills are more situational, but the development of a skill is,
to a large extent, predicted by an individual’s possession of relevant underlying abil-

ities, usually mediated by the acquisition of the requisite knowledge (e.g. Borman,
White, Pulakos & Oppler, 1991; Schmidt, Hunter & Outerbridge, 1986). That is,
these underlying abilities are related to the rate of acquisition and final levels of per-
formance that a person can achieve in particular skill areas (Fleishman et al., 1999).
Ability tests usually measure mental or cognitive ability, but may also measure
other constructs such as physical abilities. Ability tests have been almost always
paper and pencil tests administered to applicants in a standardized manner,
although recent advances in computerized testing have led to more ability tests
being administered by computer (e.g. Drasgow & Olson-Buchanon, 1999). The
following sections discuss recent developments and the most current topics in the
areas of cognitive ability, tacit knowledge or practical intelligence, and physical
ability testing.
Cognitive Ability
The emergence of industrial and organizational psychology is inextricably linked

with cognitive ability testing (Landy, Shankster & Kohler, 1994). Notably, in the
early 1900s, Cattell, Scott, Bingham, Viteles and other applied psychologists used
cognitive ability tests to lay the foundation for the current practice of personnel
selection (Landy, 1993). Recent attention has focused on the usefulness of general
cognitive ability “g” versus more specific cognitive abilities for predicting training
and job performance, and the contributions of information processing models of
cognitive abilities for learning more about ability constructs. First, there has been
a debate concerning the “ubiquitousness” of the role of general cognitive ability
or g in the prediction of training and job performance. Several recent studies
have demonstrated that psychometric g, generally operationalized as the common
variance in a battery of cognitive ability tests (e.g. the first principal component),
accounts for the majority of the predictive power in the test battery, and that
the remaining variance (often referred to in this research as “specific abilities”)
accounts for little or no additional variance in the criterion (e.g. Larson & Wolfe,
1995; Ree, Earles & Teachout, 1994).
This line of research has also suggested that the specific ability components
account for somewhat more variance in job performance than they do in training
performance (e.g. Olea & Ree, 1994; Ree et al., 1994). Although there is a grow-
ing consensus concerning the predictive efficiency of g, there is less agreement
about what this means, especially as it relates to personnel selection practices and
research. Some would conclude that “refinements in the measurement of abilities
and aptitudes are unlikely to contribute nontrivial increments to validity beyond
that which is produced by good measures of general mental ability” (Schmidt,

1994, p. 348). Others suggest a variety of scientific and pragmatic reasons why the
measurement of specific abilities may still be important and potentially useful. On
the scientific side, possibly the most important cautionary note is that our under-
standing of the basic cognitive processes that underlie intelligent behavior and the
reasons why some people are more capable than others is still quite limited (e.g.
Murphy, 1996). In addition, an understanding of the processes by which abilities
affect performance and the latent structure of the ability-performance relation-
ships is needed to advance the science of personnel selection (e.g. Bobko, 1994;
Campbell, 1990).
Specific abilities are likely to be more useful (in addition to or in place of g) when
our goal is understanding, rather than predictive efficiency (e.g. Alderton & Larson,
1994; Murphy, 1996). However, models put forth to explain ability-performance
links rarely examine the roles of specific abilities. Nonetheless, several recent stud-
ies have shown meaningful differences in relationships between specific abilities
and certain criteria. Carretta and Ree (1995) found that different subtests of the Air
Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) were most valid during different phases of
pilot training, and for different training criterion measures. Silva and White (1993)
found that a language aptitude battery had significant incremental validity beyond
general cognitive ability for predicting success in a language training course. Dror,
Kosslyn and Waag (1993) examined differences in spatial ability between pilots
and non-pilots, and found that pilots were superior in very specific aspects of spa-
tial ability (e.g. mental rotation) rather than in general spatial ability. In addition to
the potential for promoting understanding, improved measures of specific abilities
and expanded test batteries have also been found to improve the measurement of
g (e.g. Larson & Wolfe, 1995) which, in turn, may improve validities.
Cognitive psychologists have been studying the nature of intelligence for years,
and although these models have not had many applications in personnel-related
contexts, this sort of theory-based approach clearly has potential for improving
our understanding of cognitive ability and of ability-performance relationships
(although some are less optimistic, e.g. Lohman, 1993). The Air Force conducted
a programmatic research effort to determine whether an ability test battery
based on a “consensus information processing model” can predict training
and job performance better than the ASVAB (Kyllonen, 1994). Preliminary
results were promising. The internal structure of the test battery is consistent
with the information processing model, it has been shown to predict laboratory
learning tasks better than the ASVAB, and at least one of these elementary
cognitive tasks (working memory) is strongly related to general cognitive ability.
Cognitive psychologists have also identified what appear to be “new” abilities
(e.g. time sharing, dynamic spatial ability) which could eventually find selection
applications for jobs that require these special abilities (e.g. Jackson, Vernon &
Jackson, 1993). One potential concern is that practice and coaching may be more
of a problem for the relatively novel tasks included on these tests when they
are used for selection purposes.
Another concern is related to the statistical model often used to define g. A
general factor or g represents the correlations between specific ability tests, so
specific abilities will, by definition, be correlated with the general factor. Thus, it
could be argued that it is just as valid to enter specific abilities first and then say that
g doesn’t contribute beyond the prediction found with specific abilities alone (e.g.
Murphy, 1996). In fact, Muchinsky (1993) found this to be the case for a sample
of manufacturing jobs, where mechanical ability was the single best predictor
of performance, and an intelligence test had no incremental validity beyond the
mechanical test alone.
We know very little about specific abilities when they are defined as the variance
remaining once a general factor is extracted statistically. Interestingly, what little
information is available suggests that these “specific ability” components tend to
be most strongly related to cognitive ability tests that have a large knowledge
component (e.g. aviation information; Olea & Ree, 1994). This is consistent with
previous research showing that job knowledge tests tend to be slightly more valid
than ability tests (Hunter & Hunter, 1984), and also with research demonstrating
that job knowledge appears to mediate the relationship between abilities and job
performance (e.g. Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos & White, 1993).
Meta-analysis has demonstrated the generality of job knowledge tests as predic-
tors of job performance (Dye, Reck & Murphy, 1993). In addition, these authors
found that the validity of job knowledge tests was moderated by job complexity
and by job-test similarity, with validities significantly higher for studies involving
high complexity jobs and those with high job-test similarity. The average corrected
validity for job knowledge tests with high job-test similarity was 0.62 in predicting
job performance and 0.76 for training performance, and this is somewhat higher
than the average corrected validity typically found for cognitive ability tests (e.g.
0.53; Hunter & Hunter, 1984). A more recent meta-analysis showed that different
methods and combination of methods have very different validities for predicting
future job performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Furthermore, these recent
meta-analytic findings suggest that general cognitive ability measures and work
sample measures have high validity (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Research findings
cumulated over eighty-five years suggest that a general cognitive ability test plus
a structured interview may yield validities as high as 0.63 (Schmidt & Hunter,
1998).
Finally, conclusions concerning the relative efficiency of g versus specific
abilities have been very different when the purpose is classification rather than
simply selection decisions. Zeidner and Johnson (1994) have shown that when
there is a single applicant pool and multiple jobs or job families, specific abilities
substantially improve classification efficiency, beyond the use of general cognitive
ability alone. Using somewhat different procedures, other researchers have
confirmed and extended these findings (Abrahams, Alf, Keickhaefer, Pass, Cole
& Walton-Paxton, 1994; Rosse, Peterson & Whetzel, 1995). The amount of gain
possible from classification versus selection is negatively related to the intercorre-
lations among the specific ability tests or composites of tests and positively related
to the number of jobs or job families into which applicants are to be classified
(see Alf & Abrahams, 1996). However, substantial gains have been found even
with predictors that are quite highly correlated. Notice that these results are
compatible with the notion that g provides maximum efficiency when prediction
is the goal.
Scholarios, Johnson and Zeidner (1994) provide some preliminary information
about differences in the context of tests (e.g. measures of various abilities and
other individual differences) that would be selected for a test battery when
classification versus selection is the goal. However, in order to take full advantage
of these results, a better understanding of the content of classification batteries
and the reasons for these results will be critical (Bobko, 1994). It is interesting to
note that these findings are also relevant for vocational/occupational counselors
and others concerned with placement (e.g. in the new O∗ Net: Peterson, Mumford,
Borman, Jeanneret & Fleishman, 1999), because their decisions are similar to
classification decisions in this context.
Tacit or Practical Intelligence
Sternberg and colleagues have attempted to broaden the discussion of general

intelligence (cf. Sternberg & Wagner, 1992). Based on a triarchic theory of intel-
ligence, Sternberg (1985) suggests that practical intelligence and tacit knowledge
play a role in job success. Practical intelligence is often described as the ability
to effectively respond to practical problems or demands in situations that people
commonly encounter in their jobs, (Sternberg, Wagner & Okagaki, 1993; Wagner
& Sternberg, 1985). Conceptually, practical intelligence is distinct from cognitive
ability. In fact, some research (cf. Chan, 2001) has found measures of practical
intelligence to be uncorrelated with traditional measures of cognitive ability.
Sternberg and his colleagues have repeatedly found significant correlations and
some incremental validity (over general intelligence) for measures of tacit knowl-
edge in predicting job performance or success (Sternberg, Wagner, Williams &
Horvath, 1995). Tacit knowledge has been shown to be trainable, and to differ
in level according to relevant expertise. Certainly tacit knowledge measures deal

with content that is quite different from that found in traditional job knowledge
tests (e.g. knowledge related to managing oneself and others). When viewed in
this way, tacit knowledge measures are very similar to situational judgment tests
(SJTs), described in more detail in a subsequent section.
Physical Abilities
Another important area for selection into many jobs that require manual labor or
other physical demands is the use of physical ability tests. Most physical ability
tests are performance tests (i.e. not paper and pencil) that involve demonstration
of attributes such as strength, cardiovascular fitness, or coordination. Although
physical ability tests are reported to be used widely for selection (Hogan &
Quigley, 1994), not much new information has been published in this area during
the past few years. In one study, Blakley, Quinones, Crawford and Jago (1994)
provided evidence that isometric strength tests are valid predictors across a variety
of different physically demanding jobs, and also that the prediction of work simu-
lation performance was better than the prediction of supervisory ratings of physical
ability. Blakley et al. (1994) also found, in a large applicant sample, that females
scored substantially lower than males on these isometric strength tests. In light of
these findings, there is a recent and growing interest in reducing adverse impact
through pretest preparation. Hogan and Quigley (1994) demonstrated that partic-
ipation in a physical training program can improve females’ upper body strength
and muscular endurance, and that participation in a pretest physical training
program was significantly related to the likelihood of passing a firefighter physical
ability test.
Conclusions
A cumulation of 85 years of research demonstrates that if we want to hire

people without previous experience in a job, the most valid predictor of future
performance is general cognitive ability (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). General
cognitive ability measures have many advantages in personnel selection: (1) they
show the highest validity for predicting training and job performance; (2) they
may be used for all jobs from entry level to advanced; and (3) they are relatively
inexpensive to administer. In addition, there is some evidence that measures
of “practical intelligence” or tacit knowledge may under certain conditions
provide incremental validity beyond general cognitive ability for predicting job
performance (Sternberg, Wagner, Williams & Horvath, 1995). Finally, physical

ability tests may be useful in predicting performance for jobs that are physically
demanding.
PERSONALITY
I/O psychology’s long history of interest in personality stems from the desire to
predict the motivational aspects of work behavior. Nevertheless, until recently,
the prevalent view was that personality variables were a dead end for predicting
job performance. Some of the factors fueling this belief were: (1) the view that a
person’s behavior is not consistent across situations and thus, traits do not exist;
(2) literature reviews concluding that personality variables lack predictive validity
in selection contexts; and (3) concern about dishonest responding on personality
inventories.
However, by the late 1980s, favorable opinions about personality regarding
personnel selection began to grow (Hogan, 1991). Evidence accumulated to refute
the notion that traits are not real (Kenrick & Funder, 1981) or stable (Conley,
1984). Research showed at least modest validity for some personality traits in
predicting job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; McHenry, Hough,
Toquam, Hanson & Ashworth, 1990; Ones, Viswesvaran & Schmidt, 1995).
Further, evidence mounts that personality measures produce small if any differ-
ences between majority and protected classes of people (Ones & Viswesvaran,
1998b) and that response distortion does not necessarily destroy criterion-related
validity (e.g. Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998a; Ones, Viswesvaran & Reiss, 1996).
The remainder of this section examines these developments in more detail.
Personality Taxonomies
Early research examining personality-job performance relationships was purely

empirical, with no theory to direct it. Without the guidance of an organizing
framework of traits, different researchers often used different labels for the
same construct or the same labels for very different constructs. Thus, literature
reviews during this era compared studies that were not comparable, and compiled
predictor-criterion correlations that might have been reasonably hypothesized
along with those that would not be expected (Guion & Gottier, 1965). In light
of these circumstances, the pessimistic conclusions of such reviews are not
surprising. As many personality researchers have recently pointed out, one cannot
expect to find reliable predictor-criterion relationships without satisfying two
conditions: First, the predictors must be organized into reasonable taxonomies,

and second, predictors must be matched to relevant criteria.
The history of attempts to specify a taxonomy of the personality domain
dates back to the late 1800s. Several authors provide a detailed account of this
history (e.g. Block, 1995; Cattell, 1943; Goldberg, 1993, 1994; Schneider &
Hough, 1995). Today’s well-known, hierarchical, five-factor model (FFM) of
personality (alternately, “the Big Five”) was first documented in 1961 by Tupes
and Christal (see Tupes & Christal, 1992). The five factors were labeled Surgency,
Agreeableness, Dependability, Emotional Stability, and Culture. Following Tupes
and Christal, McCrae and Costa (1987) replicated a similar model of the FFM. In
their version, Extraversion is comprised of traits such as talkative, assertive, and
active; Conscientiousness includes traits such as organized, thorough, and reliable;
Agreeableness includes the traits kind, trusting, and warm; Neuroticism includes
traits such as nervous, moody, and temperamental; and Openness incorporates
such traits as imaginative, curious, and creative (Goldberg, 1992).
A large amount of evidence supports the generalizability and robustness of
the Big Five. The Big Five can be reliably recovered from various personality
measures and rating sources (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Shmelyov, 1996;
Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1997), and using a variety of factor extraction
and rotation methods (Goldberg, 1990; Katigbak, Church & Akamine, 1996).
The FFM is relevant across cultures, countries, and languages (Benet-Martı́nez
& John, 1998; Digman & Shmelyov, 1996; Katigbak et al., 1996; McCrae &
Costa, 1997).
Common descriptions of the status of the Big Five include such phrases as
“well-accepted” and “supported by an emerging consensus.” A few authors, how-
ever, contest this characterization (e.g. Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1991; Loevinger,
1994; Schneider & Hough, 1995; Tellegen, 1993). Some argue that the theoretical
value and the practical usefulness of the Big Five factors are severely limited
by their breadth, and that important variables are missing from the model. For
example, Hough (1992) proposed a nine-factor personality taxonomy, including
Affiliation, Potency, Achievement, Dependability, Agreeableness, Adjustment,
Intellectance, Rugged Individualism, and Locus of Control. Neither Rugged
Individualism (masculinity vs. femininity) nor Locus of Control are represented
in the Big Five. Agreeableness, Adjustment, and Intellectance are similar to
Big Five factors. Extraversion is divided into Affiliation and Potency, and
Conscientiousness is divided into Achievement and Dependability.
Whichever taxonomic structure is favored, from a research perspective, the
point we want to emphasize is that the appearance of personality taxonomies has
been a crucial development in the history of personality research (e.g. Costa &
McCrae, 1995; Schneider & Hough, 1995). Scientific knowledge of the correlates
of personality traits could not be accumulating as it is without reliance upon a

common framework. From an applied perspective, important questions pertain
to the criterion-related validity of personality variables and the extent to which
it matters whether we focus on broad factors or narrower facets. These issues are
addressed next.
Criterion-Related Validity of Personality Measures
Predictive and Incremental Validity of the Big Five

Although the Big Five model of personality is not universally accepted, con-
siderable research has been conducted using this framework. For example,
Barrick, Mount and Judge (2001) conducted a second-order meta-analysis
including eleven meta-analyses of the relationship between Big Five personality
dimensions and job performance. They included six performance criteria and five
occupational groups. Conscientiousness was a valid predictor across all criteria
and occupations (␳ = 0.19–0.26),1 with the highest overall validity of the Big
Five dimensions. Emotional Stability was predictive for four criteria and two
occupational groups. Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness did not predict
overall job performance, but each was predictive for some criteria and some
occupations. Barrick et al. results echoed conclusions of previous research on this
topic (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).
Some evidence suggests that Emotional Stability is more important in military
settings than it is in most civilian occupations. Barrick et al. (2001) reported
␳ = 0.05–0.14 for Emotional Stability predicting performance in five categories
of civilian jobs. A meta-analysis based exclusively on European samples reported
a validity of 0.12 for Emotional Stability in civilian jobs, compared to a much
higher 0.30 in military samples (Salgado, 1998). It is important to note that
Salgado’s validities are corrected for predictor unreliability in addition to other
artifacts, and that his military data were limited to aviator samples and training
proficiency criteria. Vickers (1995) found that Emotional Stability is a useful
predictor of military leadership criteria, and that its most predictive facets are
depression, pessimism, and stress vulnerability (low scores on each being related
to better performance). In Project A, Emotional Stability predicted combat
effectiveness (Hough, 1992). The predictive value of Emotional Stability in
military settings certainly merits further study.
Despite the low to moderate magnitude of the Big Five’s predictive validity,
optimism regarding personality’s usefulness in selection contexts remains high.
One reason is that even a modestly predictive variable, if uncorrelated with
other predictors, offers incremental validity. Personality variables tend to be
unrelated to tests of general cognitive ability (g) and thus they have incremental
validity over g alone (Day & Silverman, 1989; Hogan & Hogan, 1989; McHenry
et al., 1990; Schmitt, Rogers, Chan, Sheppard & Jennings, 1997). For example,
Conscientiousness produces gains in validity of 11–18%, compared to using
g alone (Salgado, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Salgado (1998) reported
that Emotional Stability measures produced a 10% increment in validity over
g, for European civilian and military samples combined. For military samples
alone, the incremental validity was 38%. In order to fully realize personality’s
potential to predict job performance, we might also consider more than just the
Big Five and general performance criteria. This approach is a construct-oriented
one, involving a personality taxonomy, a job performance taxonomy, and a
nomological net linking the two (Hough & Paullin, 1994). Criteria and promising
predictors of them are selected based on theory and/or job analysis. Traditional
job analysis techniques focus on cognitive and psychomotor job requirements,
but some systems exist that identify job-relevant personality requirements, as well
(Borman, Kubisiak & Schneider, 1999; Raymark, Schmit & Guion, 1997; Sümer,
Sümer, Demirutku & Çifci, 2001).
Predictive Validity of Personality, Beyond Overall Performance
By far, overall job performance ratings are the most commonly-used criteria in
selection research. To thoroughly understand the predictive power of personality
variables, however, the taxonomic structure of the criterion space is as important
as that of the predictor space (Borman, Hanson & Hedge, 1997). For example,
overall performance includes both task and citizenship performance. As de-
scribed previously in the criterion section, research has shown at least a modest
improvement in validity of personality predictors when contextual or citizenship
performance is the criterion rather than task or overall performance (Borman,
Penner, Allen & Motowidlo, 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; McHenry et al.,
1990; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).
Predictive Validity Beyond the Big Five
Meta-analyses based on the Big Five can mask the predictive validity of narrower
traits, such as the Affiliation and Potency facets of Extraversion (Hough &
Ones, 2001; Schneider, Hough & Dunnette, 1996). Potency, for example, is a
much better predictor of salesperson performance than are the broader trait of
Extraversion or the other facet of Extraversion, Affiliation (Barrick et al., 2001;
Vinchur, Schippman, Switzer & Roth, 1998). Across a broad range of occupations,
Potency and Affiliation are differently related to a number of criteria; furthermore,
Affiliation is often the superior predictor (Hough, 1992).
Similar findings emerge when two sub-components of Conscientiousness
are considered separately rather than together. Achievement is better than both
Dependability and Conscientiousness at predicting sales performance criteria
(Vinchur et al., 1998). Across occupations, Achievement is usually a better
predictor than is Dependability (Hough, 1992; Vickers, 1995). For predicting
personal discipline and law-abiding behavior, however, Dependability is better
than Achievement (McHenry et al., 1990).
Another important mission for researchers is to devise and agree upon a
comprehensive taxonomy of personality at the facet level (i.e. more specific than
the Big Five). An organizing framework for narrow personality traits will be
crucial to further progress in the understanding of links between personality and
various criteria.
Compound Traits
In contrast to considering links between narrow personality traits and individual

job performance criteria, a very different approach for personality applications
in personnel selection is the development of compound traits (e.g. integrity, cus-
tomer service orientation). In a hierarchical model, covarying facets like anxiety
and vulnerability make up higher-order multifaceted traits (like Neuroticism).
Compound traits, like multi-faceted traits, are also collections of narrower facets
(Schneider & Hough, 1995). The important distinction is that multifaceted traits
are said to cause their constituent facets, whereas compound traits emerge from
their facets. Consequently, facets of a multifaceted trait covary, but facets of a
compound trait may or may not. Multifaceted traits, such as the Big Five factors,
are important for summarizing and describing personality on a theoretical level,
as well as for their potential relationships with criteria. Compound traits, however,
have the potential to show even stronger relationships with criteria, because
they are often constructed by identifying the criterion first, and then selecting a
heterogeneous group of variables expected to predict it (Hogan & Ones, 1997).
Integrity, adaptability, and core self-evaluation are three compound traits that may
be especially useful in a selection context.
Integrity
Integrity consists of facets from all Big Five factors, mainly Conscientiousness,
Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability (Ones, Schmidt & Viswesvaran, 1994).
Sackett, Burris and Callahan (1989) distinguished between overt and personality-
based integrity tests. Overt tests include straightforward questions regarding the
test-taker’s own dishonest behavior and attitudes toward dishonest behaviors.
Personality-based tests use more subtle items and are often derived from
traditional personality inventories (e.g. Hogan & Hogan, 1989). It is difficult to
compare overt to personality-based integrity tests, in part because the former are
most often validated against counterproductive behaviors and the latter are most
often validated against overall job performance ratings.
Integrity tests have several advantages as part of selection systems, including
considerable appeal to employers. Given the enormous costs of employee theft
and other counterproductive behaviors (Durhart, 2001; U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, 1997), it is understandable that employers want to avoid
hiring dishonest applicants. Also, paper-and-pencil integrity measures have grown
in popularity since the 1988 Federal Polygraph Protection Act banned most pre-
employment uses of the polygraph test.
Empirical evidence shows that integrity tests are better than any of the Big Five
at predicting job performance, ␳ = 0.41 for predicting job performance ratings
(Ones et al., 1995). Under some conditions, integrity tests also predict various
counterproductive behaviors at work. Integrity tests are uncorrelated with tests
of g (Hogan & Hogan, 1989; Ones et al., 1995), and produce a 27% increase
in predictive validity over g alone (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
Understandably, some have been concerned about false negatives in integrity
testing: the incorrect classification of honest persons as dishonest. One aspect of
this problem is the distasteful nature of the label “dishonest.” This concern is
easily addressed: Employers rarely provide job applicants with test scores, score
interpretations, or even the exact reason why they were not hired (Sackett & Wanek,
1996). Furthermore, a predictor with relatively high validity will produce fewer
false negatives and false positives than will predictors with weaker predictive
validity (Ones, Schmidt, Viswesvaran & Lykken, 1996).
A more difficult issue related to false negatives is the possibility that these
errors are systematic rather than random. Integrity tests might discriminate against
highly religious or moral individuals – those compelled to be honest about their
faults and past misdeeds (Lilienfeld, 1993; Lilienfeld, Alliger & Mitchell, 1995).
Very little data exist, however, to address the accuracy of this possibility.
Adaptability
As discussed earlier in the criterion section, adaptive job performance has
become increasingly important in today’s workplace. In personnel research,
adaptability is most often operationalized as a criterion, but we propose
that it could also be viewed as a compound personality trait. Recognizing
that adaptive performance is a function of both general cognitive ability and

personality, (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999; Le Pine, Colquitt & Erez, 2000;
Mumford, Baughman, Threlfall, Uhlman & Constanza, 1993; Pulakos &
Dorsey, 2000), we will focus on personality predictors of adaptive performance
here.
Existing personality scales carrying the adaptability label tend to be narrowly
focused on a particular aspect of adaptability (e.g. International Personality Item
Pool, 2001) and would probably not be sufficient to predict the multiple dimensions
of adaptive job performance. One way to construct a broad predictor measure of
adaptability would be to use a criterion – keying approach, as has been done to
construct personality – based integrity tests. Although somewhat speculative, we
might surmise that someone who readily adapts on the job is likely to be patient,
even-tempered, and confident (facets of Emotional Stability); open to new ideas,
values, and experiences (facets of Openness); and determined to do what it takes to
achieve goals (a facet of Conscientiousness). It is possible that high levels of other
aspects of Conscientiousness, such as dutifulness and orderliness, are detrimental
to adaptive performance because they involve over-commitment to established
ways of functioning. Again, although speculative, these relationships are in line
with the results of several different studies that linked personality variables to
adaptive performance (e.g. Le Pine et al., 2000; Mumford et al., 1993; Pulakos &
Dorsey, 2000).
Core Self-Evaluation
As defined by Judge and his colleagues, core self-evaluation (CSE) is a funda-
mental, global appraisal of oneself (Judge, Locke, Durham & Kluger, 1998). We
should note that whereas some have called CSE a compound trait (Schneider &
Hough, 1995), Judge and his colleagues might not agree with this characterization.
Erez and Judge (2001) described CSE as a single, higher-order factor explaining
the association between four more specific traits, namely self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, internal locus of control, and emotional stability. Indeed, the high
intercorrelations between these four traits (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Erez &
Bono, 1998) indicate that CSE is perhaps a multifaceted trait rather than a com-
pound trait.
A meta-analysis showed that CSE’s constituent traits are impressively predictive
of overall job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001). Estimated ␳ values, corrected for
sampling error and criterion unreliability, ranged from 0.19 (emotional stability)
to 0.26 (self-esteem). Considering the strong relationships between the four CSE
components, and the fact that self-esteem is the best predictor of CSE, it is not clear
whether there is any practical advantage to CSE over self-esteem alone. Further
research is needed to settle this question.
As Judge et al. predicted, CSE is even more strongly related to job satisfaction
than it is to overall job performance. Predictive validity estimates ranged from
0.24 (emotional stability) to 0.45 (self-efficacy; Judge & Bono, 2001). As with
job performance, it is possible that individual CSE components predict job
satisfaction as well as or better than the complete construct. People with high CSE
seem to seek out challenging jobs and apply a positive mindset to the perception
of their jobs (Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000; Judge, Locke et al., 1998). The result is
desirable job characteristics, both real and perceived, which contribute to high job
satisfaction. The link between CSE and job satisfaction has important implications,
because satisfied employees are more likely to stay on the job than are dissatisfied
employees (Harter, Schmitt & Hayes, 2002; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Low turnover
rates are especially important in organizations that invest heavily in the training
of new employees.
Personality and Adverse Impact
Based on a summary of the literature, Hough, Oswald and Ployhart (2001)

demonstrated that most subgroup differences on personality measures are neg-
ligible or small. There are, however, a few exceptions that could make practical
differences in selection decisions. For example, Blacks score slightly lower than
Whites on Openness and Affiliation. Also, there are some small gender differences
in personality variables, favoring men for Emotional Stability and Potency, and
favoring women for Agreeableness and Dependability (Hough et al., 2001).
Women also score slightly higher on overt integrity tests (Ones & Viswesvaran,
1998b). Nonetheless, when added to cognitive predictors, personality variables
can concurrently enhance predictive validity and reduce adverse impact.
Stability of Personality Over Time
Longitudinal research shows that individuals’ standing on the Big Five is reason-
ably consistent over time. For example, testing at five time intervals between the
ages of 12 and 62 yielded average test-retest correlations, corrected for internal
consistency reliability, from 0.43 (Agreeableness) to 0.59 (Conscientiousness;
Judge, Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999). Roberts and Del Vecchio’s (2000)
extensive review also showed that personality is stable, and that it becomes
gradually more so later in life. Test-retest reliabilities for the Big Five ranged
from 0.50 to 0.54. In short, personality variables can be used in selection without
concern that individuals’ standing on them will change dramatically over time.
Response Distortion
One of the most frequent objections to the use of personality in selection settings
involves the risk of response distortion. The concern is that applicants will respond
to inventory items in ways that they believe will make them look more desirable.
There is no doubt that people can fake-good on personality inventories, when
instructed to do so (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). Knowing this, several questions
remain: (1) Do applicants fake on personality inventories in selection settings?
If so, to what extent? (2) If faking occurs, what is its impact on criterion-related
validity and hiring decisions? (3) If faking does have a negative impact, what can
be done about it?
The question regarding the extent to which applicants slant their responses on
personality inventories is most often addressed by comparing applicant scores
to incumbent scores, presuming that incumbents (when told that their scores are
for research purposes only) are not motivated to distort their responses, whereas
applicants may be. Such comparisons reveal that on average, applicants do
fake-good in selection settings, but that applicant versus incumbent differences
are markedly smaller than differences found in laboratory “fake-good” versus
“honest” conditions (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). In Project A, average person-
ality test scores for incumbents directed to be honest were highly similar to those
for applicants told that the tests would be used to make decisions about their Army
careers (Hough et al., 1990). Some studies, however, have found significantly
more favorable personality profiles for applicants than for incumbents (e.g. Rosse,
Stecher, Miller & Levin, 1998).
Despite the fact that job applicants can and do slant their responses on
personality inventories, some believe such faking detracts only slightly, if at all,
from criterion-related validity in applied situations (Hogan, Hogan & Roberts,
1996; Hough et al., 1990; Hough & Ones, 2001; Ones et al., 1995; Ones &
Viswesvaran, 1998a). Not everyone is convinced that faking can be so easily dis-
missed. For example, Rosse et al. (1998) considered faking’s effects on selection
system fairness. Using a response validity scale to detect and quantify response
distortion, they found considerable variation in the magnitude of response
distortion across individuals. Rosse et al. demonstrated that using Conscientious-
ness scores in a top-down selection strategy would result in large proportions
of the most flagrant fakers being hired. However, the most dramatic effects
were present only in highly selective circumstances (i.e. with a selection ratio
of 0.05).
Even those who report that faking is not a serious problem often recommend
taking action to combat its potential effects (e.g. Hough et al., 1990; Hough &
Ones, 2001). Hough and colleagues reviewed evidence in support of two such
strategies, concluding that: (1) warning test takers that distortion can be detected
and will have consequences does deter faking; and (2) the response validity
scales included in many personality inventories are effective tools for detecting
faking.
Conclusions
Over the past two decades, personality has enjoyed a well-deserved resurgence in
research attention, aided in no small part by the wide acceptance of the Big Five
model of personality. Only two Big Five factors, Conscientiousness and Emotional
Stability, are consistently related to job performance across occupations and crite-
ria, and their validities are of modest magnitude (Barrick et al., 2001). Nonetheless,
even these broad traits offer incremental predictive validity over cognitive ability
alone (Salgado, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
Using personality predictors narrower than the Big Five shows promise for
revealing stronger criterion-related validities. For example, Conscientiousness is
related to performance, but the Achievement facet of the Big Five tends to be the
stronger predictor (Hough, 1992; McHenry et al., 1990; Vickers, 1995).
It will be important for researchers to agree on a more detailed personality
taxonomy than the Big Five, even just as a starting point, if systematic research
is to accumulate linking more narrow traits to performance. A taxonomy of
performance is equally important, especially considering the fact that personality
variables are at least somewhat more strongly related to citizenship performance
than to technical performance. A complete personality taxonomy, including
lower-level facets, will also be useful for identifying compound traits. Such
heterogeneous predictor composites are likely to produce stronger correlations
with performance in some cases than do homogenous, multifaceted traits.
Compound traits may be especially important in organizational environments that
are more dynamic and team-oriented (Edwards & Morrison, 1994). Complex,
heterogeneous predictors are needed to predict the complex, heterogeneous
performance criteria that are likely in such an environment.
Recent research has shown not only the criterion-related validity of personality,
it has also addressed certain persistent objections to personality testing. Adverse
impact appears not to be a problem and response distortion, though certainly
problematic in selection settings, may be alleviated with targeted interventions.
Also, considerable evidence exists to suggest that personality is impressively
stable over the entire life span. Thus, we can be confident that personality variables
used in selection will predict performance of selectees throughout their tenure
with the organization.
VOCATIONAL INTERESTS
In this section we examine vocational interests in relation to personnel selection
and the prediction of work performance. In particular, we first discuss vocational
interests as a domain and where this domain fits with other domains such as values,
needs, motivation, and personality. Next, because vocational interest and person-
ality share relatively close conceptual ties and personality has become a popular
predictor in selection research, empirical relations between constructs from the two
domains are examined. Then, we review the literature linking vocational interests
to job satisfaction and job performance criteria.
Needs, drives, values, and interests are closely related motivational concepts that
refer to the intentions or goals of a person’s actions. Interests are generally thought
of as the most specific and least abstract of these concepts (Hogan & Blake, 1996).
For example, Super (1973) observed that needs are the most general construct,
with values and interests serving as lower order constructs. In this conceptualiza-
tion, interests consist of the specific activities individuals engage in to satisfy their
needs. Somewhat in contrast, Dawis (1980) suggests that attitudes are the most
general concept, needs and values refer to the importance or unimportance of an
object to a person, and interests refer to the liking (or disliking) of the object. In
both views, however, interests are seen as the most specific motivational concept.
Hogan and Blake (1996) point out that vocational interests have not often
been studied in relation to other motivational constructs. Holland and Hough
(1976) believe this is unfortunate from a theoretical perspective, but that a likely
reason for this lack of attention to theoretical links with other constructs is the
early empirical successes of vocational interest inventories, predicting outcomes
such as vocational choice. In a sense, there was little reason to relate to the rest
of psychology because of these successes. Accordingly, many psychologists
have regarded the area of vocational interest measurement as theoretically and
conceptually barren (Strong, 1943).
Relations Between Personality and Vocational Interests
One important exception to this atheoretical tendency on the part of vocational

psychologists is reflected in research to link interests and personality. Many voca-
tional psychologists have considered the two constructs as closely related or even
equivalent (Darley & Hagenah, 1955; Hansen, 1984; Holland, 1973). For example,
Holland (1973) has written about vocational interests as “expressions of person-

ality,” that is, expressions of personality in work, school subjects, hobbies, etc.
Although the concepts may be closely linked conceptually, it is evident
that inventories measuring the two constructs are quite different. Personality
inventories present items that presumably reflect the respondent’s tendency to
act in a certain way in a particular situation. Vocational interest items elicit
like-dislike responses to objects or activities. Hogan and Blake (1996) suggest that
the implication is that interest inventories are better at getting closer to a person’s
self-concept. They point out that responses to interest items more closely reflect
normal social interactions with a new acquaintance. That is, we are more likely to
open such a conversation talking about what we like rather than what we tend to
do in a particular situation. Thus, several behavioral scientists have suggested that
personality and vocational interests are closely related conceptually. And yet, it
is clear that inventories measuring the two sets of constructs have quite different
types of items. The question arises, how are the two domains linked empirically?
There has been a fair amount of empirical research correlating personality and
vocational interest responses. In a very useful table, the findings of several studies
linking personality and vocational interests (e.g. Blake & Sackett, 1993; Hogan
& Hogan, 1995; Holland, Johnson, Asama & Polys, 1993). At the level of the Big
Five personality factors and the six Holland types, Extraversion constructs relate
primarily with Social and Enterprising types, Conscientiousness correlates with
the Conventional type, Agreeableness relates to Social and Realistic (-) types and
Openness to Experience relates to the Artistic type and to some extent with the
Investigative type. Neuroticism is not linked to any of the Holland types. Although
many of these correlations are significant, the magnitude of the relationships is
not very large. The highest correlations are in the 40s (one, the NEO Openness
and Artistic was 0.52), but most of the significant relations were between 0.20 and
0.30. Thus, it appears that personality constructs and vocational interest constructs
have theoretically and conceptually reasonable and coherent relationships but that
these linkages are relatively small. What does this mean for selection research?
Although the two predictor domains have substantial conceptual overlap, they
do not correlate highly, and thus examining vocational interests separately
as a predictor of job performance (and job satisfaction and attrition) seems
warranted.
Relationships Between Vocational Interests and

Job Performance/Job Satisfaction
The most obvious link is between vocational interest responses and occupational
tenure, and by extension, job satisfaction. For the most part, the tenure relation
has been confirmed. For example, regarding occupational tenure, Strong (1943)
demonstrated that occupational membership could be predicted by vocational
interest scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank administered between
five and 18 years previously. This finding at least implies that persons suited
for an occupation on the basis of their interests tend to gravitate to and stay in
that occupation.
For job satisfaction, the relationships are more mixed. The best estimate of the
average interests-satisfaction relation was provided by Barge and Hough (1988).
They computed a median correlation across 18 studies and found it to be 0.31. There
are several potential reasons why this correlation is not higher. First, restriction-
in-range is a possibility, with persons in the U.S. workforce, at least, generally
expressing satisfaction with their jobs (e.g. Campbell, 1971). Second, there are
many other factors possibly influencing overall job satisfaction, such as satisfaction
with pay, the supervisor, and coworkers (e.g. Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Finally,
there is evidence (e.g. Staw & Ross, 1985) that job satisfaction may be, at least
in part, an individual differences variable, with many workers tending to be either
satisfied or not satisfied no matter what job they are holding. Thus, there are likely
reasons why vocational interest-job satisfaction correlations are moderate, at best.
Nonetheless, it is disappointing that interest measures do not better predict this
highly important dependent variable.
Vocational interests are not usually thought of in a personnel selection context,
and, in fact, there are not many studies linking vocational interests and job
performance. As of 1988, Barge and Hough (1988) identified eleven studies,
with a median validity for the interest predictors against job performance of
0.20. Although this level of validity is not very high, and the number of studies
represented is not large, this observed correlation of 0.20 compares rather
favorably to the validities of personality constructs (e.g. Barrick & Mount,
1991).
One of the studies reviewed by Barge and Hough was conducted in the U.S.
Navy. Borman, Rosse and Abrahams (1980) administered vocational interest
items to Navy recruiters (N = 267) as part of a test validation study. The
performance of these same recruiters was evaluated using supervisor and peer
raters. Then Borman et al. took all interest items that demonstrated validity above
a specified cut-off level and factor analyzed only the valid items to identify
potentially valid constructs. The factors emerging from the factor analysis were
quite interpretable. Some examples were: (1) interests in extraverted, dominant,
leadership activities and occupations; (2) interests in law and politics; (3) interests
in sports and competitive activities; and (4) interests in teaching and counseling.
The next step was to write additional interest items to reflect these constructs, and
the “old” valid items along with the new items were administered to a separate
validation sample of 194 Navy recruiters. This cross-validation study showed

reasonably good correlations between the construct scores and job performance
ratings, 0.21 or 0.22 for the construct composites against three of the four rating
criteria (Selling, Human Relations, and Overall Performance).
Vocational interests were also used as a predictor in Project A (the large-scale
selection research project conducted in the U.S. Army: Campbell & Knapp, 2001).
The Army Vocational Interest Career Examination (AVOICE) was developed to
cover interests especially relevant to Army enlisted jobs. Thus, with reference
to Holland’s themes, Enterprising items were not represented, Artistic items
were under-represented, and Realistic item content was heavily weighted. The
AVOICE was administered to several samples during the Project A research
program and revised after each administration based on validation results. Also,
a number of scoring strategies were employed, including both rational and
empirical approaches. In predicting job performance criteria, empirical keying
tended to produce slightly higher validities than did rational keys (Paullin,
Bruskiewicz, Hanson, Logan & Fellows, 1995). For example, in the concurrent
validation sample, the median validity across four jobs was 0.15 for the rational
keys; the median cross-validity across the same four jobs for the empirical keys
was 0.21. In the longitudinal sample, the respective validities were 0.12 and
0.23. When corrected for range-restriction, the latter two validities reached 0.29
and 0.33.
Analogous to personality measures, vocational interest inventories used for
selection have serious potential problems with slanting of responses or faking.
It has long been evident that people can fake interest inventories (e.g. Campbell,
1971). However, some research has shown that in an actual selection setting,
applicants may not slant their responses very much (e.g. Abrahams, Neumann
& Githens, 1971), although it is unclear why faking would be any different with
vocational interest and personality inventories.
Conclusions
Vocational interest measures, similar to personality measures, tap motivation-

related constructs. Interests have substantial conceptual similarity to personality,
but empirical links between the two sets of constructs are rather modest.
Vocational interest measures are most often used in counseling settings, and have
been linked primarily to job satisfaction criteria. However, although not often
used in a selection context, limited data suggest reasonable levels of validity.
Accordingly, vocational interests may show some promise for predicting job
performance.
BIODATA
Biographical information (i.e. “biodata”) has been widely used in personnel
selection since the early part of the century. In general, biodata shows encouraging
validities across a number of work-related outcomes (e.g. turnover, tenure,
job performance, and training performance). In addition, research indicates
that biodata shows less adverse impact in comparison to cognitive ability tests
(Wigdor & Garner, 1982). The following section provides an overview of the
history and recent developments related to biodata, as well as a discussion of
links between biodata and other predictors. Methodological criticisms are also
presented. Finally, ethical and legal concerns are considered in the framework of
maintaining high predictive power.
The primary principle behind the use of biodata is that the best predictor of
future behavior is past behavior. In fact, biodata offers a number of advantages
when used in personnel selection. Among the most significant is its power as
a predictor across a number of work-related criteria. For example, in a recent
meta-analytic review of over 85 years of personnel psychology research, Schmidt
and Hunter (1998) reported mean biodata validity coefficients of 0.35 and 0.30
against job and training success, respectively. These findings support previous
research reporting validities ranging from 0.30 and 0.40 between biodata and a
range of criteria such as turnover, absenteeism, job proficiency, and performance
appraisal ratings (e.g. Asher, 1972; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Reilly & Chao, 1982).
Based on these meta-analytic results, researchers have concluded that biographical
inventories have almost as high validities as cognitive ability tests (Reilly & Chao,
1982). Importantly, the high predictability associated with biodata, the ease of
administration of biodata instruments, the low cost, and the lack of adverse impact
have led to the widespread use of biodata in both the public and private sectors
(Farmer, 2001).
Types of Biodata Items
Recently, researchers have begun to develop a taxonomic framework for catego-

rizing biodata research (e.g. Mael, 1991; Stokes, Mumford & Owens, 1994). For
example, Mael (1991) classifies biodata attributes into ten dimensions, in turn
subsumed under three major themes: (1) historical; (2) methodological; and (3)
legal/moral. The historical category includes information regarding events that
have previously, or are currently, taking place. The methodological category deals
primarily with ensuring the accuracy of the information reported, and includes
externality (whether the actions being recalled could be observed by others),

objectivity (whether the recollections were objective as opposed to subjective),
first-handedness (whether evaluation of the recalled behavior was made by
the respondent or by others), discreteness (whether the recalled behavior was
exhibited just one time or on multiple occasions across time), and verifiability.
Finally, the legal/moral category includes the notions of controllability (whether
or not the respondent chose to engage in the action), equal accessibility (whether
or not the activity could have been engaged in by anyone), job relatedness,
and invasiveness.
Mael (1991) notes that some authors are quite prescriptive regarding the use
of certain item attributes (i.e. controllable rather than noncontrollable events),
whereas others simply point out the advantages and disadvantages associated with
each. In addition, practical constraints (e.g. availability of information, legal issues)
will likely influence the biodata attributes attended to in selecting items within the
applied sector.
Developing and Validating Biodata Items
There are two major strategies for developing and validating biodata inventories.
The most common strategy is the empirical keying approach (i.e. the weighted
application blank). The process of empirical keying examines relationships
between responses on each response option and scores on the criterion of interest.
Item selection is based on the magnitude of these relationships, and the weighting
of the items is contingent upon the strength and direction of the correlation
between the item and the criterion. A composite score is created based on
these weights, which is then correlated with the criterion to determine overall
validity. Finally, these results are usually cross-validated on a separate sample to
control for sample-specificity (Mumford & Owens, 1987; Nickels, 1994; Wesley,
Mumford & McLoughlin, 1987). A variety of empirical keying methods exist
(see Laurence & Waters, 1993, for a review). However, studies comparing the
validities of different techniques have yet to find a conclusive advantage to any
of these methods (e.g. Aamodt & Pierce, 1987; Devlin, Abrahams & Edwards,
1992).
Although empirical keying remains a common practice, researchers have
identified certain drawbacks concerning the method. The first of these has to do
with the specific nature of the criterion. That is, the extent to which results can be
generalized across jobs from any empirical key is contingent upon “the generality
of the criterion measure” (Nickels, 1994, p. 6). In addition, the nature of the
criterion used can dictate the predictive power of the empirical key (Mumford
& Owens, 1987; Thayer, 1977). Two other major criticisms are that empirically
derived keys are subject to capitalization on chance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984),
and relatedly, that this method is sensitive to sample characteristics, resulting
in the shrinkage of the predictor-criterion correlations during cross-validation
(Mael, 1994). The most frequent complaint, however, regarding empirical keying
is the lack of theory behind its development, leading some researchers to label
it as “dustbowl empiricism.” As stated by Laurence and Waters, “A common
characterization of biodata inventory construction is that a multitude of items
are plucked from the sky, without any rhyme or reason, and retained if they
adequately contribute to criterion prediction” (1993, p. 54).
Taken together, these criticisms have led researchers to explore alternative
methods that are based on a foundation that is more construct-oriented as opposed
to empirical. Termed the “rational” approach, this method assigns values to re-
sponse alternatives based upon theorized relationships with a criterion construct(s)
(Mael, 1994). This approach generally begins with a job analysis to define the
nature of the criterion. This information defines what area of the criterion’s domain
items should tap, and items are generated to cover these criteria. Thus, instead
of a purely empirical relationship, items are theoretically and “psychologically”
related to the criterion of interest, with an increased focus on both construct and
content validity as opposed to pure prediction (Laurence & Waters, 1993).
Research has shown that the predictive validities associated with the rational
approach are somewhat lower than those obtained using empirical keying
(Hornick, James & Jones, 1977; Matterson, 1978). In response, a number of
hybrid approaches combining both rational and empirical methods have begun to
surface. For example, some studies have used factor analysis to investigate how
individual items cluster together, with the factors interpreted as biographical con-
structs (Steinhaus, 1988). Relationships are then assessed between these factors
and the target criterion. Another hybrid technique is subgrouping, which groups
individuals according to the similarity of their responses to biodata items and then
empirically examines differences between subgroup means on the target criterion
(Owens, 1976).
For the most part, research has found moderate support for the hybrid
approaches. For example, some researchers found subgroups to be reasonably
stable over time (Eberhardt & Muchinsky, 1982; Neiner & Owens, 1982),
although more recent studies reported that some subgroups tend to be more stable
than others (Hecht, Finch, Landau & Stokes, 2002). In general, Mitchell and
Klimoski (1982) and Mumford and Owens (1987) have concluded that results
based on factorially-based, rationally-keyed, and temperament type measures are
more stable than results based on empirically-keyed biodata items, but that, as
mentioned, findings using the former measures tend to show somewhat lower
validities (as cited in Laurence & Waters, 1993). In light of this evidence and
also in appreciation of increases in the theoretical and conceptual contributions of
rational-based methods of item development, measures with a rational foundation
that are also empirically-keyed continue to increase in popularity because they
combine construct validity, stability, and at least moderate predictive power
(Laurence & Waters, 1993).
Relationship of Biodata to other Predictors
Biodata and Personality

Mumford and Stokes (1992) noted biodata items often appear to be variants of the
type of questions found in self-report personality inventories. This observation is
reinforced by the empirical result that biodata are often strong predictors of scores
on personality scales (Owens, 1976). In fact, Mumford and Owens (1987) found
that biodata factors resembling the “Big Five” factors of personality emerged in
their research.
The aforementioned has led some to assume biodata items are simply another
format for measuring personality (Mumford, Snell & Reiter-Palmon, 1994),
or temperament (Buss & Plomin, 1975). This position would certainly be
consistent with those (Allport, 1937) who include an individual’s experience in
their definition of personality. More recently, others (Ashworth, 1989) focused
on the distinction between the two being somewhat arbitrary and artificial. If,
however, the distinction is made between “hard” (i.e. verifiable and factual)
and “soft” (i.e. private and unverifiable) biodata, a clear delineation exists. In
fact, in a recent study, Shultz (1996) tested a number of confirmatory factor
analytic models of multitrait-multimethod matrices, and found personality and
soft biodata items represented one factor, and hard biodata items represented
a second.
With this in mind, several researchers (Mael, 1991; Mumford & Owens,
1987; Owens, 1976) have defined biodata the way Asher (1972) defined “hard”
biodata, though this is in no way a universal characterization (Mael, 1991; Mael &
Schwartz, 1991). When considering the domains of interest from a measurement
perspective, the differences between biodata and personality become evident.
Self-report personality items generally elicit information regarding an individual’s
predisposition or general behavioral tendency toward a particular situation. Bio-
data items on the other hand, focus on prior behavior and experiences occurring
in specific situations (Mumford & Stokes, 1992). Also, whereas personality item
responses are arguably influenced only by dispositional factors, biodata items
capture aspects of the environment that affect and are affected by the individual.
In addition to personal characteristics, they are tied to social factors as well
(Mael, 1991).
Mumford, Snell and Reiter-Palmon (1994) noted there are two additional
significant points of departure for personality and biodata. The first concerns the
element of choice. Biodata measures often capture behavioral patterns that are
explicitly tied to the decisions individuals make when presented with a particular
situational stimulus. Personality measures, on the other hand, are not tied to a
particular decision or choice, but more to a preference. Second, biodata items
often tap into content areas that are influenced more by individual knowledge or
skills than by personality. In fact, biodata-type items are often used as a preferred
vehicle for accessing job-relevant information necessary to assess knowledge,
skills, or abilities (Mumford, Snell & Reiter-Palmon, 1994). This is not the case
for personality measures.
Overall, as a consequence of the shift from empirical to rational and hybrid
approaches to development and scoring of biodata, the distinction between
biodata and temperament or personality scales has become less clear (Mael,
1991). Nonetheless, a core difference between the two types of predictors remains.
In particular, the hallmark of biodata is its emphasis on past behaviors and their
influence on future behavior.
Biodata, Interests, and Cognitive Abilities

Mumford and Stokes (1992) pointed out that biodata items demonstrate a certain
amount of overlap with vocational interest inventories (Eberhardt & Muchinsky,
1984). By tapping into past occurrences of behavior, especially those that are
directly a function of or are related to particular occupations, biodata measures
capture important determinants of interests (Mumford & Stokes, 1992). Mumford
and Stokes (1992) noted likely relationships with attitudes and values also exist
for biodata.
As Mumford and Stokes (1992) stated, relationships between biodata and
measures of cognitive abilities have received less attention than that for other
areas. As they and others (Mitchell, 1994) have pointed out, there is a fundamental
difference between cognitive abilities as they are typically measured and the
way they are captured with biodata. Generally, aptitude or ability measures
are constructed in such a way as to elicit maximal performance in a somewhat
artificial problem-solving situation. However, biodata may be more useful in the
prediction of typical or “everyday” behavior (Mitchell, 1994). Though biodata do
not usually provide information on the upper bounds for performance, Mumford
and Stokes (1992) speculate that they may be tapping into the same variance as
measures of practical intelligence (Sternberg, 1985; Wagner & Sternberg, 1985).
In fact, properly constructed biodata measures may be the best way to assess
the types of intelligence that are actually better predictors of some real world
outcomes (Gordon, 1997) such as job and life success.
Ethical and Legal Issues with Biodata
Although most criticism surrounding biodata centers around the use of empirical
keys, Mael (1991) reviewed certain ethical and legal concerns that have also been
raised. The first of these deals with the controllability of events. That is, there are
actions that the respondent chooses to engage in (controllable events), whereas
other events were either imposed upon them or happened to them (noncontrollable
events). Despite the belief held by numerous biodata researchers that all events,
whether controllable or not, have the potential to influence later behavior,
some researchers (e.g. Striker, 1987, 1988) argue that it is unethical to evaluate
individuals based on events that are out of their control (e.g. parental behavior,
socioeconomic status). As a result, some have either deleted all noncontrollable
items from their biodata scales (e.g. the Armed Services Application Profile –
ASAP), or have even created new measures with the exclusion of these items
(e.g. the Air Force’s Leadership Effectiveness Assessment Profile – LEAP). A
frequent consequence, however, is that using only controllable items reduces the
validity of the biodata instrument (Mael, 1991).
Two other ethical and legal concerns that have been raised include equal
accessibility and invasion of privacy. That is, some researchers (e.g. Striker,
1987, 1988) argue that items dealing with events not equally accessible to all
individuals (e.g. playing varsity football) are inherently unfair, and should not
be included. Similarly, the current legal climate does not encourage the use of
items perceived as personally invasive. Overall, adhering to certain conditions
that minimize such issues as invasiveness might be encouraged. What should be
avoided, however, is a reliance on subjective and less verifiable items, that com-
promises the primary goal of retrieving relatively objective, historical data from
applicants.
Conclusions
Biodata predictors are a powerful, non-cognitive alternative to cognitive ability

tests that have shown significant promise as a predictor in selection. The principle
relative to biodata is that past behaviors matter, and should be taken into account
when criteria such as performance, absenteeism, and other work-related outcomes
are being predicted. In addition, efforts are currently underway to develop a more
theoretical understanding of the constructs involved with biodata. Finally, ethical
and legal concerns are also being addressed in hopes of creating an acceptable
compromise between high predictability and overall fairness. Thus, although
there is still much to be done in understanding how past behaviors can be used in
personnel selection, evidence suggests that enhancing biodata techniques seems
like a step in the right direction.
SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TESTS

A situational judgment test (SJT) presents descriptions of challenging but realistic
job-related situations, and respondents indicate which of several alternative courses
of action they would take. SJTs have been used for nearly a century (see McDaniel,
Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion & Braverman, 2001 for a history of early SJTs).
SJTs’ popularity in research and practice has boomed in recent years (Borman,
Hanson & Hedge, 1997). Advantages of SJTs include favorable user reactions
(Olson-Buchanan et al., 1998) and low adverse impact relative to cognitive tests
(Chan & Schmitt, 1997). SJTs are also more economical to develop and administer
than are higher-fidelity job simulations such as in-basket tests and role-plays.
Importantly, SJTs often produce criterion-related validity comparable to that of
some of the best available predictors of job performance in personnel selection
(McDaniel et al., 2001; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and are related to performance
in military (Hanson & Borman, 1993; Hedge et al., 2000; Pulakos & Dorsey,
2000) as well as civilian occupations. In short, the SJT is an attractive candidate
for a personnel selection battery. The present section details development issues,
research findings, and research needs regarding SJTs.
Development Procedures and Test Characteristics
SJTs are typically developed by first having subject matter experts (SMEs) generate
challenging, realistic situations. Test developers may then edit the situations to a
common format, and these situations are administered to job incumbents, with the
instructions to write about what they would do in each of the situations. Typically,
themes will emerge from these responses (i.e. several different ways to handle each
situation), and the test developer can write response options targeted to each of the
themes (e.g. Hanson & Borman, 1993; Motowidlo, Dunnette & Carter, 1990).
There are several variations on SJT content and format, instructions to
test-takers, judgments requested of test-takers, and scoring procedures. Regarding
content and format, SJTs can be targeted toward personal characteristic constructs
or toward the job in general, with the content intended to sample widely the
important situations a job incumbent is likely to face. As an example of the
former, Motowidlo et al. (1990) targeted with their SJT toward problem solving,
communication, and interpersonal skills. With many SJTs, however, the latter
content sampling strategy is not employed, and the resulting test is likely to be
quite multidimensional.
Besides the paper-and-pencil format, video-based and computerized SJTs
have been developed (e.g. Chan & Schmitt, 1997; Olson-Buchanan et al., 1998;
Weekley & Jones, 1997). When the situations are presented via video, response
options may be written, narrated, or both at once. Items and response options
also vary in length and complexity. Another issue in SJT development involves
the instructions for test-takers. One possibility is for respondents to rate the
effectiveness of every available response option. Another is to ask respondents to
select, for each situation, the most (or most and least) effective response (i.e. what
should be done in each situation). A third option is for respondents to indicate the
response they would most (or most and least) likely perform (i.e. what would you
do in each situation). Each option carries potential benefits and drawbacks.
Rating the effectiveness of each response generates the largest amount of
information. The extent to which this information is useful, however, is unknown.
Furthermore, more test administration time is probably needed under this
instruction set than under the others.
Asking test-takers for two judgments per item (e.g. most and least effective
response) yields twice as much information as asking for one (e.g. most effective
response). Conceptually, it seems appropriate to evaluate the test-taker’s knowl-
edge of what actions to avoid in addition to the most effective responses (Hanson
& Borman, 1993). Finally, Hanson and Borman (1993) found that a scoring
system that subtracted the effectiveness values of the “least” responses from the
effectiveness values of the “most” responses resulted in the highest levels of
internal consistency reliability compared to several other scoring strategies.
Differences between asking for likely responses (would do) versus asking for
effective responses (should do) has generated the most discussion on the topic
of SJT instructions (e.g. Weekley & Jones, 1999). Under most/least effective
instructions, all respondents are answering based on their knowledge. Under
most/least likely instructions, it is likely that only a small proportion of the
respondents will answer according to what they would do when they believe that a
different response is more effective. This will of course introduce error in the data.
There are two general approaches to SJT scoring: rational and empirical.
Rational answer keys are usually based on SME ratings of response option
effectiveness. Empirical keys assign values to response options based on their
relationships to a criterion. In two studies that directly compared scoring methods,

correlations between SJT scores derived rationally and empirically were about
0.50 (Weekley & Jones, 1997) and 0.80 (MacLane, Barton, Holloway-Lundy &
Nickels, 2001). In both studies, rational and empirical scores yielded equivalent
relationships with performance criteria. At this time, there is no apparent advan-
tage to either scoring method, but the relevant evidence is sparse and additional
direct comparisons of the methods are still needed.
Research Findings
Reliability
The most commonly reported reliability estimate for SJTs is coefficient alpha,
which varies widely across SJTs (McDaniel et al., 2001). SJTs are usually multi-
dimensional by design, however, and should not be expected to have high internal
consistency. Test-retest reliability is a more appropriate index (Motowidlo et al.,
1990), but it is seldom studied. Data from two studies show test-retest reliabili-
ties of 0.84 (Ployhart & Ryan, 2000) and 0.63 (Borman, Logan, Hedge, Hanson,
Bruskiewicz, Schneider & Houston, 1996).
Relationship With Other Predictors: General Cognitive Ability (or g)

It seems reasonable to expect some association between cognitive ability and SJT
scores. A recent meta-analytic estimate of the true correlation between written SJTs
and g is 0.46 (McDaniel et al., 2001). McDaniel et al. also found wide variability in
the SJT-g relationship across different SJTs. SJTs based on job analysis were more
strongly related to cognitive ability (␳ = 0.50) than those that were not (␳ = 0.38).
Also, SJTs containing shorter questions were more cognitively loaded (␳ = 0.56)
than were those with longer questions (␳ = 0.47), indicating that reading skill
may not account for the SJT-g relationship. (Note that video-based tests were not
included in this meta-analysis.)
Comparisons between written and video-based SJTs can offer more insight
into the reasons why cognitive ability and written SJT performance are related.
If reading requirements are largely responsible for the cognitive loading of
written SJTs, then video-based SJTs should show lower correlations with g. Two
studies that directly compared written and video formats of otherwise-identical
tests found that g was moderately related to written SJT scores, but unrelated to
video-based SJT scores (Chan & Schmitt, 1997; Swander, 2001). Other studies
have reported correlations between video-based SJTs and g ranging from zero to
0.37 (Olson-Buchanan et al., 1998; Smiderle, Perry & Cronshaw, 1994; Weekley
& Jones, 1997).
Taken together, the research evidence indicates that video-based SJTs tend
to be less cognitively-loaded than their written counterparts, but that reading
requirements do not completely account for the cognitive ability influence in SJTs.
One study showed that an SJT mediated the g-performance relationship (Hanson
& Borman, 1993). That is, g might facilitate learning how to handle particular
work situations, which in turn leads to better job performance. More research is
needed to understand the factors that drive the cognitive loading for SJTs.
Relationship With Other Predictors: Personality

McDaniel and Nguyen (2001) conducted a meta-analysis based on a limited
number of studies relating SJTs to the Big Five personality traits. SJT scores
were related to emotional stability (r = 0.32), conscientiousness (r = 0.26), and
agreeableness (r = 0.25; rs corrected for sampling error only). Subsequent to
this meta-analysis, four additional SJTs were found to be unrelated or weakly
related to the Big Five (Chan, 2001; Clevenger, Pereira, Wiechmann, Schmitt &
Harvey, 2001). These results, as well as the large variance displayed in McDaniel
and Nguyen’s meta-analytic estimates, indicate that the relationship between SJT
scores and personality constructs is not consistent.
Two recent SJTs were explicitly designed to measure personality variables.
Ployhart and Ryan (2000) targeted emotional stability, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness in persons holding customer service jobs. SJT scores correlated
about 0.20 (corrected for unreliability in all variables) with each target trait as
measured by a traditional personality inventory. These relationships are smaller
than those reported in McDaniel and Nguyen’s (2001) meta-analysis, which
presumably included mostly SJTs that were not intentionally designed to measure
personality constructs.
As mentioned in a previous section, Pulakos, Arad, Plamondon and Kiechel
(1996) investigated adaptive job performance in U.S. Army personnel. Based
on careful consideration of the criterion domain and an extensive literature
review, they identified fifteen personality constructs that were promising pre-
dictors of adaptive performance. The research team then developed personality
measures and an SJT designed to assess ability to adapt to new and changing
situations (Pulakos & Dorsey, 2000). The SJT targeted eight dimensions of
adaptive performance, with consideration for the personality traits thought to be
linked to those dimensions. For example, the trait sociability was linked to the
criterion displaying cultural adaptability; thus, some situations presented cultural
adaptation dilemmas requiring sociability to resolve. The traits most strongly
related to the SJT were willingness to learn, achievement orientation, tolerance
of ambiguity, and openness to experience, each with uncorrected correlations in
the 0.20s.
In sum, SJTs have small to moderate relationships with some of the Big Five
personality factors, and the strength of these relationships varies across SJTs
(McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001). Despite the fact that convergent validity evidence
was weak, Ployhart and Ryan (2000) and Pulakos and Dorsey (2000) have
contributed valuable early efforts targeting specific constructs with an SJT, and
more work in this direction is needed.
Relationships with Job Experience
It is reasonable to expect longer tenure and job knowledge to be associated with

higher SJT scores. A recent meta-analysis, however, revealed a very small positive
relationship between various measures of job experience and SJT scores (mean
r = 0.05, corrected for sampling error only; McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001). Several
subsequent studies also show low correlations between experience and SJT scores
(Chan, 2001; Clevenger et al., 2001; Ployhart & Ryan, 2000; Weekley & Ployhart,
2002). The adaptability study described earlier did find that military rank correlated
0.30 with SJT scores (Pulakos & Dorsey, 2000). A likely interpretation of the
generally low correlations between SJT scores and job experience is that time on
the job, per se, may not be as important for enhancing job knowledge and job-
related judgments as is what a job incumbent learns from this experience. Also, as
McDaniel and Nguyen point out, there might be an asymptotic relationship between
job experience and SJT scores, where notable gains in situational judgment are
realized early on the job with subsequent experience contributing little to what the
incumbent already knows about handling job-related situations. This will almost
certainly depend on how complex and changeable the job is.
What Do SJTs Measure?

The persistent lack of agreement about what SJTs measure is not surprising in
light of the fact that SJTs are most often designed to predict a broad criterion
domain, not to reflect specific characteristics of individuals. Support is growing
for the notion that the SJT is a measurement method rather than an indicator of a
unitary construct, and as such, it might be used to assess various constructs (Chan
& Schmitt, 1997; McDaniel et al., 2001; McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001; Motowidlo
et al., 1990; Weekley & Jones, 1999).
We agree that SJTs are best characterized as a measurement method and that
what they measure is often multidimensional in nature. We can make some
summary statements regarding the constructs most consistently related to SJTs,
with the caveat that each of these relationships varies widely across different SJTs.
Cognitive ability is the strongest correlate with SJTs (McDaniel et al., 2001),
but tends to be less prominent in video-based tests than in written tests (Chan
& Schmitt, 1997; Swander, 2001). Notable non-cognitive components include
emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (McDaniel & Nguyen,
2001). Finally, SJTs typically have positive, but weak linear relationships with
job experience (Chan, 2001; Clevenger et al., 2001; McDaniel & Nguyen,
2001; Ployhart & Ryan, 2000; Pulakos & Dorsey, 2000; Weekley & Ployhart,
2002). Future research should investigate possible nonlinear relationships
between experience and situational judgment. Finally, recent attempts to measure
specific personal characteristics with SJTs (Ployhart & Ryan, 2000; Pulakos &
Dorsey, 2000), rather than simply measure their correlates after the fact should
be continued.
Criterion-Related Validity
A recent meta-analysis estimated the relationship between written SJTs and job
performance to be 0.34 (corrected for sampling error and criterion unreliability;
McDaniel et al., 2001). SJTs designed to target personality traits and SJTs
administered via video, both excluded from this meta-analysis, demonstrate
comparable levels of criterion-related validity (Ployhart & Ryan, 2000; Pulakos &
Dorsey, 2000; Swander, 2001; Weekley & Jones, 1997). This evidence places the
SJT among the best predictors in personnel selection, including general cognitive
ability, conscientiousness, integrity, biodata, and assessment centers (Schmidt &
Hunter, 1998).
McDaniel et al.’s (2001) data were conclusive regarding one moderator:
SJTs based on job analysis were more valid (␳ = 0.38) than SJTs that were not
(␳ = 0.29). Sufficient data were available for independent assessment of three
commercially available SJTs: Mean corrected validities for these ranged from
0.21 to 0.41. Results from the remaining moderator analyses suffered from small
samples and were less conclusive. For example, the authors predicted that the
general cognitive ability loading of SJTs would be positively associated with
validity (based on the known association between g and job performance). SJTs
with a high g-loading were indeed the most valid (␳ = 0.41), but SJTs with a
medium g-loading were the least valid, and SJTs with a low g-loading were
in-between.
In addition to considering the relationship between SJTs and job performance,
it is important to know whether SJTs are useful predictors over and above popular
alternatives. One estimate is that an SJT plus a cognitive ability test yields
␳ = 0.40 for predicting job performance, compared to ␳ = 0.34 for the SJT alone
or ␳ = 0.32 for g alone (McDaniel et al., 2001). This degree of incremental
validity over g is comparable to that estimated for conscientiousness tests; slightly

less than that estimated for integrity tests, work samples, and structured job
interviews; and higher than that estimated for a wide variety of other predictors
(Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). A few individual studies also provide tests of the
incremental validity of SJTs, demonstrating SJTs’ incremental validity over
combinations of some of the best performance predictors available, including
cognitive ability, conscientiousness, job experience, and job knowledge (Chan,
2001; Clevenger et al., 2001; Weekley & Jones, 1997).
It is important to remember that validities of SJTs and other predictors are
affected by moderator variables, and thus to expect the degree of incremental
validity offered by an SJT to vary across situations (McDaniel et al., 2001). One
such situation might involve the nature of the performance criteria. For example,
perhaps SJTs are differently related to citizenship versus task dimensions of job
performance. Little research has addressed this question so far, but some data
suggest that SJTs are good predictors of both citizenship and task performance
(Chan, 2001; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1996). This issue is certainly worthy of
further study.
Adverse Impact
One of the reasons SJTs have become so popular is because of their potential
to produce criterion-related validity comparable to that found for cognitive
ability, while at the same time, producing smaller racial group differences. SJTs
consistently produce smaller Black-White differences than do tests of g, but
larger differences than do personality tests (e.g. Clevenger et al., 2001; Hough,
Oswald & Ployhart, 2001; Pulakos & Dorsey, 2000). Whereas the d-scores
are near zero for personality tests and 1.0 or even higher for g tests, there is
considerable variability across SJTs, although the differences are always less than
for g tests. For example, Hough et al. found mean d = −0.61 favoring Whites
over Blacks for written SJTs, compared to mean d = −0.43 for video-based
SJTs.
In one study that compared Black and White participants’ scores on written
and video-based SJTs that were identical in their content (Chan & Schmitt, 1997),
the Black-White difference was much larger for the written version (d = −0.95)
than for the video-based version (d = −0.21). Also, reading comprehension test
scores were positively related to written SJT scores, but not related to video-based
SJT scores. Finally, Black participants thought that the video-based test was
substantially more job related than the written test, whereas White participants
thought that both tests were highly face valid. Thus, both reading comprehension
and test perceptions might contribute to Black-White performance differences on

written SJTs.
Separate from the issue of group differences is the issue of differential
prediction. That is, do SJTs have different relationships with criteria for different
subgroups? One study of Black and White incumbents in three different organi-
zations found no differential prediction for a written SJT (Clevenger et al., 2001).
Using a video-based SJT, another study found no differential prediction based
on race or sex (Weekley & Jones, 1997). In these two cases, SJTs showed no
differential prediction despite the fact that they had moderate g loadings and did
produce significant Black-White mean differences. More studies are needed on
the topic of differential prediction before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Turning to gender differences, women tend to score higher than men on both
written (d = 0.26) and video-based (d = 0.19) SJTs (Hough et al., 2001). In the
Army’s Project A, women scored higher than men (d = 0.33) on an SJT designed
as a criterion measure of supervisory judgment and decision making (Hanson
& Borman, 1993). Two other studies not included in Hough et al.’s summary,
however, found no significant gender differences in SJT scores (Olson-Buchanan
et al., 1998; Pulakos & Dorsey, 2000).
Conclusions
Despite all of the advantages described above, important questions about SJTs
remain. Perhaps the most important note of caution is that relationships between
SJT scores and other constructs (e.g. general cognitive ability, personality) vary
considerably and thus it is not clear what SJTs are measuring. At this point, it
seems most reasonable to conclude that SJTs are inherently multidimensional,
that constructs measured vary across tests, and that the SJT should be viewed as a
measurement method rather than a measure of a particular construct or constructs.
In fact, their multidimensional nature is probably part of the explanation for why
SJTs tend to be such good predictors of job performance, which itself is often
multidimensional. Accepting these conclusions, however, means also accepting
that SJTs may never fit neatly into a nomological net of psychological variables
of interest in industrial and organizational psychology.
Perhaps it is possible, however, to create a test that has the benefits of an SJT and
measures an identifiable set of constructs. One approach involves pre-specifying
target constructs for the test, and developing situations to target those constructs.
Two such attempts provide a good starting point (Ployhart & Ryan, 2000; Pulakos
& Dorsey, 2000). This approach could lead to a new, less fakable, more face valid,
and more criterion-valid means of measuring personality traits.
PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT
Conventional selection practices are geared toward hiring employees whose KSAs
provide the greatest fit with clearly defined requirements of specific jobs. The
characteristics of the organization in which the jobs reside, or those characteristics
of the person relative to the organization as a whole, are rarely considered.
The basic notion with person-organization fit (P-O fit) is that a fit between
personal attributes and characteristics of the target organization contributes
to important individual and organizational outcomes. There is considerable
confusion, however, about what P-O fit is. Although researchers tend to define
P-O fit as compatibility between individuals and organizations, how compatibility
is conceptualized, operationalized, and measured varies greatly. We now provide
an overview of a few major themes in this topic area.
Conceptualization and Measurement of Fit
Conceptualizations of Fit
Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) suggested that “fit” can be conceptualized as
either supplementary or complementary in nature. Supplementary fit is directed
at finding individuals who possess characteristics similar to other individuals in a
particular organization. This type of fit reflects vocational choice; people prefer to
work in environments with others who are similar. Complementary fit is directed
at filling gaps in the organization by finding individuals possessing the requisite
KSAOs. Complementary fit based on person-job (P-J) match has traditionally
driven employment selection practices. Both supplementary and complementary
fit should be important in selection processes.
Direct and Indirect Measures of Fit

Researchers have studied direct judgments of perceived fit (e.g. interviewers’ per-
ceptions of applicant fit), and indirect measures of actual fit (e.g. the fit between
independent judgments of individual and organizational characteristics). Kristof
(1996) suggested that direct measures are beneficial if fit is conceptualized as the
judgment that a person fits well in an organization. Indirect measurement, on the
other hand, is said to reflect actual fit because it allows independent verification
without asking for input from the participants.
Although there have been a variety of methods used to assess fit, in broad terms,
the results have been discussed as investigations of the same construct. In truth,
however, various conceptualizations of fit may differentially predict particular
dependent variables. Consequently, several more recent studies have begun to
investigate the comparability of these multiple conceptualizations of fit (see, for

example, Bretz & Judge, 1994).
Indices of Fit
In most P-O fit research, a profile comparison approach has been adopted for
establishing fit, for example, using O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell’s (1991)
Organizational Culture Profile. The Q-sort technique applied in these studies
implies a holistic comparison of individuals and situations across multiple
dimensions, rather than the comparison of persons and situations on specific
dimensions. Difference scores are then used to contrast attributes of individuals
with attributes of the environment, and most typically, for each attribute the
difference is calculated and squared. These squared differences are then summed;
larger sums represent poorer fit.
Edwards (1993), however, noted that profile similarity indices discard infor-
mation on direction of misfit and rely on the assumption that each dimension
of fit contributes equally to outcome measures. Edwards (1991) recommended
instead, the use of a polynomial regression procedure because it simultaneously
considers not only main effects of the individual and the environment, but also
interaction effects as potential correlates of a criterion of interest. We now turn to
a brief summary of relevant research findings on P-O fit, followed by some recent
developments in the area, and thinking about future directions.
Research Findings
Job Selection/Job Choice

Much of the research on P-O fit and job choice has examined the match between
personality variables and peoples’ preferences for organizations. For example,
Bretz, Ash and Dreher (1989) found that students with high need for achievement
were attracted to organizations that encouraged and rewarded competitive indi-
vidual effort and accomplishment. Turban and Keon (1993) found that subjects
with low self-esteem preferred larger firms with more centralized organizational
structures, and subjects with high need for achievement preferred organizations
that rewarded performance rather than seniority.
Cable and Judge (1994) showed that materialism and self-efficacy significantly
predicted preferences for organizations with high pay levels and individual-based
pay. Judge and Cable (1997) examined the relationship between job seekers’
personality traits and their attraction toward different employers with whom
they had interviewed. Results suggested that the Big Five personality constructs
(extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) were
related to dimensions of cultural preferences (innovative, detail-oriented,

aggressive, outcome-oriented, supportive, decisive, and team-oriented).
Work Attitudes and Outcomes

Strong support has also been found for the positive effects of P-O fit on individual
work attitudes. For example, Chatman (1991) found organizational fit to be a
determinant of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, using new hires
in an accounting firm. In addition, she found that socialization activities, such as
mentorship programs and attendance at firm-related social events, were positively
related to fit within one year of organizational entry. O’Reilly et al. (1991) found
similar results related to satisfaction and commitment, and suggested P-O fit was a
significant determinant of employee turnover within two years of the assessment.
Vancouver and Schmitt (1991), in a study of teachers and principals found that
both teacher-principal and teacher-teacher goal congruence were positively related
to satisfaction and commitment. Bretz and Judge (1994) examined fit as a predictor
of career success; and found indirect effects of P-O fit on job promotions, and to
a lesser degree salary level, in addition to direct effects on organizational tenure
and satisfaction. Finally, Goodman and Svyantek (1999) noted that employees’
perceptions of the organization’s “warmth” and “competence” were the strongest
predictors of the employee’s positive citizenship and task performance.
Research on Different Aspects of Fit

Kristof-Brown (2000) conducted two studies to assess whether recruiters form
distinguishable perceptions of applicant person-job (P-J) and person-organization
(P-O) fit. The first study demonstrated that knowledge, skills, and abilities are
relied on more frequently to assess P-J fit, and values and personality traits more
often to assess P-O fit. Study 2 also found that both types of perceived fit offer
unique prediction of hiring recommendations. Taken together, these results present
evidence that recruiters discriminate between applicants’ P-J and P-O fit during
early interviews.
Hollenbeck et al. (2002) introduced the notion of internal fit and external
fit, and suggested that for an organization to be successful, the organization’s
structure needs to be aligned both internally (in terms of who performs the work)
and externally (in terms of the environment in which the work takes place).
Thus, structure becomes the central link between internal and external fit. They
examined external and internal person-team fit, and found that when confronted
with a poor fit between their divisional structure and their task environment, par-
ticipants’ emotional stability turned out to be the most critical personal attribute.
In other words, poor external fit can attenuate the otherwise positive effects of
cognitive ability. In addition, high levels of emotional stability can also offset, to
some degree, the negative effects of being in a situation characterized as a poor

external fit.
Schneider’s Attraction-Selection-Attrition Framework
Much of the recent interest in the concept of P-O fit can be traced to the attraction –
selection-attrition (ASA) framework proposed by Schneider (e.g. Schneider,
1987, 1989; Schneider, Smith & Goldstein, 2000). Schneider outlined a the-
oretical framework of organizational behavior based on the mechanism of
person-environment fit that integrates both individual and organizational theories.
It suggests that certain kinds of people are attracted to, and prefer, particular types
of organizations; organizations formally and informally seek certain types of
employees to join the organization; and attrition occurs when employees who do
not fit a particular organization leave. Those people who stay with the organization,
in turn, define the structure, processes, and culture of the organization.
Schneider, Goldstein and Smith (1996) suggested that, although positive
consequences of good fit include such outcomes as harmony, positive affect,
effective socialization, and adjustment, good fit may lead to so much homogeneity
that the organization becomes unable to adapt and change when the environment
requires it. Thus, the organization may lack needed innovation, fail to challenge
existing norms, and reflect “group think” at an organizational level.
Responding to Schneider’s ASA notion that “people make the place,” Van
Vianen (2000) argued that although many aspects of organizational life may be
influenced by the attitudes and personality of employees in the organization, this
does not necessarily require that the culture of a work setting originate in the char-
acteristics of people. He suggested instead, that cultural dimensions that reflect the
human side of organizational life are more adaptable to characteristics of people
whereas cultural dimensions that reflect the production side of organizational life
are more determined by organizational goals and the external environment. Van
Vianen (2000) suggested that both the strength of organizational culture and the
existence of subcultures are neglected issues in P-O fit research.
Likewise, Schaubroeck, Ganster and Jones (1998) proposed that a more complex
conceptualization of the ASA process that incorporates the distinction between
occupational and organizational influences should be examined more closely.
These researchers investigated the role of personality facets and P-O fit, and found
that personality homogenization occurs differently and more strongly within
particular occupational subgroups within an organization. Similarly, Haptonstahl
and Buckley (2002) suggested that as work teams become more widely used in
the corporate world, person-group fit becomes an increasingly relevant construct.
In fact, Furnham (2001) argued that the fit concept should be viewed as dynamic
and flexible because people both adapt to and change their jobs soon after they start
them, and because of rapid changes in technology, jobs evolve and change over
time. Furnham goes on to note that people can show dramatic changes in attitudes,
beliefs, and work-related behavior because of the incentives and requirements
of the job. In addition, most organizations attempt to mold employee behavior
into some acceptable pattern. Individuals also change their jobs, without leaving
them. They “personalize” different aspects of the job, and soon they are doing
the job differently than did their predecessors. Finally, jobs themselves evolve
and change. Organizational restructuring, the introduction of new technology,
changing marketplace demands, etc., all force jobs to evolve fairly rapidly. So, over
time, it may be that the degree of fit varies substantially as a function of the person,
the organization, or job evolution. Thus, the concept of fit is itself far from clear
or simple.
Toward an Expanded Model of Fit and a Broader Perspective of Selection
The research and theorizing reported in this section has suggested that selection
theory should consider making fit assessments based on person-job fit, person-
organization fit, and person-group fit. Traditional selection theory considers
person-job fit as the basis for selecting job applicants, with the primary predictor
measures being KSAs, and the criterion targets being job proficiency and technical
understanding of the job.
Werbel and Gilliland (1999) have suggested that challenges to the predomi-
nant use of person-job fit in the selection process stem from new research and
conceptualizing aimed at expanding both the predictor and the criterion domains.
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) called for an expansion of the criterion domain
and suggested that selection practices should be based on factors associated with
both technical job performance and non-technical performance.
Expansion of the predictor domain comes from activities such as: (1) global
competition, employee empowerment, development of work teams, and increased
use of technology; (2) an understanding that organizations possess certain cultures,
visions, and values, and it may be important to select people who share the values
and visions of the organization; and (3) new thinking about the nature of jobs, and
a reliance on more fluid and rapidly changing role responsibilities.
To include P-O fit as a component of the selection process, one would evaluate
applicants’ needs, goals, and values. The assumption here is that the greater the
match between the needs of the applicant and organizational reward systems, the
greater the willingness to perform for the organization; and the greater the match
between a person’s goals and values and an organization’s expectations and culture,
the greater the satisfaction and commitment. Consequently, the criteria associated
with P-O fit should include organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational
commitment, organizational satisfaction, and retention. Citizenship performance
is important to organizations because higher levels of such activities facilitate the
meeting of organizational goals and organizational performance, and help to shape
the internal environment of the organization.
Finally, at a more detailed level of fit, there is the expectation that sub-
organizational units such as groups may have different norms and values than
the organization in which they are embedded. Thus, the degree of fit between an
individual and group may differ significantly from the fit between the person and
the organization. P-G fit has not received as much research attention as either P-J
fit or P-O fit, but it is clearly different from these other types of fit (Kristof, 1996).
Werbel and Gilliland (1999) suggested the following tenets about the three types
of fit and employee selection: (1) the greater the technical job requirements, the
greater the importance of P-J fit; (2) the more distinctive the organizational culture,
the greater the need for P-O fit; (3) the lengthier the career ladder associated with
an entry-level job, the greater the importance of P-O fit; (4) the more frequent
the use of team-based systems within a work unit, the greater the importance of
P-G fit; and (5) the greater work flexibility within the organization, the greater the
importance of P-O fit and P-G fit.
Conclusions
When jobs and tasks are constantly changing, the process of matching a person
to some fixed job requirements becomes less relevant. Whereas traditional se-
lection models focused primarily on P-J fit, several have argued that with new
organizational structures and ways of functioning, individual-organizational fit
and individual-group fit become more relevant concepts.
In our judgment, selection models in the future should incorporate all three
types of fit as is appropriate for the target job and organization. We can conceive
of a hybrid selection model where two or even all three kinds of fit are considered
simultaneously in making selection decisions. For example, consider the possibility
of a special multiple hurdle application in which applicants must have above a
level of fit for the initial job, the team they will first be assigned to, and the target
organization in order to be hired. Or, depending on the particular selection context
for an organization, the three different types of fit might be weighted differentially
in selecting applicants. Obviously, the details of hybrid selection models such as
these have yet to be worked out. However, the notion of using more than one fit
concept seems to hold promise for a more flexible and sophisticated approach to
making selection decisions.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The world of work is in the midst of profound changes that will require
new thinking about personnel selection. Workers will likely need to be more
versatile, handle a wider variety of diverse and complex tasks, and have more
sophisticated technological knowledge and skills. The aim of this paper was to
provide a review of the state-of-the-science on criterion and predictor research
and thinking, with an emphasis on recent developments that seem especially
relevant. Accordingly, we completed a detailed review of predictor space issues,
including predictors that tap such domains as ability, personality, vocational
interests, and biodata. A similar review was undertaken for the criterion space, and
included both technical and non-technical performance. In addition, other relevant
criterion domains, such as adaptability and work commitment were examined
as potentially important. These reviews also covered all available literature that
provides empirical relationships between these predictor and criterion domains.
Finally, we felt that it was important to expand this individual-level perspective
to encompass broader organizational issues related to person-job match and
person-organization fit.
On the predictor side, advances in the last decade or so have shown that we can
reliably measure personality, motivational, and interest facets of human behavior
and that under certain conditions these can add substantially to our ability to
predict turnover, retention, and job performance. The reemergence of personality
and related volitional constructs as predictors is a positive sign, in that this trend
should result in a more complete mapping of the KSAO requirements for jobs
and organizations, beyond general cognitive ability. One particularly promising
approach to measuring individual differences in the interpersonal and personality
areas is the situational judgment test (SJT). These tests are based on the premise
that there are important and often subtle differences between responding effectively
and responding ineffectively to problems or dilemmas confronted in the course of
carrying out job responsibilities. Further, such differences are reflected in responses
to situations presented in written, video, or computer form. Recent research with
SJTs offer hope that further work might lead to a less fakable, more criterion-valid
measure of personality.
In terms of criterion measurement, research has demonstrated that short-term,
technical performance criteria, are best predicted by general cognitive ability,
whereas longer term criteria such as non-technical job performance, retention, and
promotion rates are better predicted by other measures, including personality,

vocational interest, and motivation constructs. In order to select and retain the best
possible applicants, it would seem critical to understand, develop, and evaluate
multiple measures of short-and long-term performance, as well as other indicators
of organizational effectiveness such as turnover/retention. Our review suggests
that organizations should explore in greater detail, criterion measurement domains
such as citizenship performance, adaptability, and work commitment, as important
dependent measures against which to validate predictors of long-term success.
Finally, we would recommend, that organizations consider ways of expanding
the predictor and criterion domains that result in selecting applicants with a greater
chance of long-term career success, and when doing so, it will be important to
extend the perspective to broader implementation issues that involve classification
of personnel and person-organization (P-O) fit. As organizational flexibility in
effectively utilizing employees increasingly becomes an issue, the P-O fit model
may be more relevant compared to the traditional person-job match approach.
NOTE
1. Unless otherwise noted, ␳ represents true operational validity, an estimate corrected

for sampling error, range restriction, and criterion unreliability.
REFERENCES
Aamodt, M. G., & Pierce, W. L., Jr. (1987). Comparison of the rare response and vertical percent
methods for scoring the biographical information blank. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 47, 505–511.
Abrahams, N. M., Alf, E. F., Keickhaefer, W. F., Pass, J. J., Cole, D. R., & Walton Paxton, E. (1994).
Classification of test composites from the ASVAB, CAT-ASVAB, and ECAT batteries (Contract
N66001-90-D-95 02, Delivery Order 7J16). San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Devel-
opment Center.
Abrahams, N. M., Neumann, I., & Githens, W. H. (1971). Faking vocational interests: Simulated versus
real-life motivation. Personnel Psychology, 24, 5–12.
Alderton, D. L., & Larson, G. E. (1994). Dimensions of ability: Diminishing returns? In: M. Rumsey,
C. Walker & J. Harris (Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification (pp. 137–144). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Alf, E. R., & Abrahams, N. M. (1996). The impact of number of jobs and selection ratio on classification
efficiency: An extended table of Brogden’s Allocation Average. Educational & Psychological
Measurement, 56(6), 951–956.
Allen, N. J., & Grisaffe, D. B. (2001). Employee commitment to the organization and customer reac-
tions: Mapping the linkages. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 209–236.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance
judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
247–260.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contex-
tually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 7, 97–111.
Asher, J. J. (1972). The biographical item: Can it be improved? Personnel Psychology, 25, 251–
269.
Ashworth, S. D. (1989, April). The distinctions that Industrial/Organizational psychologists have be-
tween biodata and personality measurement are no longer meaningful. In: T. W. Mitchell (chair),
Biodata vs. Personality: The Same or Different Classes of Individual Differences. Sympo-
sium presented at the 4th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Boston, MA.
Barge, B. N., & Hough, L. M. (1988). Utility of biographical data for predicting job performance. In:
L. M. Hough (Ed.), Literature Review: Utility of Temperament, Biodata, and Interest Assessment
for Predicting Job Performance (pp. 91–130). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute
for Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning
of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.
Beck, K., & Wilson, C. (2001). Have we studied, should we study, and can we study the development of
commitment? Methodological issues and the developmental study of work-related commitment.
Human Resources Management Review, 11, 257–278.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of
Benet-Martı́nez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait
multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social
Blake, R. J., & Sackett, S. A. (1993, August). Holland’s typology and the Five-Factor Model: A rational-
empirical analysis. Paper presented at the 101st annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Toronto.
Blakley, B. R., Quiñones, M. A., Crawford, M. S., & Jago, I. A. (1994). The validity of isometric
strength tests. Personnel Psychology, 47, 247–274.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 187–215.
Bobko, P. (1994). Issues in operational selection and classification systems: Comments and common-
alities. In: M. Rumsey, C. Walker & J. Harris (Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification
(pp. 443–456). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Borman, W. C., Buck, D. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001).
An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings
made using computerized adaptive rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 965–
973.
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. In: J. T. Spence, J. M.
Darley & D. J. Foss (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 48, pp. 299–337). Palo Alto,
CA: Annual Review.
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Oppler, S. H., Pulakos, E. D., & White, L. A. (1993). The role of
early supervisory experience in supervisor performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
443–449.
Borman, W. C., Kubisiak, U. C., & Schneider, R. J. (1999). Work styles. In: N. Peterson, M. Mumford,
W. Borman, P. Jeanneret & E. Fleishman (Eds), The Occupation Information Network (O∗ NET)
(pp. 213–226). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Borman, W. C., Logan, K. K., Hedge, J. W., Hanson, M. A., Bruskiewicz, K. T., Schneider, R. J., &
Houston, J. S. (1996). Basic research evaluating the reliability of the Situational Test of Aircrew
Response Styles and its ability, personality, and leadership correlates (Institute Report No. 282).
Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions Research Institutes.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In: N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds), Personnel Selection (pp. 71–98).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., & Hanser, L. M. (1983). A model of individual performance effec-
tiveness: Thoughts about expanding the criterion space. Paper presented as part of symposium,
Integrated Criterion Measurement for Large Scale Computerized Selection and Classification,
the 91st Annual American Psychological Association Convention.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of
citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69.
Borman, W. C., Rosse, R. L., & Abrahams, N. M. (1980). An empirical construct validity approach to
studying predictor-job performance links. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 662–671.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interper-
sonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
168–177.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., & Oppler, S. H. (1991). Models of supervisory job
performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 863–872.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York:
Wiley.
Bretz, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An examination of the
attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 42(3), 561–581.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision
process. Journal of Management, 20, 531–551.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 710–725.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1975). A temperament theory of personality development. New York: Wiley.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization
fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317–348.
Campbell, D. P. (1971). Handbook for the strong vocational interest blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). An overview of the army selection and classification project (Project A).
Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. E., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance. In:
K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations (pp. 258–299). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, J. P., & Knapp, D. J. (2001). Exploring the limits in personnel selection and classification.
Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance.
In: N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 35–70). San
Carretta, T. R., & Ree, M. J. (1995). Air Force officer qualifying test validity for predicting pilot training
performance. Journal of Business and Technology, 9(4), 379–388.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Carson, K. D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Career commitment: Construction of a measure and exami-
nation of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 237–262.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.
Chan, D. (2001). Practical intelligence and job performance. Paper presented at the 16th annual con-
ference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situa-
tional judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public account-
ing firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Harvey, V. S. (2001). Incremental validity
of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 410–417.
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship
performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44.
Conley, J. J. (1984). Longitudinal consistency of adult personality: Self-reported psychological
characteristics across 45 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1325–
1333.
Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial
jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3–13.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the
five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block.
Darley, J. B., & Hagenah, T. (1955). Vocational interest measurement: Theory and practice. Minneapo-
lis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dawis, R. V. (1980). Measuring interests. New Directions in Testing and Measurement, 7, 77–91.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental
validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 25–36.
Devlin, S. E., Abrahams, N. M., & Edwards, J. E. (1992). Empirical keying of biographical data:
Cross-validity as a function of scaling procedure and sample size. Military Psychology, 4,
136–199.
Digman, J. M., & Shmelyov, A. G. (1996). The structure of temperament and personality in Russian
children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 341–351.
Drasgow, F., & Olson-Buchanon, J. B. (Eds) (1999). Innovations in Computerized Assessment. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dror, I. E., Kosslyn, S. M., & Waag, W. L. (1993). Visual-spatial abilities of pilots. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(5), 763–773.
Durhart, D. T. (2001). Violence in the workplace, 1993–1999. (DOJ Publication No. 190076).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Dye, D. A., Reck, M., & Murphy, M. A. (1993). The validity of job knowledge measures. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(3), 153–517.
Eberhardt, B., & Muchinsky, P. (1982). Biodata determinants of vocational typology: An integration
of two paradigms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 714–727.
Eberhardt, B. J., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1984). Structural validation of Holland’s hexagonal model:
Vocational classification through the use of biodata. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
174–181.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and method-
ological critique. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 6,
pp. 283–357). London: Wiley.
Edwards, J. R. (1993). Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence
in organizational research. Personnel Psychology, 46, 641–665.
Edwards, J. E., & Morrison, R. F. (1994). Selecting and classifying future Naval officers: The paradox
of greater specialization in broader areas. In: M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker & J. H. Harris
(Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification (pp. 69–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 15, 5, or 3? – Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790.
Farmer, W. L. (2001). A brief review of biodata history, research, and applications. Unpublished
manuscript, Navy Personnel Research, Studies, & Technology.
Fleishman, E. A., Constanza, D. P., & Marshall-Mies J. (1999). Abilities. In: N. G. Peterson, M. D.
Mumford, W. C. Borman, R. P. Jeanneret & E. A. Fleishman (Eds), An Occupational Infor-
mation System for the 21st Century: The Development of ONET. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Furnham, A. (2001). Vocational preference and P-O fit: Reflections on Holland’s theory of vocational
choice. Applied Psychology, 50, 5–29.
Gallagher, D. G., & McLean Parks, J. (2001). I pledge thee my troth . . . contingently: Commitment
and the contingent work relationship. Human Resources Management Review, 11, 181–208.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Journal
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The structure of phenotypic personality traits (or the magical number five, plus
or minus zero). Keynote address to the Sixth European Conference on Personality. Groningen,
The Netherlands.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48,
26–34.
Goldberg, L. R. (1994). Basic research on personality structure: Implications of the emerging consensus
for applications to selection and classification. In: M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker & J. H. Harris
(Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification (pp. 247–259). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do
shared values matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 254–275.
Gordon, R. A. (1997). Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence
context. Intelligence, 24, 203–320.
Gordon, M. E., Philpot, J. W., Burt, R. E., Thompson, C. A., & Spiller, W. E. (1980). Commitment to
the union: Development of a measure and an examination of its correlates. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65(4), 479–499.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validity of personality measures in personnel selection. Personnel
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991)
three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
617–626.
Hansen, J. C. (1984). The measurement of vocational interests: Issues and future directions. In: S. D.
Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds), Handbook of Counseling Psychology (pp. 99–136). New York:
Wiley.
Hanson, M. A., & Borman, W. C. (1993). Development and construct validation of the situational
judgment test (SJT) (Institute Report No. 230). Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions Research
Institutes.
Haptonstahl, & Buckley (2002). Applicant fit: A three-dimensional investigation of recruiter percep-
tions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Toronto, Ontario.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between em-
ployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal
Hecht, J. E., Finch, D. M., Landau, H. I., & Stokes, G. S. (2002). A longitudinal examination of biodata
subgroup stability. Poster presented at the 2002 Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario.
Hedge, J. W., Bruskiewicz, K. T., Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Logan, K. K., & Siem, F. M. (2000).
Selecting pilots with crew resource management skills. The International Journal of Aviation
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In: D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds),
The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In: M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation (Vol. 30, pp. 56–89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 873–919). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R., & Blake, R. J. (1996). Vocational interests: Matching self-concept with the work en-
vironment. In: K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 273–279.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (1995). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment
Systems.
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In: R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson
& S. R. Briggs (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Hogan, J., & Quigley, A. (1994). Effects of preparing for physical ability tests. Public Personnel
Management, 23(1), 85–104.
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions:
Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469–477.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Holland, J. L., & Hough, L. M. (1976). Vocational preferences. In: M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 521–570). Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
Holland, J. L., Johnson, J. L., Asama, N. F., & Polys, S. M. (1993). Validating and using the career
beliefs inventory. Journal of Career Development, 19, 233–244.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A., West, B., Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L., Porter, C. O., & Wagner,
J. A. (2002). Structural contingency theory and individual differences: Examination of external
and internal person-team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599–606.
Hornick, C. W., James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1977). Empirical item keying versus a rational approach
to analyzing a psychological climate questionnaire. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1,
489–500.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The big five personality variables – construct confusion: Description versus
prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related
validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities
(Monograph). Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581–595.
Hough, L. M., & Ones, D. S. (2001). The structure, measurement, validity, and use of personal-
ity variables in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. In: N. R. Anderson, D. S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Work Psychology (pp. 233–377).
New York: Sage Publications.
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection, and amelioration
of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.
Hough, L. M., & Paullin, C. (1994). Construct-oriented scale construction: The rational approach. In:
G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds), Biodata Handbook. Palo Alto, CA: CPP
Books.
Hunter, J. E. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge, job performance and
supervisory ratings. In: F. Landy, S. Zedeck & J. Cleveland (Eds), Performance Measurement
and Theory (pp. 257–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Introduction: Employee performance in today’s organizations.
In: D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds), The Changing Nature of Performance (pp. 1–18). San
International Personality Item Pool (2001). A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Ad-
vanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences (http://ipip.ori.org/).
Internet Web Site.
Irving, G., Coleman, D. F., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Further assessments of a three-component model
of occupational commitment: Generalizability and differences across occupations. Journal of
Jackson, D. N., Vernon, P. A., & Jackson, D. N. (1993). Dynamic spatial performance and general
intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 451–460.
Johnson, J. W. (in press). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and
individual job performance. In: M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds), Personality and Work. San
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, gener-
alized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role
of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive
self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality
traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52,
621–652.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and
life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., & Akamine, T. X. (1996). Cross-cultural generalizability of person-
ality dimensions: Relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two cultures. Journal of
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1981). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation
debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, mea-
surement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions
of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 643–671.
Kyllonen, P. C. (1994). Cognitive abilities testing: An agenda for the 1990s. In: M. Rumsey, C. Walker
& J. Harris (Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification (pp. 103–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landy, F. J. (1993). Early influences on the development of industrial/organizational psychology. In:
T. K. Fagan & G. R. Vardenbos (Eds), Explaining Applied Psychology: Origins and Critical
Analyses (pp. 79–118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Landy, F. J., Shankster, L. J., & Kohler, S. S. (1994). Personnel selection and placement. Annual Review
of Psychology, 45, 261–296.
Larson, G. E., & Wolfe, J. H. (1995). Validity results for g from an expanded test base. Intelligence,
20, 15–25.
Laurence, J. H., & Waters, B. K. (1993). Biodata: What’s it all about? In: T. Trent & J. H. Laurence
(Eds), Adaptability Screening for the Armed Forces (pp. 41–70). Washington, DC: Department
of Defense.
Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment:
Relations with person and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 799–
811.
Le Pine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of
general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology,
53, 563–593.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1993). Do ‘honesty’ tests really measure honesty? Skeptical Inquirer, 18, 32–41.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Alliger, G., & Mitchell, K. (1995). Why integrity testing remains controversial.
American Psychologist, 50, 457–458.
Loevinger, J. (1994). Has personality lost its conscience? Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 2–8.
Lohman, D. F. (1993). Implications of cognitive psychology for ability testing: Three critical as-
sumptions. In: M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker & J. H. Harris (Eds), Personnel Selection and
Classification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of
job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594–613.
London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In: D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds), The
Changing Nature of Performance (pp. 119–153). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
MacLane, C. N., Barton, M. G., Holloway-Lundy, A. E., & Nickels, B. J. (2001, April). Keeping score:
Empirical vs. expert weights on situational judgment responses. Poster presented at the 16th
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego,
CA.
Mael, F. A. (1991). A conceptual rationale for the domain and attributes of biodata items. Personnel
Mael, F. A. (1994). If past behavior really predicts future, so should biodata’s. In: M. G. Rumsey, C. B.
Walker & J. H. Harris (Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Mael, F. A., & Schwartz, A. C. (1991). Capturing temperament constructs with objective biodata (ARI
Technical Report 939). Alexandria VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.
Matterson, M. T. (1978). An alternative approach to using biographical data for predicting job success.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 155–162.
McCloy, R. A., Campbell, J. P., & Cudeck, R. (1994). A confirmatory test of a model of performance
determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 493–505.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of
situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal
McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and
constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 103–113.
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Laczniak, R. N. (2001). External organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 11, 237–256.
McGee, G., & Ford, R. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexami-
nation of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
638–642.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity
results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43,
335–354.
Meyer, J. P. (1997). Organizational commitment. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 175–228). Wiley.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: Some
methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372–378.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organization’s and occupations:
Extension and test of a three component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Topolnytsky, L. (1998). Commitment in a changing world of work. Canadian
Mitchell, T. W. (1994). The utility of biodata. In: G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds),
Biodata Handbook (pp. 485–516). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Mitchell, T. W., & Klimoski, R. J. (1982). Is it rational to be empirical? A test of methods for scoring
biographical data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 411–418.
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The
low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640–647.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished
from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology
of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. San Diego: Academic Press.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1993). Validation of intelligence and mechanical aptitude tests in selecting employees
for manufacturing jobs. Journal of Business Psychology, 7(4), 373–382.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruency? Supplementary
versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277.
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Uhlman, C. E., & Constanza, D. P. (1993). Per-
sonality, adaptability, and performance: Performance on well-defined and ill-defined problem-
solving tasks. Human Performance, 6, 241–285.
Mumford, M. D., Meiman, E. P., Russell, T. L., & Crafts, J. L. (1998). Development of new mea-
sures of adaptability (Report AL/HR-TR-1997-0198). Washington, DC: Pelavin Research
Institute.
Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (1987). Methodological review: Principles, procedures, and find-
ings in the application of background data measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11,
1–31.
Mumford, M. D., Snell, A. F., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (1994). Personality and background data: Life
history and self-concepts in an ecological system. In: G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford & W. A.
Owens (Eds), Biodata Handbook (pp. 583–625). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Mumford, M. D., & Stokes, G. S. (1992). Developmental determinants of individual action: Theory
and practice in applying background measures. In: M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 61–138). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Murphy, K. R. (1996). Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Much more than “g.”
In: K. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Neiner, A. G., & Owens, W. A. (1982). Relationships between two sets of biodata with 7 years sepa-
ration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 146–150.
Nickels, B. J. (1994). The nature of biodata. In: G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford & W. A. Owens (Eds),
Biodata Handbook (pp. 1–16). Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Olea, M. M., & Ree, M. J. (1994). Predicting pilot and navigator criteria: Not much more than g.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 845–851.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Drasgow, F., Moberg, P. J., Mead, A. D., Keenan, P. A., & Donovan, M. A.
(1998). Interactive video assessment of conflict resolution skills. Personnel Psychology, 51,
1–24.
Ones, D. S., Schmidt, F. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (1994). Do broader personality variables predict job
performance with higher validity? In: R. Page (Chair), Personality and Job Performance: Big
Five versus Specific Traits. Symposium conducted at the 9th Annual Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Ones, D. S., Schmidt, F. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Lykken, D. T. (1996). Controversies over integrity
testing: Two viewpoints. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 487–501.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998a). The effects of social desirability and faking on per-
sonality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245–
269.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998b). Gender, age, and race differences on overt integrity tests:
Results across four large-scale job applicant data sets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
35–42.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing
for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1995). Integrity tests: Overlooked facts, resolved
issues, and remaining questions. American Psychologist, 50, 456–457.
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,
34, 487–516.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Owens, W. A. (1976). Background data. In: M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology (Chap. 14, pp. 609–644). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Paullin, C., Bruskiewicz, K., Hanson, M. A., Logan, K., & Fellows, M. (1995). Development and
evaluation of AVOICE empirical keys, scales, and composites. In: J. P. Campbell & L. M. Zook
(Eds), Building and Retaining the Career Force: New Procedures for Assessing and Assigning
Army Enlisted Personnel. Final Technical Report: Alexandria: U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (pp. 177–237).
Pearlman, K. (1995). Is job dead? Implications of changing concepts of work for I/O science and
practice. Panel discussion conducted at the 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret, P. R., & Fleishman, E. A. (Eds) (1999).
The occupation information network (O∗ NET). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Integrating personality tests with situational judgment
tests for the prediction of customer service performance. Symposium conducted at the 15th
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans,
LA.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53,
603–609.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace:
Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
612–624.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Plamondon, K., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). Examining the feasibility of de-
veloping measures of stress adaptability (Technical Report No. 288). Arlington, VA: Personnel
Decisions Research Institutes.
Pulakos, E. D., Borman, W. C., & Hough, L. M. (1988). Test validation for scientific understanding: Two
demonstrations of an approach to studying predictor-criterion linkages. Personnel Psychology,
41, 703–716.
Pulakos, E. D., & Dorsey, D. W. (2000). The development and validation of measures to predict
adaptive job performance (Technical Report No. 347). Arlington, VA: Personnel Decisions
Research Institutes.
Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluation of two strategies for reducing adverse impact and
their effects on criterion-related validity. Human Performance, 9, 241–248.
Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality
constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50, 723–736.
Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than
g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 518–524.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of
Reichers, A. E. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
508–514.
Reilly, R. R., & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection
procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1–62.
Roberts, B. W., & Del Vecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank order consistency of personality traits from
childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
3–25.
Rosse, R. L., Peterson, N. G., & Whetzel, D. (1995). Estimating classification gains: Development of a
new analytic method. In: J. Campbell & L. Zook (Eds), Building and Retaining the Career Force:
New Procedures for Accessing and Assigning Enlisted Personnel – Final Report. Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion
on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
634–644.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update.
Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures of honesty, integrity,
conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 49, 787–829.
Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big five personality dimensions and job performance in army and civil occupa-
tions: A European perspective. Human Performance, 11, 271–288.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Jones, J. R. (1998). Organization and occupation influ-
ences in the attraction-selection-attrition process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 869–
891.
Schmidt, F. L. (1994). The future of personnel selection in the U.S. Army. In: M. Rumsey, C.
Walker & J. Harris (Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification (pp. 333–350). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psy-
chology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological
Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. G., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and ability on job
knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of
Schmitt, N., Rogers, W., Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings, D. (1997). Adverse impact and predictive
efficiency of various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 719–730.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Schneider, B. (1989). E = f (P,B): The road to a radical approach to P-E fit. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 31, 353–361.
Schneider, B. S., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1996). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel
Schneider, R. J., & Hough, L. M. (1995). Personality and industrial/organizational psychology. In:
C. L. Cooper & L. T. Robertson (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (pp. 75–129). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink
science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Goldstein, H. W. (2000). Toward a person-environment psychology of
organizations. In: W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik & R. H. Price (Eds), Person-Environment Psychology
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scholarios, D. M., Johnson, C. D., & Zeidner, J. (1994). Selecting predictors for maximizing the
classification efficiency of a battery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 412–424.
Shultz, K. S. (1996). Distinguishing personality and biodata items using confirmatory factor analysis
of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 263–288.
Silva, J. M., & White, L. A. (1993). Relation of cognitive aptitudes to success in foreign language
training. Military Psychology, 5(2), 79–93.
Smiderle, D., Perry, B. A., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1994). Evaluation of video-based assessment in transit
operator selection. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 3–22.
Smith, P. C. (1976). Behavior, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In:
M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 655–663.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376.
Spearman, C. E. (1927). The abilities of man. London: Macmillan.
Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., Topolnytsky, L., & Herscovitch, L. (1999, May). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment: Meta-analyses of interrelations and outcomes. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job
attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 469–480.
Steinhaus, S. D. (1988). Predicting military attrition from educational and biographical information
(FR-PRD-88-06). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Tacit knowledge: An unspoken key to managerial success.
Tacit Knowledge, 1(1), 5–13.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of
tacit knowledge in work and at school. In: H. Reese & J. Puckett (Eds), Advances in Lifespan
Development (pp. 205–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense.
American Psychologist, 50(11), 912–927.
Stokes, G. S., Mumford, M. D., & Owens, W. A. (Eds) (1994). Biodata handbook: Theory, research,
and use of biographical information in selection and performance prediction. Palo Alto, CA:
CPP Books.
Striker, L. J. (1987). Developing a biographical measure to assess leadership potential. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Military Testing Association, Ottawa, Ontario.
Striker, L. J. (1988). Assessing leadership potential at the Naval Academy with a biographical measure.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Military Testing Association, San Antonio, TX.
Strong, E. K. (1943). Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sümer, H. C., Sümer, N., Demirutku, K., & Çifci, O. S. (2001). Using a personality-oriented job analysis
to identify attributes to be assessed in officer selection. Military Psychology, 13, 129–146.
Super, D. E. (1973). The Work Values Inventory. In: D. G. Kytowski (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches
to Interest Measurement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Swander, C. J. (2001, April). Exploring the criterion validity of two alternate forms of a situational
judgment test. Poster presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Tellegen, A. (1993). Folk concepts of personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry, 4,
122–130.
Tett, R., & Meyer, J. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and
turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259–293.
Thayer, P. W. (1977). Somethings old, somethings new. Personnel Psychology, 30, 513–524.
Toops, H. A. (1944). The criterion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4, 271–297.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of
Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1997). An analysis of worker drug use and workplace
policies and programs.
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Orga-
nizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333–352.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate
facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person-Organization Fit: The match between newcomers’ and recruiters’
preferences for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53, 1–32.
Vickers, R. R. (1995). Using personality assessment for leadership selection (Report No. 95-16). San
Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center.
Vinchur, A. J., Schippman, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of
predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for per-
sonality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197–210.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit
knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 436–458.
Wallace, S. R. (1965). Criteria for what? American Psychologist, 20, 411–417.
Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1997). Video-based situational testing. Personnel Psychology, 50, 25–49.
Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1999). Further studies of situational tests. Personnel Psychology, 52,
679–700.
Weekley, J. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Situational judgment and training experience: Antecedents and
relationships with performance. In: F. Drasgow (Chair), Situational judgment tests: Constructs,
validity, and faking. Symposium conducted at the 17th Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Weitz, J. (1961). Criteria for criterion. American Psychologist, 16, 228–231.
Werbel, J., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). Person-environment fit in the selection process. In: G. R. Ferris
(Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 17, 209–243.
Wesley, S. S., Mumford, M. D., & McLoughlin, L. M. (1987). On the robustness of background keys.
Unpublished manuscript.
Wigdor, A. K., & Garner, W. R. (1982). Ability testing: Uses, consequences, and controversies (Parts
I & II). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1985). Symposium: Interpersonal circumplex models: 1948–1983: Commentary. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 49(6), 626–631.
Zeidner, J., & Johnson, C. D. (1994). Is personnel classification a concept whose time has passed? In:
M. Rumsey, C. Walker & J. Harris (Eds), Personnel Selection and Classification (pp. 377–410).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
APPLYING SELF-DETERMINATION
THEORY TO ORGANIZATIONAL
RESEARCH
Kennon M. Sheldon, Daniel B. Turban, Kenneth

G. Brown, Murray R. Barrick and Timothy A. Judge
ABSTRACT
In this chapter we argue that self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan,
2000) provides a useful conceptual tool for organizational researchers, one
that complements traditional work motivation theories. First, we review SDT,
showing that it has gone far beyond the “intrinsic versus extrinsic motiva-
tion” dichotomy with which it began. Then we show how the theory might be
applied to better understand a variety of organizational phenomena, includ-
ing the positive effects of transformational leadership, the nature of “true”
goal-commitment, the determinants of employees’ training motivation, and
the positive impact of certain human resource practices. We note that SDT
may yield significant new understanding of work motivation, and suggest
opportunities to refine the theory for research on work-related phenomena.
INTRODUCTION
Questions regarding what dispositional and situational factors lead employees
to learn, perform, and be satisfied at work are enduring themes in organizational

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22008-9
357
358 KENNON M. SHELDON ET AL.
research. Many motivation theories have been brought to bear on these questions,
including expectancy theory (Van Erde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964), goal
setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1999), and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997;
Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Reviews of motivational research on organizationally
relevant dependent variables such as job performance and training outcomes
suggest the continued dominance of these theories (Locke, 2000; Mathieu &
Martineau, 1997), despite the much broader array of motivation theories available
within the psychological literature (Higgins & Kruglanski, 2000).
One such theory, which has had a substantial influence on research in domains
such as health, education, and social psychology, is Self-Determination Theory
(SDT). Recent commentators state that SDT is “an impressive accomplishment”
(Psyszczynski, Greenberg & Solomon, 2000, p. 301), provides “new impetus to
research on human motivation” (Coleman, 2000, p. 291), and may be “the most
ambitious contribution to what some have termed the rebirth of motivational re-
search” (Hennessey, 2000, p. 293). However, organizational scholars have been
relatively slow to apply the theory, perhaps because of a lack of understanding of
SDT’s current formulation.1 Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to describe new
developments within SDT, and to show how the theory might be applied to some
enduring research themes with organizational research.
SDT is grounded in the organismic perspective of human nature and motivation
(Angyal, 1941; Goldstein, 1939; Rogers, 1961; Werner, 1957). The organismic
perspective is a long-standing one within psychology, philosophy, and theoretical
biology. It can walk a line between general systems and cognitive-developmental
approaches, on the one hand, and humanistic and existential approaches, on the
other. Organismic perspectives assume that humans are inherently motivated to
develop their interests and skills, to connect and contribute to other people, and
to move towards their fullest potential; in other words, the energy and impulse
to grow and develop are innate. However, this perspective also asserts that the
growth impulse is easily derailed or distorted, if environments or people’s own
inner processes do not support it. Thus, much of the empirical and experimental
work in SDT has focused on delineating what characteristics of intrapersonal,
social and task environments enhance or detract from the desire to grow and
develop, and thus enhance or detract from positive outcomes such as persistence,
creativity, flexibility, well-being, and happiness.2
Ryan and Deci (2001) noted that organismic motivation theories make
somewhat different assumptions about human nature than do traditional hedonic
motivation theories (such as expectancy theories and utility theories). Although
a full discussion of such differences is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Ryan
& Deci, 2001), hedonic theories generally assume that individuals are motivated
Applying Self-Determination Theory to Organizational Research 359
to maximize pleasure and reward and to minimize pain and cost. In contrast,
SDT focuses on peoples’ motivation to grow, both in terms of developing their
potential, and in terms of enhancing their connection with others and their
community. We believe that both types of theory, while on the surface appearing
somewhat contradictory, are useful in understanding the full range of work
behavior. However, given the relative inattention to SDT in the organizational
literature, we believe it is worthy of attention in this chapter.
Self-determination theory is a macro-theory consisting of several mini-theories:
Cognitive Evaluation Theory, Organismic Integration Theory, Causality Ori-
entations Theory, and Basic Needs Theory. Below we will cover each of the
four mini-theories within SDT, thereby both providing a historical perspective
and bringing readers up-to-date on the theory as it now stands. Subsequently,
we will offer an overarching conceptual framework that incorporates all four
mini-theories into a single process model of goal-directed behavior. Afterwards,
we will consider the applicability of this process model for several important areas
of organizational research, namely transformational leadership, goal commitment,
motivation to learn, and strategic human resource management. The variety of
topics addressed is intended to suggest that SDT has applicability both for
refining study on particular constructs (e.g. goal commitment and motivation
to learn), and for expanding the focus of research on broader organizational
processes (e.g. leadership and human resource practices). The selection of
topics is not intended to be exhaustive but instead is representative of some
important areas in organizational research where SDT may be fruitfully applied.
Finally, we will discuss some potential limitations and boundary conditions for
the theory.
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
SDT began in the late 1960s with the pioneering work of Edward Deci, who
explored the conditions that can undermine “intrinsic” motivation (i.e. the desire
to engage in an activity because one enjoys, or is interested in, the activity). Using
a free choice methodology, in which intrinsic motivation is operationalized as
the number of seconds spent doing an appealing target activity after being left
alone, Deci found many factors that can undermine intrinsic motivation. These
include certain types of performance-contingent rewards, time pressures, threats
of punishment, and certain types of competition. These experimental results (and
other supporting survey and field data) were summarized in a theory that became
known as Cognitive Evaluation Theory.
Cognitive Evaluation Theory
In his 1975 book, Intrinsic Motivation, Deci argued that the common thread
underlying these findings is the psychology of autonomy versus control. Specif-
ically, intrinsic motivation is undermined when people feel controlled (i.e. a
lack of autonomy/freedom in performing the activity). According to Cognitive
Evaluation Theory, rewards, competitions, and pressures do not necessarily
undermine intrinsic motivation because, after all, these forums can help supply
important competence information to the individual. Rather, problems can arise
when rewards, competitions and pressures are used by authority figures as means
of coercing or over-controlling people’s behavior and performance, thus thwarting
their natural need for autonomy (discussed below). When people feel controlled
(or compelled) by others to perform an activity, what was formerly an enjoyable
activity can become routine, or even aversive, to perform. The key to understand-
ing intrinsic motivation, from this perspective, is the person’s cognitive evaluation
of the rewards, pressures, and constraints within the environment. Of course, such
evaluations will be in part a function of the environment and in part a function
of the person.
Emphasizing the latter factor, Ryan (1982) showed that people can feel
controlled by internal compulsions, impulses, and drives, just as much as they can
feel controlled by external forces and constraints. In other words, felt autonomy is
to some extent a dispositional variable, representing the individual’s characteristic
way of relating to his/her own choices and outcomes. Although this was an
important extension, Deci and Ryan urged that theorists not lose sight of the
undermining characteristics of social and interpersonal environments, in a rush
to blame the lack of felt autonomy on the person. Deci and Ryan’s (1985a) book,
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, consolidates
what was known at that time.
Again, Deci and Ryan (1985a) argued that extrinsic rewards undermine
intrinsic motivation, if such rewards are experienced by recipients as an attempt
to control their behavior. And indeed, a large literature exists to support this
conclusion. Notably, however, there is still some controversy concerning the
effect of different types of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, with different
meta-analyses coming to different conclusions (for example, see Cameron &
Pierce, 1994; Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999a, b; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996;
Eisenberger, Pierce & Cameron, 1999a; Tang & Hall, 1995). These different con-
clusions resulted, in large part, from different decisions made by the researchers
regarding what studies to include in the meta-analysis, how to code different
categories of experimental conditions, and what to use as the appropriate control
groups.
Lepper, Henderlong and Gingras (1999) reviewed the various meta-analyses,

and concluded that, in general, results seem to support the conclusion that
extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation. In particular, rewards that
are material and tangible and which are contingent upon either engaging in the
task, completing the task, or performing the task at a certain level of proficiency
tend to undermine intrinsic motivation. Notably, the meta-analyses also indicate
that verbal rewards (i.e. praise) can enhance, rather than detract from, intrinsic
motivation. Finally, non-contingent rewards (i.e. rewards given unexpectedly after
the task was complete) appear to have little negative effect on intrinsic motivation.
Assuming that these conclusions are correct and definitive, their applicability
for organizational researchers and settings remains somewhat unclear. As noted by
Lepper and Henderlong (2000) many of the studies included in the meta-analyses
were designed to test issues of theoretical significance and do not “mirror any real-
world situation” (p. 269). Furthermore, the Deci et al. (1999a, b) meta-analysis,
which included one hundred and twenty-eight studies and is arguably the most
comprehensive meta-analysis, included only experimental studies with target tasks
that were at least moderately interesting. In fact, Deci et al. (1999a, b) specifically
excluded studies with boring tasks from the meta-analysis, since cognitive
evaluation theory only predicts that rewards undermine intrinsic motivation for
tasks in which individuals are interested (motivated), and presumably there is no
intrinsic motivation to undermine for boring tasks. Clearly, however, boring tasks
are characteristic of many jobs and work situations. Does this mean that SDT has
only limited applicability for organizational researchers? Perhaps not – as we will
see below, contemporary SDT asserts that the support of self-determination is
still important in the case of boring tasks, as autonomy-supportive contexts foster
peoples’ internalization of such tasks, with many positive results.
To summarize, cognitive evaluation theory proposes that rewards (environmen-
tal information) can undermine intrinsic motivation when they are experienced as
controlling (reducing autonomy), but rewards also can positively impact intrinsic
motivation when they are experienced as providing information and thus satisfying
the need for competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Thus, the
effects of the reward depending upon how it is experienced by the individual
and whether the reward leads to satisfaction of innate needs. For example, even
tangible extrinsic rewards, which tend to be controlling, may not undermine
intrinsic motivation if they are administered in an autonomy-supportive manner
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Similarly, performance-contingent rewards, delivered in
an autonomy-supportive manner, may provide competence information that can
enhance intrinsic motivation. Such evidence suggests the importance of autonomy
support for positively influencing behaviors in work settings, an issue to which
we return after our review of self-determination theory.
Organismic Integration Theory
Although much of the early research in SDT focused on intrinsic motivation, as

noted above, not all desirable behaviors (such as many important but boring or
aversive work-tasks) are intrinsically motivating. This leads to the question: can
people be positively motivated even while doing extrinsic tasks, that is, while doing
activities they do not enjoy doing? In other words, are there any “good” forms of
extrinsic motivation?
SDT began to investigate this important question in the late 1980s. The answer to
the question is a qualified “yes.” The picture is somewhat complex, however, in part
because Deci and Ryan sought to incorporate other major theoretical perspectives
upon motivation, including cognitive, behavioral, psychodynamic, and humanistic
perspectives, within their model. Figure 1 illustrates SDT’s current specification of
the various forms of motivation, ranging from amotivation to external motivation
to introjected motivation to identified motivation to intrinsic motivation.
As can be seen in the figure, SDT begins with the distinction between amotivation
(the form on the left) and motivation (the four forms on the right). Does the person
feel helpless, or are his/her actions guided by stable intentions? Many social-
cognitive motivation theories focus here, attempting to predict the strength of
peoples’ intentions or the quantity of their motivation. This is understandable, given
that the “motivation versus no motivation” distinction is perhaps the most important
of all. Thus, for example, self-efficacy theory maintains that the “quantity” of a
person’s motivation to do a behavior can be predicted by strength of their belief
Fig. 1. Schematic Relation of the Five Types of Motivation.

they can successfully perform the behavior. However, SDT proposes that it is also
important to address the “quality” of a person’s motivation, an issue that is typically
not considered within expectancy and utility theories. As argued at the beginning
of this chapter, we believe such perspectives may provide a useful complement to
traditional work-motivation theories.
Originally, the consideration of “quality” went no further than the distinction
between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, SDT now specifies three types
of extrinsic motivation (the three middle forms in Fig. 1), that vary in their degree
of self-determination: external motivation (acting only to get a reward, or because
the external situation seems to compel or require action), introjected motivation
(acting to avoid feeling anxious or guilty over not doing what one “should” do),
and identified motivation (acting to express one’s values and uphold one’s self-
investments). These are all classified as extrinsic motivations because they do not
involve engaging in the activity for its own sake (i.e. they are not intrinsically
motivated). However, whereas external and introjected motivations are classified
as non-autonomous or controlled motivations, identified motivation is classified as
autonomous because people feel fully self-endorsing of the behavior, even if they
do not enjoy it.
Thus, contemporary SDT asserts that some forms of extrinsic motivation can
indeed be autonomous and “organismically integrated,” if the person identifies
with them. For example, an employee may engage in a work behavior (such
as assembling a computer) primarily to earn money or to not be punished by
a supervisor (external motivation), primarily to avoid feeling guilty or to avoid
being a bad worker (introjected motivation), or primarily because of a genuine
identification with her role in the company, and a real concern for the customer’s
need for a quality computer (identified motivation, which has been integrated
into the person’s sense of self). In none of these examples would assembling a
computer be intrinsically enjoyable, but in the third case, it is at least tolerable and
even meaningful! Doubtless, the reader can think of many similar examples, both
in his/her own work-life, and in the problems faced by managers in motivating
their employees. Thus, an important question arises – what factors lead employees
to feel a sense of identification with their work behaviors, especially when those
behaviors are tedious or even aversive to perform?
Relevant to this question, an additional development within SDT in the late
1980s was the concept of internalization. Although the concept of internalization
is not new within psychological theory (see, for example, Erikson, 1963, or
Kelman, 1961), SDT has provided perhaps the most elaborated account of the
process. Specifically, Deci and Ryan (1985a, 2000) posited that non-autonomous
motivations can be transmuted into autonomous ones over time (i.e. internal-
ization can occur). Furthermore, Deci and Ryan argued that this process tends
to take place automatically, as a result of the organismic integration process.

That is, people are naturally motivated to move towards greater ownership
of behavior.
To illustrate, an employee might be assigned the aversive job of maintaining
a database, a task that requires much tedious attention to detail. Initially, the
employee might feel quite controlled and resistant to the task. However, after a
few weeks the employee might do the task because he would feel guilty for not
doing it. Over time, hopefully, the employee will come to a better understanding
of the value of the task for the organization, and even identify with its purpose
and importance. Although the task may never reach intrinsic status, contemporary
SDT views this as non-problematic, as long as it has been internalized enough
to be undertaken autonomously. Of course, some employees might identify with
a boring task immediately, whereas others may never come to own that task, or
indeed, may be unable to take responsibility for performing any non-enjoyable
behaviors. From the organismic integration perspective, the most “mature” person
is one who has most fully internalized the doing of important, if unpleasant, duties
(Erikson, 1963; Sheldon & Kasser, 2001).
While we are on the topic of the motivation continuum, it is noteworthy that some
intrinsic motivation researchers have argued that even external motivation can have
positive effects (Amabile, 1996; Lepper & Henderlong, 2000; Sansone & Smith,
2000). For example, external motivation might help a person to cope with more
mundane or aversive aspects of the job (i.e. an artist with strong external motivation
may better accomplish the important task of marketing his/her work). As another
example, external motivation may get a person to do an activity long enough to
begin to find intrinsic incentives it (i.e. a child who is forced to practice the piano
may eventually develop enough skill to begin taking pleasure in playing). Sheldon
and Deci (2000) agreed with these suggestions, but further suggested that external
motivations are least likely to be problematic (i.e. are least likely to undermine the
artist’s creativity, or the child’s potential interest) when they are internalized. In
this case, although they would still be extrinsic motivations, they would no longer
be considered external motivations, but instead, would have reached the status of
identified motivations (see Fig. 1).
To summarize, SDT views motivation as ranging along a continuum from
amotivation to intrinsic motivation, with higher “quality” motivation being that
which is more self-determined. Furthermore, SDT proposes that individuals
naturally tend toward internalization of external requirements. As will be
discussed in more detail below, however, internalization depends upon both
intrapersonal factors, such as the person’s causality orientation, and contextual
factors, such as supervisor autonomy support. Below we first consider causality
orientations.
Causality Orientations Theory
Although SDT has historically focused on contextual factors that influence

internalization of goals and subsequent outcomes, Deci and Ryan (1985b) have
shown that individual differences in self-regulation also impact the internalization
process. In their model, a person’s “causality orientation” is the dispositional
propensity to ascribe causality for his or her own behavior to internal factors,
external factors, or neither (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). An autonomy-oriented person
tends to locate causality inside the self, and seeks out situations in which he/she
can freely choose what to do, on the basis of internal information and needs.
Autonomy orientation is correlated with variables such as well-being, empathy,
vitality, and ego development, and is also correlated with intrinsic and identified
motivation (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). In contrast, a control-oriented person tends
to locate causality outside the self, and seeks out situations that clearly dictate
what he or she should do. Control orientation is associated with variables such as
Type A behavior, competitiveness and power seeking, and self-monitoring, and is
also correlated with external and introjected motivation. Finally, an impersonally
oriented person is one who feels little capability of making anything happen,
regardless of the locus of causality. Impersonal orientation is associated with
amotivation, depression, and pathology (Deci & Ryan, 1985b).
Causality orientation is different than locus of control, although as noted by
Koestner and Zuckerman (1994), many people confuse locus of control with locus
of causality. Locus of control is derived from a reinforcement theory framework,
and refers to a person’s beliefs about the extent to which his/her outcomes result
from forces within the person (internal locus of control) or forces outside of the
person (external locus of control; Rotter, 1966, Spector, 1982). In contrast, causal-
ity orientation is derived from a phenomenological analysis of the dynamics of
felt agency (Deci & Ryan, 1991), and refers to a person’s beliefs about the extent
to which his/her actions are determined by external forces (control orientation) or
by the self (autonomy orientation). In other words, locus of control refers to the
determinants of outcomes, whereas locus of causality refers to the determinants
of behavior. Although the concepts are different, there is also some overlap; thus,
individuals with an external locus of control are more likely to have an impersonal
or a controlled orientation than an autonomous orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985b).
There has been somewhat less research on causality orientations theory than
on the other mini-theories of SDT, and thus we provide minimal discussion of it
here. We should note, however, that the causality orientations concept is consistent
with other conceptions of intrinsically-versus extrinsically-oriented personality
styles (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994; Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Kernis,
Paradise, Whitaker, Wheatman & Goldman, 2000).
Basic Needs Theory
What accounts for the well-being and performance differences found between
those with relatively high degrees of autonomy orientation, control orientation,
or impersonal orientation? This brings us to perhaps the most important element
of contemporary SDT – the concept of psychological needs. Psychological
needs have been widely discussed in the literature, and there are many different
conceptualizations of needs (see Deci & Ryan, 2000 for a discussion of some of
these). In SDT, needs specify “innate psychological nutriments that are essential
for ongoing psychological growth, integrity and well-being” (Deci & Ryan, 2000,
p. 229, italics in original). As articulated by Deci and Ryan (1991, 2000), the
concept of innate psychological needs is fundamental to SDT, and is necessary
to understand and make predictions about individuals’ motivation and behavior.
More specifically, SDT argues that there are three universal and evolved human
needs, which, when satisfied, lead a person to thrive in the same way that a
plant thrives when it is given sun, soil, and water. The needs are: autonomy
(to be self-regulating, to be the maker or at least the owner of one’s choices);
competence (to be effective in what one does, mastering new skills in the process);
and relatedness (to feel connected and in sympathy with at least some others).
In contemporary social/motivational psychology, competence and relatedness
are relatively uncontroversial needs, given what is now known about the posi-
tive effects of self-efficacy, optimism, attachment security, and social inclusion
(Bandura, 1997, Baumeister & Leary, 1995). As Deci and Ryan (2000) noted,
however, empirical psychology has focused less on autonomy, in part because of
confusion concerning its definition. In SDT autonomy is conceptualized as the
experience of feeling that one’s behavior is self-chosen and endorsed. Autonomy
is not total freedom to do whatever one wants, nor is it a complete lack of structure,
nor is it social isolation, reactive independence, or western individualism – rather,
it is felt volition. Stated differently, autonomy is conceptualized as the freedom to
behave in accordance with one’s sense of self (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Recent work attempting to confirm the importance of all three of these needs
has found unique and additive effects for each, in terms of predicting positive
performances and outcomes. Specifically, feelings of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness are all part of “what makes for a good day” (Reis, Sheldon, Gable,
Roscoe & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan & Reis, 1996), “what’s satisfying about
satisfying events” (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim & Kasser, 2001), “what makes a secure
attachment secure” (LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman & Deci, 2000), and “what makes
personal goals truly personal” (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).
Readers might ask: “How does SDT’s need-theory differ from Maslow’s
theory of needs?” which of course received much attention in management
research twenty to twenty-five years ago (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). There are
several differences, the most important one being that SDT does not assume any
hierarchical relation among the three needs. Instead, everybody “needs” all three
kinds of experiences, to an approximately equal extent, all the time. Thus, SDT
does not assume strong individual, cultural, or developmental differences in the
needs, although their means of being satisfied and expressed may certainly differ
between individuals, cultures, or ages. Work thus far supports these assumptions.
For example, in the domain of cross-cultural psychology, Sheldon, Ryan, Elliot,
Kim, Chirkov, Demir and Wu (2002) recently found that having autonomous
motivation for one’s personal goal-pursuits (i.e. to be “self-concordant”; Sheldon,
2002) predicts positive well-being in Turkey, Russia, Taiwan, China, and South
Korea, as well as in the U.S. In the domain of developmental psychology, Sheldon
and Kasser (2001) recently showed that goal-autonomy predicts well-being in
people of all ages. Interestingly, Sheldon and Kasser (2001) also showed that older
people were more autonomous in their goals. That is, consistent with organismic
integration theory, people tend to better internalize their own strivings over time.
Given the importance of need satisfaction for SDT, an important question is:
“what characteristics of social, academic and work environments best support
psychological need-satisfaction?” In accordance with basic needs theory, three
factors are theorized to result in need satisfaction: relationship support, compe-
tence support, and autonomy support. In other words, a boss, coach, parent, or
teacher who is trying to motivate an individual should try to help that person to
feel competent in the behavior by expressing confidence in the person’s abilities,
providing encouragement, and providing appropriate material and task support;
should help the person feel related to the motivator, by evidencing genuine concern
for his/her thoughts and feelings and by empathizing; and should help the person
feel autonomous in the behavior, by helping him or her to endorse and “own” the
task, even if he/she does not enjoy it. Because it is most controversial, most prior
SDT research has focused on the characteristics and effects of autonomy-support.
Thus we consider autonomy-support in greater detail below, and also later in
the chapter.
As demonstrated by Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone (1994), autonomy support
has at least three components: taking the person’s perspective upon the situation,
giving as much choice as possible, and providing a meaningful rationale when
choice-provision is not possible. Specifically, Deci et al. (1994) showed that when
all three factors were present, people were most likely to spontaneously continue
doing the boring task of pressing a spacebar whenever a light appeared, after
the task’s formal completion. To take a work-related example: a supervisor might
need an employee to check spreadsheets for accuracy of data entered. Although the
employee does not have a choice about whether or not to do it, the supervisor can
give the employee some choice about how to do it, when to do it, and perhaps with
whom to do it. In addition, the supervisor can be sympathetic to the subordinate’s
perspective (“I know this may not always seem like fun, because I can remember
having to do this myself”), and explain why it is so important (“If the data aren’t
accurate then the analyses will be wrong, which will damage the company”). In
this case the employee is most likely to “own” the task, so that he/she might even
work on it over the weekend without being asked, if the company needs it.
Considerable evidence, much of it from educational contexts, indicates that such
autonomy-support helps maintain and enhance intrinsic motivation, and also helps
to promote quicker and deeper internalization of formerly extrinsically-motivated
behaviors (Ryan & Stiller, 1991). Focusing on work settings, Hackman and Oldham
(1976) argued that workers would experience more internal work motivation when
the job provided greater autonomy. Indeed, a meta-analysis of studies investigating
Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model found a corrected correlation
of 0.42 between jobs providing autonomy and internal work motivation (Fried
& Ferris, 1987). In addition, some studies applying self-determination theory in
work contexts have also found that autonomy support is important in such contexts
(Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989; Deci, Ryan, Gagne, Leone, Usunov & Kornazheva,
2001; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). We will consider such work in more detail in
the final section.
Bringing the Four Mini-Theories Together: An Integrated Process Model
We have now discussed the four mini-theories that comprise the current state of
SDT and have touched upon some of the research that has investigated SDT (see
Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Figure 2 provides a summary causal
model of how the various pieces of SDT currently fit together. As shown in the
model, both contextual factors and personality factors are theorized to influence
the extent to which individuals internalize goals and tasks. More specifically,
Fig. 2. SDT’s General Casual-Process Model.

individuals who receive greater autonomy support from the environmental

context are theorized to be more likely to internalize goals and tasks. Similarly,
individuals with an autonomous personality style are more likely to have inter-
nalized motivation when performing a goal or task. As a result of the internalized
motivation, individuals are likely to derive positive momentary feelings of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness from doing the task. Such feelings satisfy
the organism and give access to full cognitive and motivational resources, thus
leading to a variety of positive outcomes, including performance, creativity, and
psychological well-being. Much recent work supports this general ordering of
factors and processes, in the domains of medicine, sports, parenting, education,
politics, religion, and intimate relationships, although there are sometimes direct
effects in addition to the mediated effects depicted in Fig. 2.
It is also worth mentioning that empirical evidence does not support the
proposition that control-oriented participants, who report a stronger preference
for structure and direction, benefit from being in treated in controlling ways. In
terms of Fig. 2, causality orientations do not interact with autonomy-supportive
versus controlling environmental characteristics to predict outcomes. Rather, the
evidence indicates that although control-oriented employees may in some ways
feel more comfortable being treated as a “pawn” (DeCharms, 1968), even they
benefit if they are instead treated as self-creating, self-responsible agents. Stated
more broadly, the evidence indicates that all individuals benefit when they are
allowed to fulfill their universal need for autonomy, as proposed by SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Joiner & Williams, 2003).
This concludes our brief overview of contemporary SDT (for further infor-
mation, readers also may consult the SDT website, http://www.psych.rochester.
edu/SDT, where they may also gain access to measures often used in SDT
research). A question that readers may have at this point is, “how does SDT
explicitly differ from the motivation theories that are often used to study behavior
in organizations?” Although a full answer to this question is beyond the scope
of this chapter (see Deci & Ryan, 2000, for one view), it is worth noting that we
see important differences among expectancy, goal, self-efficacy theories (as the
dominant motivational theories in organizational research), and SDT. Perhaps
most important are differences in focus and scope that allow SDT to complement
the prevailing theories in organizational research.
Expectancy, self-efficacy, and goal theories generally focus on understanding
and predicting rational, deliberate behaviors (Mitchell & Daniels, 2002). For
example, research suggests that expectancy theory is essentially a hedonic
decision-making theory that best predicts choice examined from a within-subject
perspective (e.g. predicting which choice from a set of options a person will select;
Van Erde & Thierry, 1996). Thus, expectancy theory, and perhaps by extension
the other theories, may be most useful for understanding and predicting specific
choices that follow deliberate reflection. In contrast, SDT may be best suited for
predicting and understanding what Mitchell and Daniels (2002) refer to as “not
rational” behavior; that is, behaviors that derive from “who people are (including
traits and dispositions) and what they feel and need, rather than on what they think
and believe” (p. 236). The study of such behavior is essential not only because
of its prevalence, but also because the research offers a window to understanding
more than just specific choices. SDT provides a framework to examine broad-
based psychological outcomes in organizations, such as commitment, satisfaction,
and well-being.
With this said, we also believe that SDT is difficult to categorize using the
Mitchell and Daniels (2002) framework because, in its current state of theoretical
development (i.e. Fig. 2), it describes connections among dispositions, beliefs,
needs, feelings, and actions. Thus, its scope is broad enough to cross the boundary
of “rational” and “not rational” theory. The model offered by SDT integrates dis-
position and situational influences on need satisfaction, and links need satisfaction
to affect (e.g., satisfaction) and behavior (e.g. learning and performance).
APPLICATIONS IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH

The remainder of the chapter will demonstrate the breadth of SDT by applying
it to various issues and domains within organizational research. Specifically, we
apply SDT to the following, notably quite different, organizational phenomena:
transformational leadership, goal commitment, training motivation, and high-
performance human resource practices. Our intent in discussing such a wide
range of organizational phenomena is to demonstrate the potentially far-reaching
applicability of SDT and thereby, hopefully, to stimulate additional theorizing and
research in other domains. As we discuss the organizational phenomena, we will
attempt to apply three key SDT concepts: (1) the internalization continuum, as
we consider causes and outcomes of peoples’ ability to “own” their work-tasks;
(2) autonomy supportive contexts, as we consider what managerial styles and
behaviors best help people to become more self-directing in their lives; and (3)
need satisfaction, as we consider what kinds of work environments and reward
structures lead to maximal satisfaction, performance, and thriving.
Transformational Leadership
In the past two decades, more research has been conducted on transformational
or charismatic leadership than on all of the other major theories of leadership
combined (e.g., LPC, path-goal, situational leadership, and normative decision

theories).3 This research has produced impressive evidence regarding the positive
effects of transformational leadership upon measured outcomes such as follower
perceptions of leader effectiveness, follower job attitudes, and objective leader
performance (Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Despite this extensive
body of research and clear empirical pattern, there is a poor understanding of the
processes by which transformational leaders are effective (Bass, 1999). In short,
how do transformational leaders achieve their often-remarkable results?
We suggest that SDT may provide an important part of the explanation, helping
to inform both the leadership and job attitudes literatures. Using Fig. 2, we
suggest that transformational leadership is a contextual factor that helps followers
to develop more internalized work-motivation, which in turn leads to greater
need-satisfaction and job performance.
There are several ways that transformational leaders may help their followers
to internalize work tasks. First, because transformational leaders appeal to values
and describe work in value-based terms, they increase the likelihood that followers
will come to identify with the values the leader espouses. Indeed, transformational
leaders are particularly adept at framing goals in terms of values and needs that
are attractive to both leaders and followers (Burns, 1978), facilitating followers’
internalization of those goals. Thus they resolve the paradox inherent in the leader-
follower relationship (Deci & Ryan, 1985a), enabling people to feel free even as
they are directed by a leader or authority.
A second way that transformational leaders likely promote internalization is by
providing vision. “Vision,” a concept common to all major theories of transforma-
tional and charismatic leadership (House & Shamir, 1993), provides both a goal
and a justification for the goal. In short, an effective vision is an abstract, distal goal
(an “end state”; Gardner & Avolio, 1998, p. 39), accompanied by a justification in
value-based terms (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Transformational leaders’ goals
and goal-justifications tend to be universalistic in orientation (Kirkpatrick, Locke
& Latham, 1996), tend to appeal to followers’ collective identities (Shamir, House
& Arthur, 1993), and tend to be “ideological rather than pragmatic” and “laden
with moral overtones” (House & Shamir, 1993, p. 97). According to SDT, these
characteristics give the vision special appeal, because of peoples’ inherent desire
to achieve integration and forge new connections in their lives. Here, we see that
SDT’s organismic theory emphasis on the growth impulse can provide conceptual
tools not offered by conventional utility and expectancy theories.
A third way that transformational leadership promotes internalization is
by encouraging individuals to pursue higher-order potentials, incentives that
transcend purely economic self-interest (Bass, 1985). In other words, whereas
transactional leaders emphasize the rational exchange of extrinsic rewards,
transformational leaders instead emphasize the search for meaning, excellence,

and self-expression. In the language of SDT, followers of transformational leaders
are thus less likely to fall prey to external or “controlled” motivations, and less
likely to have their intrinsic motivation eroded or undermined over time. Instead,
followers of transformational leaders tend to become ever more “self-directing
and self-reinforcing. They take on greater responsibilities” (Bass, 1985, p. 16).
What are the specific benefits of the internalized motivation promoted by trans-
formational leaders? Moving downstream in Fig. 2, the most immediate benefit
of internalized work-motivation is that it leads to psychological need-satisfaction.
As Conger and Kanungo (1998, p. 157) note, charismatic leaders formulate “a set
of idealized, future goals that represent the embodiment of a perspective shared
by followers and that appear to satisfy their needs.” For example, participants in
Bass’ (1985, p. 210) studies reported that their leader “increases my optimism
for the future,” “excites us,” “makes me proud,” “makes me feel good,” and
“makes everyone around him/her enthusiastic.” Similarly, Conger and Kanungo
(1998) found that leader charisma was positively related to follower task efficacy
(r = 0.35, p < 0.001) and feelings of empowerment (r = 0.31, p < 0.001).
Given that past research has shown that transformational leadership is
associated with follower satisfaction and performance, and having linked
transformational leadership to self-determination here, we can complete this
proposed mediated relationship by linking self-determination to satisfaction and
performance. Fortunately, research suggests that perceptions of self-determination
are indeed positively associated with satisfaction with work (Spreitzer, Kizilos &
Nason, 1997) and task performance (Eisenberger, Rhoades & Cameron, 1999b).
More recently, Bono and Judge (in press) found mixed support for a model
linking transformational leadership to follower goal self-concordance and goal
self-concordance to follower performance.
Again, Fig. 2 suggests that transformational leaders satisfy follower needs
primarily via promoting autonomous or internalized motivation in their followers.
However, we propose here that exceptional leaders may affect need-satisfaction
in other ways besides that depicted in Fig. 2, ways not yet recognized by
SDT. For example, peoples’ sense of camaraderie and shared purpose, derived
from the vision of the transformational leader, may create a positive climate
that promotes relatedness need-satisfaction independently of workers’ positive
motivation for their own specific work tasks. Indeed, it appears that vision
and teambuilding are positively linked (Anderson & West, 1996). As another
example, Pillai, Schriesheim and Williams (1999) found support for the mediating
role of justice perceptions between transformational leadership and worker
job-satisfaction. Fleshing out such paths represents one potentially important way
that organizational research can help expand and improve upon SDT.
To formalize and summarize, we offer the following proposition, which we hope

will generate new research:
Proposition 1. Transformational leaders promote follower satisfaction and

performance by helping followers to internalize work-related goals and
motivations.
Goal Commitment
Goals are a central concept in work motivation research (Austin & Vancouver,
1996; Locke & Latham, 1999). For example, Locke and Latham’s goal setting
theory proposes that specific and difficult goals lead to greater effort and
performance, especially when individuals are committed to the goal. A recent
meta-analysis supported both this main effect and this interaction effect – difficult
goals led to greater performance than less difficult goals, and goal commitment
moderated that relationship such that the highest performance resulted when
individuals were highly committed to difficult goals (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck
& Alge, 1999; although see also Donovan & Radosevich, 1998). Obviously, then,
goal commitment is a very important construct for goal-setting theory (Klein et al.,
1999; Locke & Latham, 1999). But what is the best way to conceptualize and
predict it?
Current models of goal commitment use an expectancy framework, such that
the expectancy of goal attainment and the attractiveness of goal attainment are
theorized to be the primary determinants of goal commitment (Hollenbeck &
Klein, 1987; Klein et al., 1999). Results from a recent meta-analysis (Klein et al.,
1999) supported this, showing that the expectancy and the attractiveness of goals
strongly predicted goal commitment, with corrected correlations of 0.36 and 0.29,
respectively. However, scholars have noted that considerably more research is
needed to investigate the nature of goal commitment, as people sometimes become
committed to goals despite low expectancy and/or low apparent attractiveness, and
sometimes fail to commit to goals which do meet these criteria (Klein et al., 1999;
Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright and DeShon, 2001).
We believe that SDT can provide new insight into the antecedents to goal
commitment, while also illuminating the nature of deeper, enduring commitment
(as opposed to superficial, temporary commitment). Recall that SDT proposes
a continuum of reasons for engaging in behavior, ranging from non-internalized
(i.e. controlled) reasons to internalized (i.e. autonomous) reasons (see Fig. 1).
Considerable evidence now indicates that individuals exert more enduring effort
toward, and better attain, personal goals that are more internalized (Sheldon &
Elliot, 1998, 1999; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995, 1998, 2001), similar to evidence
from goal setting theory that goal commitment is positively related to performance
(Klein et al., 1999).
There is an important difference in these literatures, however. Although
organizational goal-setting researchers have tended to assume that individuals
are automatically committed to self-set goals (Klein et al., 1999), Sheldon and
colleagues have found variability in the extent to which individuals internalize
self-set personal goals (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999; Sheldon & Houser-Marko,
2001; Sheldon & Kasser, 1998). For example, Sheldon and his colleagues asked
subjects to list goals they were pursuing and found that some individuals reported
pursuing self-set personal goals for non-autonomous reasons (i.e. because they felt
others wanted them to), indicating that not all self-set goals are felt as autonomous.
In other words, just because self-set goals are nominally self-determined does
not mean that they feel phenomenologically self-determined. As noted earlier
in the section on the organismic integration sub-theory of SDT, people do not
necessarily feel full ownership of their motivated behavior.
This reasoning suggests that commitment to self-set goals is affected not only
by attractiveness and value, but also by the extent the person feels internally
motivated to pursue the goal. Simply put, individuals who felt that they freely
chose a goal would be more committed to the goal than individuals who felt
that they chose a goal because of external pressures. Interestingly, results from
a recent meta-analysis of the organizational literature indicated that one of the
strongest antecedents of goal commitment was felt volition (Klein et al., 1999);
the corrected correlation was 0.40, which is somewhat stronger than the corrected
correlations found for expectancy and attractiveness.
The above reasoning suggests that one way to improve the prediction of positive
outcomes would be to measure peoples’ degree of internalization of goals, in
addition to their degree of commitment to such goals. Demonstrating the added
value of conducting such an assessment, Sheldon and Elliot (1998, 1999) and
Sheldon and Kasser (1998) showed that measured internalization predicted pos-
itive downstream effects above and beyond the effects of alternative motivational
constructs, including expectancy, commitment, and implementation intentions.
In other words, people who strive for autonomous reasons gain motivational
resources that cannot be accounted for by conventional utility, expectancy, and
plan theories.
To formalize and summarize the above, we offer the following proposition:
Proposition 2. Not all self-set goals feel autonomously chosen. The degree of
goal-internalization will predict goal-commitment above and beyond the pre-
dictive effects of expectancy and attractiveness.
Training Motivation
Motivation in the training and development literature is often captured with

the construct motivation to learn, which has been found to predict employees’
learning from training and development opportunities (for a meta-analytic review,
see Colquitt, LePine & Noe, 2000). As defined by Hicks and Klimoski (1987) and
(Noe, 1986; Noe & Schmitt, 1986), motivation to learn is an employee’s desire
to learn the content of a particular program. Conceptually, the motivation to learn
construct has been rooted in expectancy theory. That is, employees’ motivation
to learn has been theorized to be largely determined by their assessments of the
usefulness of mastering training content for obtaining valued outcomes at work
(Mathieu, Tannenbaum & Salas, 1992; Noe, 1986; Tharenou, 2001). Although
this perspective has been useful for empirically validating the role of motivation in
learning, it has also limited the motivational research questions posed by training
researchers. More specifically, the emphasis on a single, aggregate assessment
of motivation does not fully capture the nature of learners’ personal goals (i.e.
variety of goals they hope to accomplish and, perhaps more importantly with
regard to internalization, why), nor does it lend itself to detailed study of instructor
and manager behaviors that may influence these goals. Each issue is addressed
by SDT, although to date SDT has been neglected in training and development
research. In fact, reviews of the training motivation literature suggest a total
absence of research on the internalization of learners’ goals and on the influence
that instructors and managers have on learners’ needs satisfaction (Colquitt et al.,
2000; Mathieu & Martineau, 1997; Noe, Wilk, Mullen & Wanek, 1997). Each of
these issues is explored below along with propositions derived from SDT.
Learner’s Internalized Goals

Research on motivation to learn typically focuses on the content of training as
the determinant of motivation. Thus, measures of motivation to learn contain
statements like “I have a strong desire to learn the content of this program” (e.g.
Noe & Schmitt, 1986). Such an approach does not acknowledge that employees
come to a learning experience with goals that may only overlap partially with
program content (such as having a goal to learn a small portion of the training
content) and may not deal with training content at all (such as having a goal to
impress colleagues and/or the instructor). Although there are emerging streams of
organizational research on goals and learning that begin to address such phenom-
ena (e.g. Brett & VandeWalle, 1999; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully & Salas, 1998;
Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith & Nason, 2001), we found no organiza-
tional research that has investigated the degree to which learners have internalized
different types goals related to training. Educational research, however, clearly
suggests that higher quality learning occurs when learners experience internalized
motivation (Rigby, Deci, Patrick & Ryan, 1992). More recent educational research
directly demonstrates the learning benefit of having internalized reasons for being
in a course (Black & Deci, 2000). Thus, SDT theory and research suggest the
following:
Proposition 3. Employees with internalized goals for learning training con-

tent will exert greater effort toward learning and learn more from training than
trainees without such internalized goals.
Instructor Effects on Learners

Research examining motivation in training seldom examines what learners
actually do and experience in the training environment (Brown, 2001), and thus
it may overlook important motivational phenomena that occur after training
begins. Motivation measures are typically administered once, either before
(e.g. Quiñones, 1995) or after (e.g. Hicks & Klimoski, 1987) training. Such an
approach does not allow for an examination of how the training experience may
alter learners’ goals and motivational states. For example, a trainee who starts out
with high motivation to learn may quickly lose it. Alternatively, a trainee with low
initial motivation may become inspired to learn by a talented or creative teacher.
We will focus on the latter effect below because the field knows the least about
how trainers inspire others to learn (Towler & Dipboye, 2001).
First, let us consider several possible explanations for this “inspiration” effect
from other motivation theories. Expectancy theory suggests that motivation-
enhancing teachers succeed by illuminating the connections between training con-
tent and valued job outcomes. In other words, they show trainees how learning the
training material will help them perform more effectively on the job. Instructional
design models that focus on gaining and keeping learner attention often suggest
this approach (e.g. Gagné, Briggs & Wager, 1992). Self-efficacy theory suggests
that motivation-enhancing teachers succeed by raising learner self-efficacy,
perhaps by convincing trainees verbally of their own competence, or perhaps
more concretely by providing opportunities to succeed early in training (Gist &
Mitchell, 1992; Kozlowski, Toney, Mullins, Weissbein, Brown & Bell, 2001).
In contrast, SDT begins by focusing on learners’ felt autonomy in doing a task,
that is, the extent they feel an internal perceived locus of causality for their own
behavior. According to Fig. 2, trainers who support learners’ autonomy enhance
trainees’ intrinsic and/or identified motivation to learn (i.e. their autonomous
work-motivation), thereby helping fulfill trainees psychological needs. As a
result, trainees better learn and retain the material. Indeed, the importance of
teacher autonomy-support has been confirmed by research on teacher behavior
in educational settings (see Ryan & Stiller, 1991; Sheldon & Biddle, 1998, for
reviews). Research suggests that autonomy supportive teachers listen carefully
to learners, allow them to learn in their own way, and continually work to engage
learners’ interest (Reeve, Bolt & Cai, 1999).
The extent to which such behaviors describe trainers in corporate settings
is an open one, in large part because the focus of organizational research has
been on learner characteristics and work environment characteristics, rather than
on trainer characteristics and behaviors. As suggested by Towler and Dipboye
(2001), however, training effectiveness could be much improved by giving greater
attention to characteristics and behaviors of trainers. SDT provides a promising
framework for conducting such research. Notably, although the research reviewed
above focuses on autonomy need-satisfaction, similar positive effects should
be expected for satisfying competence and affiliation needs. Needs satisfaction
may help to explain the positive results found for certain training programs, such
as self-management (Frayne & Geringer, 2000, which may affect competence
need-satisfaction) and team training (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997, which may
affect relatedness need-satisfaction). Thus, we suggest that the SDT model not
only offers new research directions, it also can help to organize what is already
known.
Manager Effects on Learners

In addition to shedding light on the nature of effective trainers, SDT can also help
illuminate the construct of managerial support for training and development.
Organizational research often suggests that managerial support for learning
predicts employees’ motivation for and participation in learning experiences
(Baldwin & Magjuka, 1997; Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd & Kudisch, 1995).
And indeed, management support for learning, as rated by subordinates, has been
found to be an important predictor of participation in developmental experiences
(Birdi, Allan & Warr, 1997; Noe & Wilk, 1993; Tharenou, 2001). Unfortunately,
the specific process by which managers promote (or fail to promote) learning by
their employees have been little studied. Again, SDT suggests that such managers
succeed by supporting their employees’ autonomy needs, thus helping employees
to develop and pursue internalized goals related to learning and personal
growth.
In sum, SDT offers a perspective seldom employed by training and development
research, which has been dominated by the motivation to learn construct and
expectancy and self-efficacy theories. In particular, the theory suggests ways of
understanding what characteristics of learners, trainers, and managers promote
motivation to learn. To formalize the latter issue, the following proposition
is offered:
Proposition 4. Employees with managers and trainers who support their

autonomy needs will be more motivated to participate in and learn from
training experiences.
The Strategic Management of People
Emerging evidence reveals that firm performance is strongly influenced by the

nature of its human resource (HR) practices and policies. For example, three
recent studies (Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995; Huselid, Jackson & Schuler,
1997) found that a one standard deviation increase in a broad array of positive HR
practices was associated with higher profits (return on assets) of 23, 23, and 16%,
respectively. Such research demonstrates that firms can gain competitive advan-
tage through their human capital and that the firm’s HR practices have a direct
influence on human capital. As noted by Delery and Shaw (2001), however, little
research has examined the processes through which HR practices influence firm
performance.
Although SDT has been applied predominantly to intra- and interpersonal
contexts, we believe it may provide an important theoretical explanation for
this important organization-level phenomenon, namely, the relationship between
certain “high-performance” HR practices and firm performance. More specifically,
we propose that some high-performance HR practices provide employees with
enough autonomy and self-control that they can internalize the firm’s values and
objectives while completing their tasks. Thus, their work-motivation becomes
characterized by strivings to fulfill personal convictions (identified motivation)
and/or by strivings to pursue interesting and enjoyable lines of work (intrinsic moti-
vation). In terms of Fig. 2, HR practices may constitute a super-ordinate contextual
factor that influences the extent to which employees internalize the tasks they are
assigned, thus influencing employee need-satisfaction and firm performance.
Of course, the positive motivational effect of HR practices upon internalized
work motivation is not sufficient to explain all of the relationship between the
firm’s HR practices and its performance – obviously, employees’ knowledge,
skills, and abilities (KSAs) are an important determinant of the value the work
force adds to the firm (MacDuffie, 1995). However, we suggest that having a high
KSA work force will not necessarily lead to competitive advantage if that work
force feels “controlled,” or if it is not granted sufficient autonomy to choose how
and in what manner to accomplish the work. In other words, motivating employees
to really use their abilities, and empowering them to help design their own jobs,
may be critical to the accomplishment of organizational goals. Consistent with this
reasoning, Delery and Shaw (2001) argued that positive HR practices influence
firm performance in part by influencing felt empowerment and motivation in the

company work force.
In addition to their indirect effect via internalized work-motivation (see Fig. 2),
we suggest that high-performance HR practices can also influence employee
need-satisfaction directly. To illustrate, we consider Pfeffer’s (1998) list of
high-performance work practices that can give firms a competitive advantage:
selective hiring, self-managed teams and decentralization of decision-making,
extensive training, compensation contingent upon organizational performance,
reduced status distinctions, and extensive sharing of financial and performance
information. From the SDT perspective, firms that utilize more selective hiring
and extensive training should have employees who better fit with the firm and have
more organizationally relevant knowledge; such employees are thus more likely to
have their competence needs satisfied. De-emphasized status differentials and the
use of teams should encourage employees to feel relatedness with other employees
in the firm. The use of self-managed teams, decentralized decision-making, and
extensive sharing of financial and performance information should help support
employees’ feelings of autonomy. Taken together, then, this set of HR practices
should provide a context that allows employees to satisfy all of their psychological
needs, which in turn leads to greater effort and persistence at work, enabling the
firm to obtain higher individual and organizational performance.
To consider the issues more concretely, we focus below on one HR practice,
compensation. Compensation policies have been shown to have a significant effect
on firm performance (Gerhart & Milkovich, 1990). However, there is a bit of a
paradox here: classic SDT points out the potential motivation-undermining effects
of extrinsic rewards. Furthermore, some contemporary SDT research into terminal
values indicates that placing greater relative importance upon money negatively
predicts subjective well-being (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996). Does this mean that
compensation issues are bound to undermine and subvert individual, team, and
corporate morale?
Not necessarily. It appears that why money is valued and pursued makes a
difference. For example, Srivastava, Locke and Bartol (2001) showed that the
effect of financial motivation depends on the person’s motives for making money.
Financial motives involving insecurity, status-seeking, and failure-avoidance
were associated with negative well-being, whereas financial motives involving
meaning (supporting a family, gaining a sense of justice, or contributing to
a group effort) were positively related to subjective well-being. From an HR
perspective, this suggests that company policies that promote meaning, morality,
and/or team-cohesion (i.e. compensation based on organization performance) will
help defuse the potentially divisive effects of compensation differences between
employees.
Although the above example focuses on the role of HR practices for promoting
acceptance of a firm’s compensation policies, there are many other issues besides
compensation that could be more thoroughly examined, such as self-managed
teams and decentralization of decision making and reduced status differentials,
to name a few. In general, we postulate that firm performance will be maximized
when every HR practice contributes to internalized work-motivation and employee
need-satisfaction, or when HR practices are “internally consistent” with each other
(Delery & Shaw, 2001). Such consistency in practices should lead employees to see
themselves and their colleagues as owners of their tasks and duties, thus taking full
responsibility for the results. To formalize and summarize, we offer the following
proposition:
Proposition 5. High performance HR practices result in greater firm perfor-

mance because such practices promote greater employee internalization of work
tasks, thereby promoting employee need-satisfaction.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this chapter has been to explicate contemporary self-determination
theory (SDT), and show how it might be applied to substantive research domains
within organizational behavior and human resource management. Research on
SDT has increased rapidly over the last decade, and the theory is now quite
sophisticated and well supported. As we have argued here, SDT provides an
alternative, yet complementary, approach to the dominant motivation theories
in the management literature, because of its somewhat different assumptions
about human nature. In this concluding section we will briefly reiterate the key
propositions of SDT, describe the few existing studies that have specifically
applied SDT in work domains, and then briefly consider the limitations, boundary
conditions, and opportunities of the theory.
Again, SDT is an organismic theory of human motivation, which assumes
people have an inherent need to grow and develop, although both contextual
and interpersonal factors can inhibit that inherent need. A key aspect of SDT is
the internalization process, by which people come to identify with and “own”
less-than-enjoyable tasks. As shown in Fig. 2, both contextual and personal
factors are theorized to influence the internalization of such tasks, which subse-
quently results in greater satisfaction of the three innate psychological needs of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which positively impacts outcomes such
as persistence, well-being, creativity, and performance. Although this general
model has been well supported in the domains of health, educational, and social
psychology, there is as yet limited empirical support for it in work domains. In

the following section, we summarize the empirical organizational research that
does support the various components of the model described in Fig. 2. Including
in this brief review are suggestions for future research that may serve to refine the
application of SDT to the study of work-related phenomena.
Existing Organizational Research and Theory Refinement
Again, contextual autonomy-support is an important “front end” factor within

Fig. 2, that helps to determine whether individuals take ownership of externally
requested tasks and goals. Deci et al. (1989) investigated the extent to which
managers’ self-reported autonomy-support of employees (measured as “encour-
aging employee choice, providing non-controlling feedback, and acknowledging
employees’ perspective”) was related to employees’ job attitudes. Although the
sample size was quite small (N = 23 managers, where the unit of analysis was the
23 teams), managers’ support for self-determination was indeed positively related
to subordinates’ felt autonomy and satisfaction. Future research in this area could
go even “further back” in the Fig. 2 model, to investigate which higher-order
contextual factors influence whether managers are autonomy-supportive of
employees (i.e. whether the company administration is autonomy-supportive of
managers themselves, or whether the organizational culture supports managerial
initiative). Future research might also investigate the efficacy of interventions
designed to increase managers’ willingness and ability to support employee
autonomy.
Also at the front end of Fig. 2, personality may influence peoples’ internalization
of goals and tasks. As discussed in the first part of this chapter, Deci and Ryan
(1985b) have focused primarily on the personality factor of “causality orienta-
tions.” However, it seems likely that other stable individual difference variables
besides causality orientation influence the extent to which individuals internalize
extrinsic tasks in the work place. For example, one might suspect that individuals
who are more proactive (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000) better internalize
work tasks, perhaps through the process of “job-crafting” (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001; discussed further below). This remains for future research to test.
The Five Factor Model of personality provides yet another way of considering
the role of individual differences in optimal worker performance. Indeed,
organizational research has shown that the several of the Big Five traits influence
work-performance (Barrick, Mount & Judge, 2001) and overall job-satisfaction
(Judge & Ilies, 2002). But how does this occur? In terms of Fig. 2, we suggest that
certain traits can provide paths to need-satisfaction that bypass internalized work
motivation altogether. For example, extraversion (sociable, assertive, dominant)

and agreeableness (cooperative, trusting, kind) may influence relatedness need
satisfaction by promoting positive relations with others. Conscientiousness
(dependable, responsible, persistent) and emotional stability (confident, relaxed,
secure) may influence competence need satisfaction by promoting disciplined
effort. Openness to experience (imaginative, cultured, creative) may influence au-
tonomy need-satisfaction by promoting search for new choices and opportunities.
Notably, the linkage between personality trait variables and dynamic motivational
variables has received little empirical attention to date within any literature (but
see Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne & Ilardi, 1997). We suggest that organizational
research could help with the important theoretical goal of linking trait and
motive constructs (McAdams, 1996), thus expanding the range of personality
variables considered within SDT research while at the same time adducing new
understanding of work motivation and performance.
Another important proposition of SDT, as shown in at the “back end” of Fig. 2,
is that satisfaction of the three innate needs results in greater job satisfaction
and performance (Deci et al., 2001; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser & Ryan, 1993). Some
organizational research supports this, for example, Ilardi et al. (1993) studied
workers in a shoe factory and showed that employees’ feelings of autonomy, com-
petence, and relatedness were related to employee satisfaction and psychological
health. Similarly, Deci et al. (2001) studied workers in Bulgaria and the U.S. and
found that greater need satisfaction was associated with greater task engagement,
self-esteem, and reduced anxiety (although the strength of the relationships varied
somewhat across the two countries; notably, this study also found support for
the front end of the Fig. 2 model, as the most satisfied workers in both Bulgaria
and America were ones who felt that their managers supported their autonomy).
Future research should seek to establish which performance outcomes are most
affected by which types of need-satisfaction, and also try to uncover situations
and jobs in which autonomy, competence, and/or relatedness need-satisfaction
may be especially important. Again, such research would provide contributions
to both SDT and research on job performance.
Turning away from Fig. 2, we suggest SDT may also provide some insight
into some more complex constructs and processes currently being studied by
organizational researchers. For example, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p. 179)
presented a model of job crafting, defined as “the physical and cognitive changes
individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” that included
antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of the job crafting process. Of particular
relevance for our chapter, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argued that people
craft their jobs in order to assert some control over their jobs, to create a positive
self-image for themselves at work, and to connect with others. Perhaps not
surprisingly, these objectives seem quite similar to the three posited SDT needs
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, although Wrzesniewski and Dutton
(2001) do not discuss SDT in their article. Clearly, further research is needed to
test whether job crafting results in greater internalization of work tasks and thence
greater satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs.
Limitations, Boundary Conditions, and Opportunities
A major limitation of much SDT research for organizational scholars has been
SDT’s focus on well-being as the primary outcome of interest. Although employee
well-being is an important variable, in part because of its relationship with job
satisfaction (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001), organizational scholars are
also interested in productivity and performance measures, which are not as often
measured by SDT researchers. Notably, however, another major outcome focused
on by SDT is behavioral persistence, which is likely to be of interest to managers.
Other methodological limitations of prior SDT research include cross-sectional
designs, limited samples (mostly college students), and self-report measures. Of
course, one might also view these limitations as opportunities – opportunities for
organizational researchers to contribute to the further testing and shaping of an
important theory of human motivation.
It is also important to consider some possible boundary conditions that may
limit the conceptual applicability of SDT to organizational contexts. One such
boundary condition may be individual differences in employees’ needs for growth
or self-actualization. Does everyone want to grow and develop? A related bound-
ary condition may be individual differences in employees’ needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. Does everyone want to feel effective, connected, and
free? In other words, would it do any good to support the growth needs of someone
who prefers stability and stasis, or to support the autonomy needs of someone who
prefers controls and constraints, or to support the relatedness needs of someone
who prefers to be a loner?
Although Deci and Ryan (2000) noted that such differences may exist, they
do not think that examining individual differences in need strength “is the most
fruitful place to focus empirical attention” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 328). In part,
this is due to the fact that past SDT research has not found personality/situation
interactions (i.e. as discussed earlier, there is no empirical support for a matching
hypothesis, according to which control-oriented participants do better when treated
controllingly). Other motivation scholars, however, have argued that examining
individual differences in psychological needs may help us better understand many
motivational processes (Vallerand, 2000). For example, the job characteristics
model proposes that individuals vary in their growth need strength and that
this variability moderates the effects of job characteristics on work outcomes
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Indeed, meta-analyses support this proposition for
the outcomes of job satisfaction (Loher, Noe, Moeller & Fitzgerald, 1985) and job
performance (Fried & Ferris, 1987). Such results suggest that Deci and Ryan’s
assumption of invariant psychological needs and growth processes may need
further scrutiny.
Another conceptual boundary condition that may limit the applicability of SDT
to organizations is the inevitably tedious or aversive nature of some jobs, such as
peeling shrimp, making cold telemarketing calls, or working on assembly lines.
Can humanistic management practices really make a difference in such cases?
Again, SDT assumes that the answer is YES, because autonomy support helps
people to internalize the doing of boring or tedious tasks (Deci et al., 1994). To
show how this can happen, consider a woman with the job of assembling simple
rheostats, a job which requires her to produce hundreds of the items every day.
This person is not growth-oriented on the job, and she usually prefers the security
of being told exactly what she is supposed to do. Also, she has firm expectations
that work will always be boring and aversive, an activity that she only does for
the money. Still, according to SDT, if this person’s immediate supervisor began
to talk to her and take her perspective, offer her choices about when and how to
do her work, and offer explanatory rationales when making non-ordinary requests
(i.e. if the supervisor supported the woman’s autonomy, rather than commanding,
coercing, or controlling her), then the woman might eventually feel better respected
and appreciated, and might also learn to take more interest and pride in aspects
of the job (i.e. striving for a reduced error rate or increased productivity). Indeed,
given autonomy supportive management, the woman might eventually realize that
she has potentials that go beyond her current job, and thus move on to more
challenging work. In other words, the support of a caring manager might help this
woman to re-connect with the growth impulse that SDT assumes is present all
people, even though they may be temporarily “stalled” in a limited way of being.
Obviously, more research is required to document these rather optimistic ideas.
Another potential limitation of self-determination theory may be its assumption
of a motivational continuum, and its emphasis on creating an aggregate self-
determination measure that locates participants upon this continuum. Specifically,
SDT researchers often create a single measure of self-determined motivation by
adding identified and intrinsic motivation, and subtracting external and introjected
motivation. As noted earlier, however, some evidence suggests that it is important
to differentiate among the different types of motivation (Sansone & Smith, 2000).
By keeping the different forms separate one can examine the independent effects
of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, potentially demonstrating that the two types
of motivation sometimes have additive or complementary effects (Amabile, 1996;

Hennessey, 2000; Osterloh & Frey, 2000).
Finally, as implied above, SDT has primarily focused on how autonomy-
supportive contexts enhance workers’ internalized or intrinsic motivation. We
believe, however, that other processes can also lead to more internal motivation.
For example, some evidence suggests that individuals who have a strong inter-
personal orientation will find boring tasks more interesting when they work with
another person, perhaps because their relatedness needs are being met (Sansone
& Smith, 2000). In addition, it seems likely that individuals’ interest in a task may
be influenced by co-workers and supervisor perceptions of the task, as indicated
by the social information processing approach (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). From
this perspective, it may be important to help workers see the value of every work
task, not just their own. It is also possible that internal self-regulatory processes
can serve to enhance internal motivation. For example, Sansone and Smith
(2000) argued that individuals may change a task through real or psychological
transformation of the task, and that these transformations can result in increased
interest in and identification with the task. In summary, although SDT provides
some promising places to start, we believe organizational researchers can extend
the theory by examining other factors that influence the extent to which workers
develop internalized motivation.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have derived both a general model describing the process
through which self-determination influences positive outcomes of interest in
organizations, and a specific set of propositions describing how self-determination
theory (SDT) can advance contemporary work motivation research. We have
tried to show how SDT can be fruitfully applied to understanding constructs
used in organizational research, such as goal commitment and motivation to
learn, and broader phenomena such as transformational leadership and the
strategic management of human resources. Although some concepts within
SDT are doubtless similar to concepts found in contemporary work motivation
theories, we suggest that SDT provides a way of integrating these various strands
of thought under a comprehensive meta-theory. Indeed, precisely because of
such inclusive properties, SDT is playing a prominent role in the new “positive
psychology” movement, led by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000). Thus, we
hope that the thoughts expressed here will inspire organizational researchers to
give greater consideration to employees’ holistic strivings for growth, integration,
and connection (Sheldon & Schmuck, 2001).
NOTES
1. As evidence of this misunderstanding, Ambrose and Kulik (1999) used the term
Cognitive Evaluation Theory in their literature review on work motivation. This theory
represents only one part of the SDT theoretical framework. Despite their narrow focus,
Ambrose and Kulik (1999, p. 257) encouraged further organizational research
in this area.
2. Notably, happiness and well-being may be somewhat unfamiliar outcomes for organi-
zational researchers. In contemporary social psychology, well-being is typically defined in
terms of high positive mood, high life-satisfaction, and low negative mood (Diener, 1984,
1994; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; but see Ryff, 1995, for a different view of well-being). We
believe that enhancing employee well-being is a worthy goal for managers, given the many
positive cognitive, performance, and coping benefits that accrue from positive well-being
(for a review, see Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2003).
3. Consistent with other researchers (e.g. House & Shamir, 1993), we use the terms
transformational and charismatic leadership interchangeably.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory:
Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s.
Journal of Management, 25, 231–292.
Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1996). The Team Climate Inventory: Development of the TCI and its
applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Processes and content.
Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1997). Training as an organizational episode: Pretraining influences
on trainee motivation. In: J. K. Ford & Associates (Eds), Improving training Effectiveness in
Work Organizations (pp. 99–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning
of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.
Bateman, T. C., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure
and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee
development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 845–857.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A Self-Determination Theory perspec-
tive. Science & Education, 84, 740–756.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (in press). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational
effect of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictions of performance
in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 863–873.
Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why? Personnel
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423.
Coleman, P. G. (2000). Aging and the satisfaction of psychological needs. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
291–293.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation:
A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
678–707.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks,
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.
DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal Causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York:
Academic Press.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in work organization. Journal of
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-
determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999a). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999b). The undermining effect is a reality after all-
Extrinsic rewards, task interests, & self-determination: A reply to Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L.,
& Cameron, J. (1999) & Lepper, M. R., Henderlong, J., & Gingras, I. (1999). Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 692–700.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientation scale: Self-determination in
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In:
R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Perspectives on Motivation (Vol. 38,
pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satis-
faction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country:
A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
930–942.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:
Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of
Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and extension. Research in Personnel & Human Resources Management, 20,
165–197.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators
Research, 31, 103–157.
Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1998). The moderating role of goal commitment on the goal
difficulty – performance relationship: A meta-analytic review and critical reanalysis. Journal
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American
Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation –
Negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999). Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 677–691.
Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for performance increase or de-
crease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 77, 1026–1040.
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. (1995). The influence
of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived
training transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 1–25.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal
orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer.
Frayne, C., & Geringer, M. (2000). Self-management training for improving job performance: A field
experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 361–375.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). The principles of instructional design (4th ed.).
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.
Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. (1990). Organizational differences in managerial compensation and
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 663–691.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Goldstein, K. (1939). The organism. New York: American Book Co.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hennessey, B. A. (2000). Self-determination theory and the social psychology of creativity. Psycho-
logical Inquiry, 11, 293–298.
Hicks, W. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes:
A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 542–552.
Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds) (2000). Motivational science: Social and personality
perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems,
prospectsand proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 212–220.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories. In: M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds), Leadership Theory and Research:
Perspectives and Directions (pp. 81–107). New York: Academic Press.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity,
and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resource man-
agement effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management Journal,
40, 171–188.
Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of
motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment
in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789–1805.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analysis.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success
as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410–422.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Well being correlates of
intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 281–288.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
Kernis, M. H., Paradise, A. W., Whitaker, D. J., Wheatman, S. R., & Goldman, B. N. (2000). Master of
one’s psychological domain? Not likely if one’s self-esteem is unstable. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1297–1305.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership
components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36–51.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Implementing the vision: How is it done?
Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27, 93–106.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-
setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 84, 885–896.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of
goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (1994). Causality orientations, failure, and achievement. Journal of
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001).
Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multi-dimensional training outcomes
and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85,
1–31.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Toney, R. J., Mullins, M. E., Weissbein, D. A., Brown, K. G., & Bell, B. S. (2001).
Developing adaptability: A theory for the design of integrated-embedded training systems. In:
E. Salas (Ed.), Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research (Vol. 1,
pp. 59–124). New York: Elsevier Science.
LaGuardia, J., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security
of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384.
Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning play into work and work into play: 25 years of research
on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In: C. Sansone & J. Harackiewicz (Eds), Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance (pp. 257–307). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lepper, M. R., Henderlong, J., & Gingras, I. (1999). Understanding the effects of extrinsic rewards
on intrinsic motivation – Uses and abuses of meta-analysis: Comment on Deci, Koestner and
Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 669–676.
Locke, E. A. (Ed.) (2000). Handbook of principles of organizational behavior. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of
job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280–289.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transforma-
tion and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 385–425.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2003). Is happiness a good thing? A theory of the benefits of
positive affect. Manuscript in preparation, Department of Psychology, University of California,
Riverside.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational
logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 48, 197–221.
Mathieu, J. E., & Martineau, J. W. (1997). Individual and situational influences on training motivation.
In: J. K. Ford & Associates (Eds), Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations
(pp. 193–222). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational char-
acteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 828–
847.
McAdams, D. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for
studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 295–321.
Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2002). Motivation. In: W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds),
Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 225–254).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness.
Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Test of
a model. Personnel Psychology, 39, 497–523.
Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation
in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 291–302.
Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J., & Wanek, J. E. (1997). Employee development: Issues in con-
struct definition and investigation of antecedents. In: J. K. Ford & Associates (Eds), Improving
Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Orga-
nization Science, 11, 538–550.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management,
25, 897–933.
Psyszczynski, R., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2000). Toward a dialectical analysis of growth and
defensive motives. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 301–305.
Quiñones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537–548.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, R., & Ryan, R. (2000). Daily well-being: The role
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
419–435.
Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy:
Self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation & Emotion, 16, 165–185.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic
and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Ryan, R. M., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences
on autonomy, motivation, and learning. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 115–149.
Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
4(4), 99–104.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1997). Methods, tools, and strategies for team training. In: M. A.
Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds), Training for a Rapidly Changing Workplace: Applications of
Psychological Research (pp. 249–279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2000). Interest and self-regulation: The relation between having to and
wanting to. In: C. Sansone & J. Harackiewicz (Eds), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The
Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance (pp. 341–372). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:
A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Sheldon, K. M. (2002). The self-concordance model of healthy goal-striving: When personal goals
correctly represent the person. In: E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds), Handbook of Self-
Determination Theory (pp. 65–86). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls.
Teachers College Record, 100, 164–180.
Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Book review: Creativity in context. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 34, 285–290.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous
and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–557.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-
being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–
497.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What’s satisfying about satisfying events?
Comparing ten candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 325–339.
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of
happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
152–165.
Sheldon, K. M., Williams, G., & Joiner, T. (2003). Self-determination theory in the clinic: Motivating
physical and mental health. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all
progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319–1331.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Getting older, getting better? Personal strivings and personality
development across the life-course. Developmental Psychology, 37, 491–501.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., Chirkov, V., Demir, M., & Wu, C. (2002).
Autonomous goal pursuit and collectivist values: Complementary, not conflictual. Unpublished
manuscript.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). True self and trait self: Cross-role
variation in the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity and well-being. Journal of
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. R. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence
and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
1270–1279.
Sheldon, K. M., & Schmuck, P. (2001). Conclusion: Suggestions for healthy goal striving. In:
P. Schmuck & K. Sheldon (Eds), Life Goals and Well-Being: Towards a Positive Psychology of
Human Striving (pp. 213–226). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psycho-
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of
Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: It’s not the
money, it’s the motives. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 959–971.
Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Tang, S. H., & Hall, V. C. (1995). The overjustification effect: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive
Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and develop-
ment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 599–621.
Towler, A. J., & Dipboye, R. L. (2001). Effects of trainer expressiveness, organization, and trainee goal
orientation on training outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 664–673.
Vallerand, R. (2000). Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory: A view from the hierarchical model
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 312–318.
Van Erde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575–586.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Werner, H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In:
D. Harris (Ed.), The Concept of Development (pp. 125–147). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
BEYOND SOCIAL EXCHANGE: NEW
DIRECTIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR THEORY
AND RESEARCH
Kelly L. Zellars and Bennett J. Tepper
ABSTRACT
Virtually all research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is
rooted in a social exchange based view of citizenship performance. While
we do not dispute the significant role exchange motives play in citizenship
performance, we nevertheless see what amounts to a preoccupation with and
over-reliance on social exchange processes in extant OCB theory. With the
goals of improving the prediction of citizenship performance and advancing
human resource management practice, we outline several new directions for
OCB theory and research.
INTRODUCTION
Twenty years ago, Dennis Organ and his colleagues introduced an approach to
understanding organizational performance that has had profound implications
for human resource management research and practice. In an attempt to explain
the modest relationship between job satisfaction and productivity (Brayfield &
Crockett, 1955; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985), Bateman and Organ (1983) and

ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22009-0
395
396 KELLY L. ZELLARS AND BENNETT J. TEPPER
Smith, Organ and Near (1985) distinguished between performance contributions

that fall within an employee’s job description and those that exceed the employee’s
job requirements. The satisfaction-performance relationship, they argued, will
be attenuated in studies that focus on in-role performance, activities over which
individuals have little discretion, and that employees’ satisfaction is more likely
to be expressed in what may be termed, organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCB), discretionary actions that are not formally rewarded by the organization,
but which contribute to organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988a). Consistent
with those arguments, early studies revealed positive relationships between
employees’ job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors like altruism
and generalized compliance (see Organ, 1988a, b, for reviews).
Since that time, OCB theory and research has become an important fixture in
human resource management discourse. However, as it is with many “maturing”
research domains, the OCB literature appears to be showing signs of staleness,
particularly with respect to research aimed at untangling the motivational
basis for OCB. In this paper, we argue that the dominant conceptual basis
for OCB, social exchange theory, has served the literature well, but that it is
time for researchers to consider complementary, theoretical perspectives. In the
sections that follow, we describe how early thinking about OCB culminated
in the current emphasis on social exchange theory, show that the explanatory
power of OCB theory has improved little since that early work, implicate the
emphasis on social exchange as a contributing factor in the modest improvement
in OCB theory and research since 1983, and outline several promising direc-
tions for future research that will hopefully take OCB inquiry beyond social
exchange.
THE EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL EXCHANGE

Beginning in the 1990s, Organ theorized that the cognitive component of job
satisfaction, employees’ evaluative assessments of fairness (i.e. organizational
justice), explains the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB (Organ,
1990). Consistent with this position, the results of several empirical studies
suggested that justice perceptions explain variance in OCB beyond job sat-
isfaction but that job satisfaction was unrelated to OCB after controlling for
justice perceptions (Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff & Organ, 1993; Organ
& Konovsky, 1989). Organ (1990) invoked Blau’s (1964) distinction between
economic exchange and social exchange and notions of reciprocity to explain
the linkage between organizational justice and OCB. According to Organ (1990),
employees perform OCB when the relationship with their employer is one of
Beyond Social Exchange 397
social exchange, relationships that exist outside of formal contracts such that the
parties’ contributions to the exchange are unspecified. Compared to economic
exchanges, relationships involving contractually agreed upon contributions, social
exchanges involve diffuse, informal agreements in which the party’s contributions
are open to individual interpretation. Organ argued that organizational practices
that engender favorable justice perceptions incur a sense of obligation to
recompense the organization in a manner befitting a social exchange relationship.
Employees will reciprocate fair treatment using OCBs, contributions that lie
outside formal role requirements and reward structures and are therefore struc-
turally similar to the social rewards employees enjoy when they are well treated.
That is, justly treated employees express their sense of obligation by performing
OCB and unjustly treated employees express their displeasure by withholding
OCBs.
Since those first studies, close to 200 papers related to OCB have been published,
much of that work appearing in the last seven or eight years and most of it focusing
on the motivational bases for OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bacharach,
2000). This literature is important for human resource management practice
because OCB has implications for bottom-line indices of productivity. Katz
(1964) argued, for example, that having a high (in-role) performing workforce is
not enough to guarantee organizational survival – performance contributions akin
to citizenship are critical to organizational effectiveness because such behaviors
afford organizations flexibility and the capacity to adapt to uncertainty. As
Smith et al. (1983) put it, OCBs “lubricate the social machinery of the organi-
zation . . . they provide the flexibility needed to work through many unforeseen
contingencies” (p. 654).
In a recent conceptual work, Bolino, Turnley and Bloodgood (2002) argued that
OCBs enhance social capital, a source of competitive advantage for organizations
that derives from close relationships among employees. Citizenship performance
facilitates contact among employees, fosters interpersonal liking and trust, and
facilitates understanding – these dimensions of social capital, in turn, enhance
organizational performance. Consistent with the idea that OCB is related to
organizational effectiveness, the results of several empirical studies suggest that
organizations and work-groups are more productive when employees perform
more OCB (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Ahearne, 1998; Podsakoff, Ahearne &
MacKenzie, 1997; see Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997, for a review). In addition,
employees who perform more OCB are less likely to voluntarily quit their jobs
(Chen, Hui & Sego, 1998) and more likely to be promoted (Hui, Lam & Law,
2000). Hence, the level of OCB in an organization is a key marker for human re-
source management research and practice. Moreover, to the extent OCB represents
a source of competitive advantage, it stands to reason that organizations should
benefit from interventions designed to improve the frequency with which members
perform citizenship behaviors (e.g. Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). Of course, the
quality of such interventions hinges on the extent to which extant models account
for variance in OCB performance – training programs are only as efficacious as the
predictive validity of the constructs and processes around which such programs
are designed.
In order to evaluate the state-of-the-art regarding the predictive validity of
current models, we thoroughly reviewed the literature to identify published studies
of the antecedents of OCB. Given the limitations associated with self-report
measures of OCB and studies involving data collected from a single-source, we
limited our review to studies in which the measures of the predictor variables
and employees’ OCB were obtained from independent sources. We initiated our
search using recent meta-analyses and qualitative reviews of the OCB literature
(e.g. Borman & Penner, 2001; LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Paine,
1999; Podsakoff et al., 2000). We then searched PsychLit. and ABI/Inform for
articles published from 1983 to the present using “organizational citizenship
behavior,” “prosocial behavior,” and “contextual performance” as keywords.
Our search identified a total of 50 studies that met the inclusion criteria.
However, two studies made use of the same data set and reported identical effect
sizes (see Schnake, Cochran & Dumler, 1995; Schnake, Dumler & Cochran,
1993). We therefore included Schnake et al. (1993) in this analysis and excluded
Schnake et al. (1995). As we describe in detail below, our analysis of the resulting
49 studies suggested two broad themes that together cast doubt on the efficacy of
past and present efforts to develop training programs designed to improve OCB
performance. First, we found evidence that there has been little improvement in
explained variance (vis-à-vis OCB) over the past 20 years. That is, despite the fact
that the models designed to account for OCB have become increasingly complex
and, ostensibly, better identified, the actual amount of explained variance has
remained fairly constant. The second theme, which provides an explanation for
the modest improvement in explained variance over time (i.e., the first theme),
has to do with limitations in the theoretical frameworks that have been the basis
of empirical scrutiny. Specifically, our analysis suggested that few studies have
developed predictions that go beyond social exchange theory. As a result, although
researchers have done a good job of untangling the roles social exchange plays
in OCB performance (i.e., outlining the various ways of operationalizing social
exchange, identifying the multiple social exchange relationships employees form,
and explaining the mechanisms by which different kinds of social exchange influ-
ence different OCB dimensions), they have done so at the expense of improving
the overall predictive power of extant models. Below, we review these themes in
greater detail.
Little to No Change in Explained Variance Over Time
The first theme involves a fascinating paradox – on the one hand, researchers have
investigated a variety of antecedents to OCB including dispositional factors (e.g.
conscientiousness, agreeableness, positive affectivity, and negative affectivity),
supervisory behavior (e.g. supportive leadership, contingent and non-contingent
reward and punishment, and leader role clarification), organization characteristics
(e.g. formalization, cohesiveness, flexibility) and, of course, employees’ attitudes
(e.g. job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational justice). Given
the plethora of variables investigated, it is reasonable to expect that the explained
variance in OCB would have steadily increased over the past 20 years.
To investigate this, we calculated the explained variance for each OCB study con-
ducted since 1983, averaging across OCB subdimensions (where reported) and then
taking the weighted (by sample size) average across all studies. This analysis only
included studies that involved independent measures of the predictors and OCB
(i.e. studies not contaminated by common-method bias). Of course, this meant
excluding studies involving single-source data (Aryee & Chay, 2001; Bettencourt,
Gwinner & Meuter, 2001; Chattopadhyay, 1999; George & Bettenhausen, 1990;
Lambert, 2000; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000; Moorman & Blakely,
1995; Netemeyer, Boles, McKee & McMurrian, 1997; Robinson & Morrison,
1995; Ryan, 2001; Schappe, 1998; Tompson & Werner, 1997; Williams & Shiaw,
1999), as well as studies in which multi-party data were available, but the predictor
set included evaluations taken from the source of the OCB ratings (i.e. studies in
which supervisors’ ratings of subordinates’ in-role behavior were not separable
from the rest of the predictor set; e.g. Deluga, 1994; Williams & Anderson, 1991).
Hence, for example, Farh, Earley and Lin (1997) report the squared-multiple
correlations between five OCBs indigenous to Chinese Society and a predictor
set that included age, gender, education, tenure, pay satisfaction, organizational
commitment, modernity, traditionality, distributive justice, participation in
decision making, opportunity to appeal decisions, and interactional justice. The
squared multiple correlations were 0.08 for identification with the company, 0.19
for altruism toward colleagues, 0.10 for conscientiousness, 0.26 for interpersonal
harmony, and 0.21 for protecting company resources. For our analysis, we took
the average of these five values, which was 16.8, and weighted it by the sample
size (N = 227).
Of the 49 studies we found, 31 reported multiple correlations between a linear
combination of predictors and one or more OCBs (measured from an independent
source) or reported data that we could use to reconstruct the variance in OCB that
could be accounted for by a linear combination of predictors. These studies are
listed in Table 1. Across 32 samples and 6,835 data points, the weighted average
Table 1. Studies of OCB Antecedents Involving Independent OCB Ratings.

Study Operationalization Mean Sample
of Social Exchange R-Square Size
Aryee, Budhwar and Chen (2002)a Trust in supervisor

Bateman and Organ (1983)a Job satisfaction
Blakely, Fuller and Smith (1996) Organizational support 0.11 150
Cropanzano, Rupp and Byrne Organizational commitment 0.09 232
(2003)
Deckop, Mangel and Cirka (1999) Value commitment 0.17 146
Deluga (1994)b Leader-member exchange
Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin and Job involvement 0.09 136
Lord (2002)
Farh, Earley and Lin (1997) Organizational justice 0.17 227
Farh, Podsakoff and Organ (1990) 0.15 195
Hofmann, Morgeson and Gerras Leader-member exchange 0.14 94
(2003)
Hui, Lam and Law (2000) Perceived instrumentality of OCB 0.16 293
to promotion
Konvosky and Organ (1996) Supervisor fairness and supervisor 0.04 402
satisfaction
Konovsky and Pugh (1994)a Trust
Lee and Allen (2002) Procedural justice 0.12 149
Farh, Podsakoff and Organ (1990)a Participative leader behavior
Masterson (2001)a Organizational commitment
McNeely and Meglino (1994) Job satisfaction, reward equity, 0.13 100
recognition for desirable behavior,
and job satisfaction
Mitchell, Sullivan and Uhl-Bien Organizational support
(2002)a
Moorman (1991)a Distributive justice, procedural
justice, and interactional justice
Moorman (1993) Job satisfaction 0.06 225
Moorman, Blakely and Niehoff Organizational support
(1998)a
Moorman and Harland (2002)a Felt obligation and organizational
commitment
Moorman, Niehoff and Organ Procedural justice
(1993)a
Morrison (1994) Job satisfaction and affective 0.17 317
commitment
Niehoff and Moorman (1993)a Organizational
Organ and Konovsky (1989) Pay cognitions and job cognitions 0.05 369
Organ and Lingl (1995) Job satisfaction 0.11 42
Pillai, Schriesheim and Williams Procedural justice and trust
(1999)a
Study Operationalization Mean Sample
of Social Exchange R-Square Size
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman Trust 0.09 988

and Fetter (1990)
Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann Organizational support 0.10 128
and Birjulin (1999)
Rioux and Penner (2001) Distributive justice and procedural 0.14 130
justice
Rupp and Cropanzano (2002)a Social exchange with the
supervisor and social exchange
with the
Schnake, Cochran and Dumler Satisfaction 0.23 136
(1995); see also Schnake,
Dumler and Cochran (1993)
Settoon and Mossholder (2002)a Trust
Settoon, Bennett and Liden (1996)a Leader-member exchange
Shore and Wayne (1993) Organizational support 0.10 276
Skarlicki and Latham (1996)a Procedural justice and interactional
justice
Smith, Organ and Near (1983)a Leader supportiveness 0.14 220
Stamper and Van Dyne (2001)c 0.13 257
Tepper and Taylor (2003) Procedural justice 0.25 278
Tepper, Lockhart and Hoobler Procedural justice 0.12 160

(2001)
0.07 110
Van Dyne and Ang (1998) Psychological contracts and 0.37 155
affective
VanYperen, van den Berg and Supervisory support
Willering (1999)a
Wayne and Green (1993) Leader-member exchange 0.05 73
Wayne, Shore and Liden (1997)a Organizational support and
leader-member exchange
Williams and Anderson (1991)b Intrinsic job cognitions and
extrinsic job cognitions
Witt (1991) Job satisfaction, organizational 0.18 43
commitment, and organizational
support
Zellars, Tepper and Duffy (2002) Procedural justice 0.26 373
Zellars, Tepper, Giacalone and Procedural justice 0.07 295
Lockhart (2001)
a R-squares not reported.
b Studies included supervisor performance ratings in the predictor set for OCB.
c Study did not operationalize social exchange.
amount of explained variance was 14%. Interestingly, in the first study of the
antecedents of OCB, Smith et al. (1983) found that the linear combination of leader
supportiveness and subordinates’ neuroticism, education, job satisfaction, and
background (urban versus rural) accounted for 14% of the variance in employees’
OCB (i.e. 16% of the variance in altruism, an OCB dimension that captures
helping directed toward specific coworkers, and 12% of the variance in generalized
compliance, activities performed on behalf of the organization in general). Hence,
after 20 years of research and the investigation of increasingly complex models
(i.e. models containing larger batteries of predictors, interaction terms, and
multi-level effects), the amount of explained variance has remained constant.
Reliance on Social Exchange Theory
The second theme, which helps explain the first theme, is that few studies have
developed models of the motivational basis for OCB that go beyond social
exchange theory. In fact, every study listed in Table 1 invoked social exchange
theory to explain OCB and all but one study measured social exchange. Hence, for
example, Niehoff and Moorman’s (1993) study of 213 movie theater employees
and their managers, invoked social exchange theory to explain hypothesized
relationships between leader monitoring behavior and employees’ OCB. The
researchers operationalized social exchange using the three dimensions of
organizational justice (i.e. distributive, procedural, and interactional), and they
used Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989) scales to measure five dimensions of
OCB: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue.
Table 1 is suggestive of several trends that collectively point to an over-reliance
on and preoccupation with social exchange theory and further speak to the reason
why recent research has explained modest, incremental variance in OCB. One
trend is that many studies have focused on finding the “right” operationalization
of social exchange rather than improving on the predictive power of previous
work. Researchers have operationalized social exchange in several different ways
including trust (i.e. the belief that another party to an exchange can be counted on
to discharge their obligations; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), perceived organizational
support (i.e. the extent to which employees feel their organization values their
contributions and cares for their well-being; Lambert, 2000; Moorman, Blakely &
Niehoff, 1998), organizational commitment (i.e. employees’ affective attachment
to, and identification with, their employer; Cropanzano, Rupp & Byrne, 2003),
leader-member exchange (i.e. the extent to which an employee’s relationship with
their supervisor involves an exchange of valued resources versus a transactional
arrangement involving strict adherence to the parties’ formal role requirements;
Wayne & Green, 1993), and, of course, procedural justice (Niehoff & Moorman,
1993). In a very recent study, Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) employed Shore,
Tetrick and Barksdale’s (1999) direct measures of social exchange with one’s
organization and with one’s supervisor to investigate the antecedents of OCB. Of
course it is not our objective to evaluate the relative merit of these operationaliza-
tions of social exchange, but to instead draw attention to the fact that the search
for the best proxy has not yielded improved prediction of citizenship performance.
Another trend that emerges from this analysis is that, although researchers
have broadened the range of antecedents to OCB, they have invoked social
exchange theory to explain the effects of “new” variables. Good examples of
this are studies that have explored relationships between subordinates’ OCB
and supervisory practices such as supervisory monitoring (Niehoff & Moorman,
1993), transformational leadership behavior (e.g. Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams,
1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990), and abusive supervision
(Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002). These studies suggest that a variety of leadership
behaviors are related to OCB, but that social exchange mediates these effects.
That is, supervisory behaviors influence OCB through subordinates’ perceptions
of the existence of a social exchange relationship (with the organization or with
the supervisor). Of importance to our interest in evaluating the explanatory power
of extant models, these research findings mean that leadership practices do not
explain variance in OCB beyond social exchange. More generally, to the extent
social exchange fully mediates the effects of such diverse factors as supervisory
behaviors, organizational characteristics, and dispositional variables on OCB,
new studies do not contribute to explaining citizenship behavior (beyond previous
work). Hence, although these studies have helped to flesh out the mediating
linkages antecedent to OCB, they contribute more to understanding how social
exchanges develop than to improving the amount of explained variance in OCB.
Another recent trend involves simultaneous investigation of multi-foci social
exchange relationships, the notion that employees’ citizenship performance is
motivated by concurrent, social exchange relationships with one’s organization
and one’s supervisor (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000; Mitchell,
Sullivan & Uhl-Bien, 2002; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Settoon, Bennett & Liden,
1996). Studies that fall into this category recognize that employees form multiple
attachments simultaneously, and that these relationships may lead to different
facets of OCB performance. For example, Moorman and Harland (2002) found that
among temporary workers, OCB was related to the existence of a social exchange
relationship with the staffing agency (as indicated by satisfaction with the agency)
and with the client organization (indicated by organizational commitment).
Of course it would be disingenuous to characterize all OCB research as being
tied exclusively to social exchange theory. In some of the studies listed in Table 1,
researchers have used social exchange theory in conjunction with alternative

frameworks to predict OCB. For example, Rioux and Penner (2001) showed
that impression management motivations are related to OCB, Blakely, Fuller and
Smith (1996) found that self-monitoring was related to some dimensions of OCB,
and Zellars, Tepper, Giacalone and Lockhart (2001) found that employees’ fear of
negative evaluation, the dispositional tendency to experience apprehension when
there is a chance of being evaluated negatively, was related to employees’ OCB.
Nevertheless, our analysis shows the pervasiveness of social exchange theory
in OCB models and we think it is not unreasonable to characterize the field as
having embraced social exchange as the key driver of employees’ OCB.
Implications for Human Resource Management Research and Practice
On the plus side, interest in OCB has inspired considerable investigation of the
precursors to social exchange relationships between employees and employers;
however, despite the wide variety of variables that have been investigated in
OCB research, the variance accounted for in OCB has progressed little beyond
the studies published in the early 1980s. This is problematic because, in theory,
citizenship and performance contributions are important elements of organiza-
tional effectiveness. This also has implications for training managers to elicit
OCB from employees. Not surprisingly, in the only attempt to develop a training
program designed to enhance OCB, Skarlicki and Latham (1996) invoked social
exchange theory, crafting the intervention according to Leventhal’s (1980) rules
of procedural justice (i.e. decision making processes should be consistent across
people and over time, unbiased, based on accurate information, permit opportu-
nities for appeals, and reflect the ethical concerns of those who are affected). This
study showed that improving fairness perceptions can lead to higher levels of
citizenship performance. More generally, this study shows that organizations can
improve the frequency with which employees perform citizenship behaviors and
suggests a viable direction for human resource management practice. However,
the fact that there has been only one such effort to design such a program
and that the program was designed with social exchange theory in mind, adds
further credence to the call for a broadening of OCB inquiry, beyond social
exchange theory.
Gratifyingly, the social psychology literature provides some clues as to pro-
cesses other than social exchange that contribute to OCB and prosocial behaviors
akin to OCB. These include the prospective OCB performer’s self-efficacy, the
opportunity to perform OCB, egoistic motivations such as impression manage-
ment and coping with work stress, and identity management. In the sections that
follow, we review each approach and describe the implications each has for future
human resource management research.
BEYOND SOCIAL EXCHANGE

Variance in the Difficulty of Performing OCB: Self-Efficacy and Opportunity
From the earliest writings on OCB, it has been assumed that citizenship perfor-
mance is “easy.” Helping coworkers, showing courtesy, expressing loyalty to the
organization, and refraining from complaining have been regarded as activities
that anyone can do, given the inclination (Organ, 1988a). This notion ties into the
characterization of OCB as discretionary – a form of behavior that is under the
employee’s control and, consequently, not subject to the usual constraints asso-
ciated with so-called, in-role behaviors. However, just as the characterization of
OCB as extra-role or discretionary has been debunked (see Morrison, 1994; Putka
& Vancouver, 1999; Tepper, Lockhart & Hoobler, 2001), so too the assumption
that OCBs are easy to perform warrants reconsideration. Helping, for example,
may be difficult if the intended target is performing a complex task with which the
prospective helper has little experience or confidence, the prospective helper is too
fatigued or injured to be helpful, or providing help requires overcoming logistical
problems (e.g. communication barriers, time constraints, or if opportunities to be
helpful do not emerge). These ideas highlight the possibility that motivation alone
does not ensure that individuals will perform OCB; prospective citizens must also
have the self-confidence that they can perform OCB and the opportunity to do so.
Self-Efficacy
A considerable body of research has demonstrated the importance of task-specific
self-efficacy on an individual’s motivation to perform and act in pursuit of
goals (Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990). Specific self-efficacy reflects
“beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and
courses of actions needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood & Bandura,
1989, p. 408). Several studies speak to the issue of whether self-efficacy has a
role to play in citizenship performance. In a study of the relationship between
self-efficacy and one form of OCB, interpersonal helping, Penner, Fritzsche,
Craiger and Freifeld (1995) found that among college students who were
high in other-oriented empathy, those who believed in their ability to help
(i.e. high self-efficacy) engaged in more helping than those who were low in
self-efficacy. Related research suggests that individuals who feel more competent
perceive helping as being less difficult (Dovidio, Piliavin, Gaertner, Schroeder &
Clark, 1991) and a key finding of the bystander literature (Latane & Darley, 1970)
is that individuals are most likely to help when they believe no one else can do
so. These studies underscore the general notion that variance in self-efficacy
vis-à-vis helping should not be unexpected and that individuals are likely to be
more helpful when they see themselves as being effective in that role.
Opportunity
Engaging in OCBs requires that an individual be given the opportunity to do
so. Even where employees have strong beliefs in their personal efficacy to assist
others or the organization, they may lack the ability to mobilize the “necessary
courses of action” owing to their position in the organization. Social and workflow
systems within an organization may create “opportunity structures” (Anderson
& Williams, 1996; Lamertz, 1999) for engaging in citizenship behaviors. Some
individuals are more helpful because they are better positioned within the
organization (Burke, Duncan & Weir, 1976). They may be in a central position
with respect to the organization’s workflow, have a specific expertise others need
or value, or simply be readily available (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). Individuals
centrally positioned within a network have greater access to others and to relevant
resources. Simply put, some individuals are situated such that they receive more
requests for help and from which they are better able to offer assistance (Brass
& Burkhardt, 1993; Burke, Duncan & Weir, 1976; Ibarra, 1993). Consistent with
these ideas, Settoon and Mossholder (2002) found that network centrality was
directly associated with task-focused helping behaviors.
Based on this analysis, it may be speculated that models of OCB performance
will be under-specified to the extent they do not account for the roles played
by employees’ self-efficacy and opportunity (which may be operationalized as
centrality). The motivational bases for OCB (e.g. social exchange as well as some
others that we highlight in the sections to come) should be more strongly activated
when individuals see themselves as capable of performing OCB (i.e. when they are
high in self-efficacy) and when they occupy central positions in the organization.
Consequently, in future studies, researchers should explore the moderating effects
of these factors on the relationships between motive-based antecedents and OCB.
Egoistic Motivations: Impression Management and Coping with Stress

Social psychologists have long recognized that individuals perform prosocial
acts for several reasons, and that multiple motives can simultaneously encourage
individuals to help others (e.g. Batson, Bolen, Cross & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986;
Batson et al., 1981, 1988, 1989; Batson & Oleson, 1991). Initially, researchers
emphasized altruistic motivations, which reflect the ultimate goal of benefiting a
person in need. A second general category captures “egoistic” motivations, which
capture helping that is instrumental in reaching the ultimate goal of benefiting

oneself. In this section, we describe two lines of research that reflect egoistic
motivations: OCB as a form of impression management and OCB as a way of
coping with experienced stress.
OCB as an Impression Management Strategy

In the last ten years, researchers have begun to consider impression manage-
ment motivation as an antecedent to citizenship performance. Several theorists
(Bolino, 1999; Eastman, 1994; Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor & Judge, 1995; Ferris, Judge,
Rowland & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Schnake, 1991) have argued that some individu-
als engage in citizenship behaviors in order to enhance their social image among
coworkers or superiors. Performing OCBs can achieve a number of impression
management objectives outlined by Jones and Pittman (1982) including being seen
as likeable, dedicated, and competent. Consistent with these ideas, empirical stud-
ies suggest that observers evaluate coworkers more favorably when they perform
OCBs (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), observers may attribute actors’ OCBs to
image-enhancement (Allen & Rush, 1998; Tepper, Duffy & Hoobler, 2002), and
individuals may help others in order to make them look needy and dependent and to
reinforce the helper’s image as valuable (i.e. over-helping; Gilbert & Silvera, 1996).
In our literature search for investigations of the relationship between impression
management motivations and OCB, we found three studies that involved data
collected from independent sources. Using a sample of government workers,
Blakely, Fuller and Smith (1996) found relationships between self-monitoring,
the dispositional tendency to modify one’s behavior to fit situational demands, and
two dimensions of OCB, interpersonal helping and individual initiative. Zellars,
Tepper, Giacalone and Lockhart (2001) found that OCB was higher among restau-
rant employees who were higher in fear of negative evaluation, the dispositional
tendency to experience apprehension when there is a chance of being evaluated
negatively. Finally, Rioux and Penner (2001) found that individuals who reported
that their OCB was motivated by impression management concerns did, in fact,
perform OCBs with greater frequency. Taken together, these studies suggest that
impression management motivations are related to citizenship performance.
OCB as a Form of Coping

A second egoistic motivation for performing OCB emanates from the coping
literature. Environmental demands such as work overload, interpersonal conflict,
and lack of control threaten individuals’ well-being (Karasek, 1979; Perrewé &
Ganster, 1989). According to stress and coping theory, individuals draw on a
variety of resources in order to cope with such threats (Lazarus & Launier, 1978).
These resources include physical health and stamina, problem solving skills and
morale, and tangible assets like money and equipment (Folkman, 1984; Folkman,
Schaefer & Lazarus, 1979). We propose that performing OCB may be another
means by which individuals cope with organizational stressors. Consider the case
of an employee who is experiencing frustration because she must wait for an
inexperienced colleague to complete a report. One way of resolving the frustration
and regaining a sense of control is to offer assistance to the less experienced
coworker. Doing so relieves the coworker’s stress associated with not being able
to complete the task assignment and allows the helper to complete their own work.
Voice behavior, a form of citizenship that involves “constructive change
oriented communication intended to improve the situation” (LePine & Van Dyne,
1998), may also reflect an individual’s attempt to cope with frustration caused
by current working conditions. Examples include suggesting organizational
improvements (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999), offering
ideas on how to proceed, and persuading others to accept suggestions and
directions (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Borman, Motowidlo, Rose & Hanser,
1985). These “challenging promotive behaviors” (Van Dyne & LePine, 1988)
reflect active attempts to improve individual, group, or organizational functioning
(George & Jones, 1997). Individuals may experience stress if they perceive a need
for change when others in the organization are wedded to the status quo either
because they fail to see the need for change or because they are incapable of
implementing the change. For these individuals, offering suggestions or trying to
convince others to accept those suggestions may involve what stress and coping
theorists refer to as problem-focused coping strategies, tactics designed to directly
confront environmental threats – in this case, the problems with the status quo
that are at the heart of the individual’s dissatisfaction. That is, the underlying
motivation for employees’ voice behavior may be to reduce personal stress.
OCB may also involve emotion-focused responses, activities that distract
individuals from perceived threats by reducing the symptoms of distress (rather
than directly addressing the underlying source of stress; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Threatening situations, such as being assigned tasks that exceed one’s
abilities can produce stress reactions. In response, individuals may focus on
activities that they are confident they can perform well and from which personal
satisfaction may be derived. To the extent citizenship behaviors in the form of
helping others, displaying courtesy, and loyally supporting the organization’s
interests make individuals feel better about themselves (because they allow
individuals to construct a favorable self-image), they may be regarded as a form
of escapist or avoidance coping (Lazarus, 1999), activities that direct attention
away from the source of stress and thereby reduce the symptoms of frustration.
Another way in which citizenship behaviors may help individuals cope with
the symptoms of stress involves what Midlarksy (1991) refers to as, “social
integration,” the sense of being part of a community or group. The stress and cop-
ing literature suggests that individuals with stronger support networks experience
less stress on and off the job, cope more effectively, and experience fewer negative
physical and psychological health effects (Carlson & Perrewé, 1999; Etzion,
1984; Ganster, Fusilier & Mayes, 1986; Parasuraman, Greenhaus & Granrose,
1992; Russell, Altmaier & Van Velzen, 1987). To the extent citizenship behaviors
promote integration with one’s coworkers, good citizens should experience social
support that allows them to cope better with threatening environmental events (cf.
Cohen & Wills, 1985).
In our literature search, we found two studies of the relationship between stress
and citizenship. Tompson and Werner (1997) found that work-family conflict,
the extent to which individuals have conflicting demands between work and
family roles, was negatively related to OCB. Cropanzano, Rupp and Byrne (2003)
focused on the emotional exhaustion component of job burnout and citizenship.
They found that exhaustion, as measured with items developed by Maslach and
Jackson (1991), was negatively associated with citizenship designed to benefit
the organization (in two samples) and with citizenship designed to benefit the
supervisor (in one sample).
It may be inferred from these findings that citizenship declines as stress
increases, which runs contrary to our prediction that individuals perform more
OCB when they are under stress (i.e., in order to directly reduce the effects
of stress or to reduce the symptoms of distress). However, the relationship
between stress and citizenship performance may be more complicated. For
example, employees may withhold citizenship in response to conflict between
work and family roles because doing so frees up time. Hence, it may not be
surprising that Tompson and Werner (1997) found that individuals performed
less citizenship when they experienced conflict between work roles and such
non-work roles as student, hobbyist, spouse, primary care giver, and friend. With
respect to Cropanzano et al.’s (2003) findings, it is important to recognize that
the exhaustion component of burnout is an extreme form of stress that gradually
increases over time and which reflects chronic emotional strain (Cherniss, 1980;
Savicki & Cooley, 1994). Emotionally exhausted individuals experience a sense
of depletion and deep fatigue (Koeske & Koeske, 1989). Sample items in the
Maslach and Jackson (1991) measure include, “I feel emotionally drained from
my work,” and “I feel like I am at the end of my rope.” Perhaps, there is a point
at which exhaustion diminishes one’s energy to engage in citizenship. It may be
that at the point of exhaustion, the desire for control over reducing one’s stress
is so diminished that coping through initiative or assisting others simply requires
more psychological or physical energy than the employee possesses. However,
many employees feel stress at work but never experience exhaustion and burnout.
Consequently, one way of reconciling these empirical findings with our previous
arguments is to conceive of OCB as a coping mechanism employees use at lower
levels of frustration or stress, prior to the point of emotional exhaustion.
Citizenship as Self-Identity
Exchange theories of OCB are based on a cognitive appraisal of relationships

and characterize citizenship as a conscious effort to reciprocate the organization’s
treatment. However, exchange-based explanations of work behaviors reflect
an “overreliance on individualistic-hedonistic assumptions and . . . cognitive-
calculative processes” (Shamir, 1991, p. 405) and fail to consider the impact of
self-concepts on work behaviors, including citizenship behaviors. In addition to
the reciprocity-based motivations social exchange theory captures, employees
may engage in behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness in order
to establish and maintain a desired self-image (Katz & Kahn, 1966). For example,
Penner, Midili and Kegelmeyer (1997) propose that the role of volunteer is
internalized and becomes part of the volunteer’s self-concept. This role-identity
motivates behavior as the volunteer strives to make her behavior consistent with
the role identity (Grube & Piliavin, 1996). Behaviors expressing values or the
ideal self are more automatic and less calculative – the reward for engaging in
behaviors that reflect a desired self-image is “not so much a matter of social
recognition as one of establishing one’s self-identity, confirming one’s notion of
the sort of person one sees oneself to be, and expressing the values appropriate
to the self-concept” (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 346). In this section we explore the
potential influence of self-concept on organizational citizenship.
At the forefront of such a discussion, it is important to recognize two distinctive
characteristics of a self-identity theory of motivation. First, while most theories
of motivation focus on readily observable discrete behaviors, a self-identity
theory of motivation focuses on a larger pattern of behaviors exhibited over time.
Second, a self-identity approach to motivation is most useful under ambiguous
conditions such as vaguely defined goals, unspecified means for achieving goals,
or ambiguous connections between performance and rewards (Shamir, 1991).
When situational conditions fail to provide cues for appropriate behaviors, or
norms for expected behaviors are unavailable or unknown, the motivation for an
individual’s behaviors, including citizenship behaviors, may reflect values held or
self-concepts. Korman (1970) hypothesized that individuals are motivated to per-
form in a manner consistent with self-image and will choose those activities that
are consistent with self-cognitions. Hence, we see an opportunity for investigation
of self-concept as motivation for engaging in citizenship behaviors at work.
Allport (1955) proposed that much of human behavior is motivated by

self-expression. While general norms provide a guide for behavior in a social
context, personal norms are “feelings of moral obligation to perform or refrain
from specific action” (Schwartz & Howard, 1984, p. 234). The more central to
one’s identity these personal standards are the greater their motivating potential
on the individual to act (Schroeder et al., 1995). We found two studies (with
multiple source data) that examine citizenship and the role of individual’s beliefs
and values, specifically the influence of work centrality, job involvement, and
prosocial values. We propose that the findings of these studies are consistent with
the notion that personal norms or standards may spur citizenship. Perhaps most
importantly, they provide sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation into
the role of self-concept in motivating organizational citizenship.
As normative beliefs, work centrality and job involvement are influenced by an
individual’s personal experiences as well as socialization among friends, family,
religion, and culture. Work centrality reflects an individual’s beliefs about the
importance that work should take in one’s life (Paullay, Alliger & Romero, 1994):
“It is presumed to be a relatively stable set of beliefs that does not fluctuate
greatly in response to conditions in the immediate work environment” (p. 225).
Thus it may reflect a “propensity to involve oneself in whatever one is doing or
encounters” (Kobasa, Madidi & Kahn, 1982, p. 169). Job involvement reflects
one’s current immersion in one’s job. If an individual highly values work as part
of his life and aspires to invest oneself wholeheartedly in his activities, then work
centrality and work involvement may have strong influences on behaviors at
work. Diefendorff et al. (2002) found that work centrality predicted civic virtue,
and that job involvement predicted supervisor’s ratings of subordinate’s altruism,
civic virtue, and conscientiousness.
In the second study we found in this area, Rioux and Penner (2001) adopted
a functional approach to behavior (Snyder, 1993). Researchers adopting this
approach propose that people engage in activities to satisfy goals or needs, or to
serve different psychological functions (Omoto & Snyder, 1995, p. 673). Perhaps
the need served by citizenship is to reinforce one’s self-image as a person who
positively contributes to others within their work environment. In their study of
motives for OCB, Rioux and Penner (2001) asked participants to rate one hundred
and ten items on how important each motive statement would be in the decision
to engage in OCB. Three factors emerged. First, prosocial values “involve the
need to be a helpful individual (value expression) and the need to be accepted and
interact smoothly with one’s peers” (Penner, Midili & Kegelmeyer, 1997, p. 1312).
Outside the organizational context, a large body of social psychology research
indicates consistent prosocial tendencies of individuals over time and across a
wide variety of situations (e.g. Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Savin-Williams, 1987).
Second, organizational concern motives reflect a desire of the individual to help the
organization based on pride and perceptions that the organization cares about the
employee. Finally, impression management motives reflect a “desire to maintain
a positive image and to avoid creating a negative one” (p. 1312). Prosocial values
appear to reflect an individual’s desired self-concept as a person who is helpful
and impression management motives reflect a desire to have others agree with
that image, thus reinforcing one’s self-concept. Regression results using peer and
supervisor ratings of OCB indicated prosocial values significantly predicted al-
truism, and peer ratings indicated the impression management motives accounted
for significant variance in sportsmanship. Thus, after controlling for personality,
perceived justice, and affect, the researchers found evidence that values may
underlie citizenship, possibly as a means to maintain consistency with perceptions
of self-identity. If prosocial values are relatively stable individual differences
that influence behaviors at work, as Rioux and Penner (2001) propose, and they
spur citizenship behaviors, such actions may be the means by which individuals
maintain consistency between their concepts and behaviors (Schlenker, 1985).
Mood, Affect, Emotions and OCB
As we noted at the outset, early studies of the motivational basis for OCB
focused on job satisfaction and the affective elements of employees’ attitudes.
Organ (1988a) went so far as to argue that satisfied employees perform more
citizenship behaviors because they tend to be predisposed to experience favorable
mood states. However, the research since that time has produced mixed findings
regarding the predictive power of constructs representing affect. Consider the
results of the following investigations of organizational citizenship behavior:
(1) Organ and Konovsky (1989) found that cognitions predicted OCB beyond
negative affectivity (NA) and positive affectivity (PA), but that NA and PA did
not explain variance in OCB beyond cognitions; (2) George (1991) found that
positive moods predicted altruism above and beyond fairness cognitions, but not
vice versa; and (3) Kemery, Bedeian and Zacur (1996) found that both cognitions
and affect contributed uniquely to explaining employees’ OCB. For the most part,
however, studies in this area suggest that the cognitive component of employees’
attitudes out-predicts the affective component, which has led to the emphasis on
such cognitive considerations as social exchange and reciprocity.
Nevertheless, it may be premature to dismiss the role of affect in citizenship
performance; at the very least, it is worth considering some of the reasons why
measures of affect have performed inconsistently in previous OCB research (other
than the obvious explanation that affect is not a good predictor of OCB). One
possibility has to do with the appropriate conceptualization and measurement of

affect. Some discrete emotions cannot be explained by their higher order factors
(Watson & Clark, 1992), and studies have shown that discrete negative emotions
can exert different effects on social judgments and behaviors. For example, anger,
sadness, and guilt are all negative emotions, and consequently, will fall within the
larger domain of negative affect, yet they can have very different influences on
behaviors. Anger and sadness exert different effects on an individual’s tendency to
blame others for negative events (Keltner, Ellsworth & Edwards, 1993) and guilt,
unlike anger, may reduce aggression (Baumeister & Boden, 1998). In the only
OCB study to consider the influence of both negative affect and specific emotions,
Lee and Allen (2002) reported that negative discrete emotions (fear, hostility,
sadness, and guilt) predicted individually directed citizenship. Perhaps teasing
apart these factors is a key to untangling the relationship between affect and OCB.
Another explanation as to why affect has not emerged as a consistent predictor
of OCB is that important moderators have been ignored in previous research. That
is, affect may be related to OCB, but only under certain conditions. For example,
affect may be related to OCB, but only when employees are high in self-efficacy
or when they are centrally located in the organization’s network structure (see
the earlier discussion). Another potential moderator of the influence of affect is
the intended beneficiary of citizenship behaviors. Some evidence that the target
of the citizenship is an important factor in comparing affective versus cognitive
influences on citizenship also comes from Lee and Allen’s (2002) field study. They
found that affect was a better predictor of OCB directed at individuals compared
to cognition, and that cognition was a better predictor of OCB directed at the
organization. Other studies likewise suggest that it is important to consider the
intended or primary target of OCB: the individual or the organization (McNeely &
Meglino, 1994; Organ, 1997; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Williams & Anderson, 1991).
Group Influences in Individual’s Citizenship
A final general direction for future OCB research has to do with the influence
of group factors on individual member’s citizenship performance. For example,
research suggests groups develop an affective tone, and the emotional contagion
literature suggests that individuals can “catch” another’s emotion (Bartel &
Saavedra, 2000; George, 1990). Studies have indicated that leaders’ mood states
are related to sales associates’ helpful behaviors directed toward customers
(George & Bettenhausen, 1990), and moods of members of work and sports teams
are related over time (Totterdell, 2000; Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann & Briner,
1998). With few studies to date, the complexity of the relationships of mood
linkages among groups is just emerging. For example, George and Bettenhausen
(1990) found that in groups characterized by greater interdependence, group affect
is more strongly related to employees’ prosocial behavior intended to benefit other
team members.
A second issue pertaining to group influences has to do with the effects of norms
on individual members’ OCB. Research outside the organizational context sug-
gests that observing helpful models increases the salience of helping, demonstrates
the appropriate form of helping, and can increase the self-efficacy of potential
helpers (Bandura, 1973; Latane & Darley, 1970, Rosenhan & White, 1967). The
vast social learning literature indicates individuals assess information obtained
from their social environments to develop attitudes and understand expectations
regarding appropriate behavior and consequences (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
Furthermore, the social context appears to influence an individual’s decision to
take personal responsibility for intervening in a situation requiring help (Latane &
Darley, 1970).
Norms develop within groups to control and enforce behaviors (Feldman,
1984), and “normative theories of helping emphasize that people help others
because . . . the current behavior of others suggests that helping is the socially
appropriate response” (Schroeder et al., 1995, p. 84). Thus, group norms regarding
the appropriateness or expectation for citizenship may develop, and some groups
may display relatively high levels of citizenship. Initial evidence for a group level
effect was reported by George and Bettenhausen (1990) in their examination
of salesmen’s activities toward customers. However, the findings of the study
are limited in that the activities examined (i.e. being helpful to customers)
may overlap greatly with other required activities of a salesman. On the other
end of the continuum, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) provided evidence
that individuals learn and adopt anti-social behaviors from coworkers. Perhaps
individuals learn to withhold citizenship in order to “fit in” with others in the
group. Based on the findings of George and Bettenhausen (1990) and numerous
studies indicating effects of group and leader behavior on members’ behaviors
(see Tepper & Taylor, 2003), it appears that citizenship may be learned from
others in the workplace. Studies are needed that examine types of citizenship
aimed at others within the organization or intended to benefit the organization
as a whole. For example, groups may develop norms regarding voicing opinions,
refraining from complaints, or showing initiative. New members quickly adopt
such expectations in order to become a full member of the group and succeed as
part of the group. Such a proposition is consistent with the numerous studies in
reinforcement theory suggesting that over time individuals engage in the activities
for which they are rewarded, and reinforcements may lead to “learned helpfulness”
(Schroeder et al., 1995).
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Our objectives in writing this piece were to: (1) draw attention to the emphasis on
social exchange theory that dominates extant OCB theory and research; and (2)
spur interest in broadening the focus of OCB research, beyond social exchange.
Toward that end, we outlined several promising directions for future OCB inquiry.
Specifically, we have argued here that, beyond social exchange, citizenship per-
formance may be a function of employees’ self-efficacy, structural opportunities,
impression management, stress and coping, self-identity, mood states, and group
influences.
Assuming these notions prove useful in explaining citizenship performance, the
implications for human resource management practice are several. For example, to
the extent self-identity is related to OCB, organizations might consider designing
selection systems that attract and retain individuals with appropriate self-concepts.
Doing so is not without precedent. Southwest Airlines evaluates potential hires
for initiative and adaptability, characteristics of good citizens from a self-identity
perspective. Other organizations screen applicants on attributes that are difficult
to change through training such as courtesy toward others, applicants’ philosophy
of life and “personal mission statements” (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). Organizations
that successfully attract and hire individuals with strong self-concepts comprised
in part by values reflecting the importance of being a “good citizen” may be able
to reduce the amount of time time-consuming and costly amounts of supervision
since the individual is intrinsically motivated to be “a good citizen.”
To the extent group influences are related to citizenship performance, human
resource training programs could be designed with an eye toward showing
managers how to model citizenship behaviors and how to reward employees
for displaying citizenship. Managers could also be trained to behave in ways
that enhance employees’ self-efficacy and to identify and remove structural
impediments to citizenship performance, thereby providing employees the
opportunity to perform OCBs. Of course these notions await the findings of what
will hopefully be a new thrust in OCB research, beyond social exchange.
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance
judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
247–260.
Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping
processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 282–296.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organi-
zational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 267–285.
Aryee, S., & Chay, Y. W. (2001). Workplace justice, citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions in a
union context: Examining the mediating role of perceived union support and union instrumen-
tality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 154–160.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 45, 197–231.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between
affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J. R., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly,
M. J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality
Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H. (1986). Where is the altruism in
the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 212–220.
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emo-
tion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
290–302.
Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C.
(1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
Batson, C. D., & Oleson, K. C. (1991). Current status of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. In:
M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Prosocial Behavior (Vol. 12,
pp. 62–85). Newbury Park: Sage.
Baumeister R. F., & Boden, J. M. (1998). Aggression and the self: High self-esteem, low self-control,
and ego threat. In: R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds), Human Aggression: Theories, Research
and Implications for Social Policy (pp. 111–137). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality,
and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Blakely, G. L., Fuller, J., & Smith, D. (1996). Are chameleons good citizens? The relationship between
self-monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Southern Management Association, New Orleans.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of
social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In: N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds), Personnel Selection in
Organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J., Rose, S. R., & Hanser, L. M. (1985). Development of a model of
soldier effectiveness. Personnel Decisions Research Institute (Institute Report No. 95).
Borman, W. C., & Penner, L. A. (2001). Citizenship performance: Its nature, antecedents, and motives.
In: B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds), Personality in the Workplace (pp. 45–61). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure
and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 331–348.
Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psycho-
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management
Review, 11, 710–725.
Burke, R. J., Duncan, G., & Weir, R. J. (1976). Informal helping relationships in work organizations.
Carlson, D. S., & Perrewé, P. L. (1999). The role of social support in the stressor-strain relationship:
An examination of work-family conflict. Journal of Management, 25, 513–540.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic
dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
273–287.
Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover:
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
922–931.
Cherniss, C. (1980). Professional burnout in human service organizations. New York: Praeger.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological
Review, 98, 310–357.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Getting more than you pay for: Organizational
citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
420–428.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315–326.
Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job
involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–108.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark, R. D. (1991). The arousal
cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In: M. S. Clark
(Ed.), Prosocial Behavior (pp. 86–118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379–1391.
Etzion, D. (1984). Moderating effect of social support on the stress-burnout relationship. Journal of
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,
421–444.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior:
Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705–721.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management
Review, 9, 47–53.
Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics
and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In: M. J. Martinko
(Ed.), Attribution Theory: An Organizational Perspective. Del Ray Beach, FL: St. Lucie
Press.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence and
the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal
Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Cognitive processes as mediators of stress and
coping. In: V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (Eds), Human Stress and Cognition: An Information
Processing Approach. London: Wiley.
Ganster, D. C., Fusiler, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the experience of stress
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102–110.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
107–116.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance and
turnover: A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
698–709.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10,
153–170.
Gilbert, D., & Silvera, D. (1996). Overhelping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 7370,
678–690.
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (1996, May). Role identity, organizational commitment, and volunteer
performance. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues, Ann Arbor, MI.
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. T., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship be-
tween leader-member exchange and context specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar.
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizen-
ship behavior for promotion: A field quasi experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
822–828.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical
and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 471–501.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In: J. Suls
(Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self (pp. 231–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–307.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of sadness and
anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 740–752.
Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A., & Zacur, S. R. (1996). Expectancy-based job cognitions and job affect as
predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,
635–651.
Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of
Koeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1989). Construct validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory: A critical
review and reconceptualization. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 131–144.
Konvosky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253–266.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 37, 656–669.
Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56,
31–41.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801–815.
Lamertz, K. (1999). Exchange processes of interpersonal helping in the social structure of work groups.
In: S. J. Havolic (Ed.), Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management
(CD-ROM) (pp. OB: F1–F6). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion. New York: Springer Publishing.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transaction between person and environment. In:
L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds), Perspectives in Interactional Psychology. New York: Plenum.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role
of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
52–65.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships. In: K. Gergen, M. Greenberg & R. Willis (Eds), Social Exchange:
Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and con-
sequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62,
87–98.
Maslach, C. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1991). The measurement of experienced burnout. In: C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 253–266).
Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and
customers perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
594–604.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in proso-
cial organizational behavior: An examination of intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior.
Midlarksy, E. (1991). Helping as coping. In: M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social
Psychology: Prosocial Behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 238–264). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, M. S., Sullivan, D. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2002). Integrating commitment, perceived organiza-
tional support, and leader-member exchange: A further understanding of affective commitment
in organizations. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association,
Atlanta.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 76, 845–855.
Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the
relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 6,
759–776.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16,
127–142.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate
the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy
Moorman, R. H., & Harland, L. K. (2002). Temporary employees as good as citizens: Factors influencing
their OCB performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 171–187.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6,
209–225.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviors: The importance of
the employees’ perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1999). Performance assessment in unique jobs. In: D. R. Ilgen &
E. D. Pulakos (Eds), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motiva-
tion, and Development (pp. 56–86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of
Marketing, 61, 85–98.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods
of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
527–556.
Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New
York: Free Press.
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of
service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 671–681.
Organ, D. W. (1988a). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington.
Organ, D. W. (1988b). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Manage-
ment, 14, 547–557.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis for organizational citizenship behavior. In: B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Perfor-
mance, 10, 85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.
Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 339–350.
Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985). Cognition vs. affect in measures of job satisfaction. International
Journal of Psychology, 20, 241–253.
Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational
psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior. In:
C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (pp. 338–367). New York: Wiley.
Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments
designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
224–228.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. K. (1992). Role stressors, social sup-
port, and well-being among two career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
339–356.
Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality.
In: J. N. Butcher & C. D. Speilberger (Eds), Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 10).
Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social
psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Perfor-
mance, 10, 111–131.
Perrewé, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (1989). The impact of job demands and behavioral control on job
stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 213–229.
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management
Executive, 13, 37–48.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management,
25, 897–933.
Podsakoff, P., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and
the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
262–270.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation measure of organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Indiana University.
Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and sales unit effec-
tiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363.
Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organi-
zational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10,
133–152.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter (1990). Transformational leader behav-
iors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Putka, D. J., & Vancouver, J. B. (1999). The moderating effects of employee perceptions of behavioral
discretion on the relationship between OCB and job satisfaction. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and
organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159–174.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior, A motivational
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306–1314.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled
obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 198–289.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of
work groups on antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
658–672.
Rosenhan, D. L., & White, G. (1967). Observation and rehearsal as determinants of prosocial behavior.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.
Russell, D. W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support, and burnout
among classroom teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 269–274.
Ryan, J. J. (2001). Moral reasoning as a determinant of organizational citizenship behaviors: A study
in the public accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 233–244.
Salancik, G. J., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Savicki, V., & Cooley, E. J. (1994). Burnout in Child Protective Service Workers: A Longitudinal Study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 655–666.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1987). Adolescence: An ethological perspective. New York: Spring-Verlag.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness
perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 132, 277–290.
Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In: B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The Self and Social
Life (pp. 15–99). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda.
Human Relations, 44, 735–759.
Schnake, M., Cochran, D., & Dumler, M. (1995). Encouraging organizational citizenship: The
Effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity and leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7,
209–221.
Schnake, M., Dumler, M., & Cochran, D. (1993). The relationship between traditional leadership, super
leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organization Management, 18,
352–365.
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The psychology of helping and
altruism: Problems and puzzles. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. In: E. Stabu,
D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski & J. Reykowski (Eds), Development and Maintenance of Prosocial
Behavior (pp. 229–255). New York: Plenum.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived or-
ganizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents
of person – and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 255–267.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405–424.
Shore, L., M., Tetrick, L. E., & Barksdale, K. (1999). Measurement of transactional and exchange
relationships. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective
commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test
of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161–169.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Snyder, M. (1993). Basic research and practical problems: The promise of a functional personality and
social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 251–264.
Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field
study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 517–536.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Hoobler, J. (2002). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’
organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver.
Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal
Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural
justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 97–105.
Tompson, H. B., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and discre-
tionary behaviors: Testing a mediated model. Journal of Management, 23, 583–601.
Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective performance in
professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848–859.
Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner, R. B. (1998). Mood linkage in work groups. Journal
Van Dyne, & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1988). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct
and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
VanYperen, N. W., van den Berg, A. E., & Willering, M. C. (1999). Towards a better understanding
of the link between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 377–392.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical ar-
rangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
489–505.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship
and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431–1440.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member
exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of pos-
itive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. Journal of Psychology,
133, 656–668.
Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes – organizational citizenship
behavior relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1490–1501.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and
complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407–415.
Zellars, K., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.
Zellars, K., Tepper, B. J., Giacalone, R. A., & Lockhart, D. (2001). Social exchange, impression
management, and organizational citizenship behavior. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
David G. Allen earned his Ph.D. from the Beebe Institute of Personnel and
Employment Relations at Georgia State University. He is an assistant professor of
Management in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the University
of Memphis. His current research interests include the flow of people into and out
of organizations, and technology implications for human resource management.
Michelle M. Arthur is an assistant professor in the Anderson Schools of
Management at the University of New Mexico. She received her Ph.D. in Labor
and Industrial Relations from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Her current research focuses on diversity supporting human resource practices
and firm-level outcomes.
Murray R. Barrick is the Stanley M. Howe Leadership Chair at the Henry
B. Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa. He received his Ph.D.
from the University of Akron in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. He was
recognized with the “Outstanding Published Paper Award” in 1992 by the
Scholarly Achievement Award Committee of the Human Resources Division
of the Academy of Management, and in 2001, was the recipient of the Owens
Scholarly Achievement Award from the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (SIOP). In addition, in 1997, he was elected a fellow of SIOP. He also
serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel
Psychology, and has served on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Management.
Ronald M. Bearden received his MS in Quantitative Psychology from the
University of Wisconsin. He is currently a Personnel Research Psychologist with
the Navy Personnel Research, Studies, & Technology (NPRST) Department,
working in the area of selection and classification. He is the principal investigator
for the Navy’s efforts to develop a mulitifaceted non-cognitive assessment battery
that will be utilized for identifying Navy personnel likely to perform well in the
recruiting environment. He has over twenty years of experience working in the
area of large-scale Navy selection and classification research programs.
425
426
Walter C. Borman received his Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology

from the University of California (Berkeley). He is currently CEO of Personnel
Decisions Research Institutes and is a professor of Industrial-Organizational
Psychology at the University of South Florida. He is a fellow of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and in 1994–1995 served as
President of the Society. Borman has written more than three hundred books,
book chapters, journal articles, and conference papers. He recently co-edited
the I/O volume of the Handbook of Psychology (Borman, Ilgen & Klimoski,
2003), and, with two PDRI colleagues, wrote the personnel selection chapter
for the 1997 Annual Review of Psychology. He also has served on the editorial
boards of several journals in the I/O field, including the Journal of Applied
Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Human Performance, and the Interna-
tional Journal of Selection and Assessment. Dr. Borman’s areas of interest are
performance measurement, personnel selection, job analysis, and assessment
centers.
Kenneth G. Brown is an assistant professor and Huneke Faculty Research Fellow

at the Henry B. Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa. He received
his M.A. and Ph.D. in Industrial-Organizational Psychology from Michigan State
University. Ken does research and consulting in the areas of technology-delivered
training and knowledge transfer. For work in this area, Ken received the 2002
American Society of Training and Development and the 2003 Society of Human
Resource Management Research Awards. He currently serves on the editorial
board of the Journal of Management.
Alison Cook is a doctoral candidate in Organizational Behavior at Purdue

University. Her primary research interests include individual-level and firm-level
outcomes of the work-family interface. Her other interests include organizational
justice, gender, and diversity research.
Brian R. Dineen received his Ph.D. in Human Resource Manage-
ment/Organizational Behavior from the Max M. Fisher College of Business, The
Ohio State University in 2003. Prior to his time in graduate school, he served
four years as a Division Officer in the U.S. Navy. He is currently an assistant
professor of Management in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at
the University of Kentucky. His primary areas of interest include Internet-based
recruitment and selection and the impact of team fluidity on team processes
and outcomes. His work has appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology,
Public Personnel Management, and Journal of Management (forthcoming), and
he has presented at national conferences such as the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology and the Academy of Management.
427
William L. Farmer received his Ph.D. in Quantitative Psychology (with sub-

specialization in Industrial-Organizational) from the University of Oklahoma. He
is currently a Personnel Research Psychologist with the Navy Personnel Research,
Studies, & Technology (NPRST) Department, working in the area of selection and
classification. He is the program manager/principal investigator for the Navy’s
efforts to develop a mulitifaceted non-cognitive assessment battery that will be
utilized to improve the quality of enlisted selection and classification. He has over
ten years of experience working in the area of large-scale employee selection
programs.
Kerri L. Ferstl earned her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology from the University of Minnesota. She is a senior research associate
in the Minneapolis office of Personnel Decisions Research Institutes. She has
worked with many public and private sector clients designing and implementing
customized human resource tools for use in selection, development, promotion,
and performance appraisal. Her work has appeared in Personnel Psychology and
the Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Rodger W. Griffeth earned his Ph.D. from the University of South Carolina. He is
the Freeport-McMoran Chair of Human Resource Management at the University
of New Orleans. His primary research interest is investigating employee turnover
processes.
Jerry W. Hedge earned his doctorate in I/O Psychology in 1982 from Old
Dominion University. He has been involved in personnel research for more than
25 years. He has worked with both public and private sector clients designing,
implementing, and evaluating numerous tools, systems, and techniques. He has
extensive experience in job analysis and competency modeling; performance
measurement; selection system development and validation; training program
design, development and evaluation; and attitude assessment. Dr. Hedge is
currently an independent consultant; during his career he has been employed by
both public and private organizations, most recently serving as President and COO
for Personnel Decisions Research Institute. Over the years, Dr. Hedge has stayed
actively involved in conducting applied research, publishing his research in books
and journals, and presenting regularly at professional conferences. He is a fellow
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the American
Psychological Association.
Jennifer D. Kaufman earned her master’s and Ph.D. degrees in Industrial-
Organizational Psychology from Tulane University. She has worked with law
enforcement, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Army while employed as a Research
Scientist with Personnel Decisions Research Institutes. As a Customer Leader
428
now with DeCotiis Erhard Inc., Dr. Kaufman continues to partner with customers
to develop selection and performance management systems. Dr. Kaufman
received her Master’s degree and Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
from Tulane University. Throughout her academic career, Dr. Kaufman has
received academic awards, honors and fellowships, and was chosen for a
two-year appointment as the Industrial/Organizational Psychology representative
for the American Psychological Association’s Science Student Council which
reports directly to the Board of Scientific Affairs. In addition, Dr. Kaufman’s
research has been published in academic journals and books. Her research has
also been presented at numerous national conferences such as the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the Academy of Management, and the
Interdisciplinary Conference on Occupational Stress and Health.
Timothy A. Judge is the Matherly-McKethan Eminent Scholar in Management

at the University of Florida. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Tim’s research interests are in the areas of
personality and individual differences, leadership and influence behaviors, internal
and external staffing, and job attitudes. He is a SIOP and American Psychological
Association Fellow. In 1995, Tim received the Ernest J. McCormick Award for
Distinguished Early Career Contributions from the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, and in 2001, he received the Larry L. Cummings
Award for mid-career contributions from the Organizational Behavior Division of
the Academy of Management. Tim currently sits on 6 editorial boards, including
the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Todd J. Maurer received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychology from
the University of Akron. He was employed at Georgia Institute of Technology
and will join the faculty of Georgia State University in Fall 2003 as Professor
of Management. In 2002 he won the Sidney A. Fine Award for Research on
Analytic Strategies to Study Jobs from the Society for Industrial-Organizational
Psychology (SIOP) and was elected to Fellow of SIOP in 2003. He has consulted
or conducted applied research on issues including aging workers, employee
testing and selection, learning and development, performance appraisal, job
analysis, and legal concerns. Some of the research he has conducted has been
supported by private organizations, the National Science Foundation, the National
Institutes of Health and SIOP. He has served on the editorial boards of Personnel
Psychology and Journal of Management.
Raymond A. Noe is the Robert and Anne Hoyt Designated Professor of Manage-
ment in the Department of Management and Human Resources at The Ohio State
429
University. He received his BS in Psychology from The Ohio State University

and his M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology from Michigan State University. Professor
Noe’s teaching and research interests are in Human Resource Management,
Organizational Behavior, and Training and Development. He has published
articles on training motivation, employee development, work and non-work
issues, mentoring and team processes in the Academy of Management Journal,
Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, and Personnel Psychology. Professor Noe is currently on
the editorial boards of Personnel Psychology, Academy of Management Learning
and Education, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Journal of Business
and Psychology. Professor Noe has authored three textbooks, Fundamentals
of Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management: Gaining a
Competitive Advantage, and Employee Training and Development, all published
with Irwin McGraw-Hill. He has received awards for his teaching and research
excellence, including the Herbert G. Heneman Distinguished Teaching Award,
the Ernest J. McCormick Award for Distinguished Early Career Contribution and
election as a fellow of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
and the American Society for Training & Development Research Award in 2001.
Robert W. Renn holds a doctorate in Business Administration from Georgia State
University’s College of Business Administration. He is an associate professor of
Management in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at the Univer-
sity of Memphis. His dissertation research focused on job design and his current
research interests center on improving work motivation and work performance
through self-regulation, goal setting, performance feedback, and work design.
Christina E. Shalley is a professor of Organizational Behavior and Human

Resource Management in the DuPree College of Management at the Georgia
Institute of Technology. She received her Ph.D. in Business Administration from
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her current research interests
include investigating the effects of various social and contextual factors on
employees’ creativity and examining ways to structure jobs and the work environ-
ment to support creative and innovative work. She has published in such journals
as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal
of Applied Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. She also serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Management.
Kennon M. Sheldon is an associate professor of Social Psychology at the

University of Missouri-Columbia. His primary research interests concern goals,
motivation, psychological well-being, creativity, and the resolution of social
dilemmas. He received a $30,000 Templeton Prize in 2002 for his contributions
430
to the emerging field of “positive psychology.” Ken has published one book,
Self-Determination Theory in the Clinic: Motivating Physical and Mental
Health (Yale University Press, 2003), and has another book in press, Approaching
Consilience: Exploring Optimal Human Being (Erlbaum Press, to appear in 2004).
Bennett J. Tepper is a professor in and chair of the Department of Management

in the Belk College of Business Administration at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte. He received his Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology from
the University of Miami and served on the faculty of the University of Kentucky
where he held Ashland Oil and Gatton Research Professorships. His research
on organizational justice, leadership, and prosocial and antisocial organizational
behavior has appeared in various outlets including the Academy of Management
Journal, the Journal of Applied Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes.
Daniel B. Turban is a professor of Management at the University of Missouri.

He earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Industrial-Organizational Psychology from the
University of Houston. His current research interests include self-determination
theory, recruitment processes and applicant attraction, and dyadic relationships
in organizations. Dan has served on the editorial boards of Journal of Applied
Psychology and Academy of Management Journal.
Connie R. Wanberg is currently the Carlson Professor of Human Resources and

Industrial Relations and an adjunct professor of Psychology at the University
of Minnesota. She received her Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
from Iowa State University in 1992. Her research has focused on issues such as
unemployment, job-search behavior, career indecision, organizational change,
employee socialization, and employee development, and has been funded by a
variety of agencies including National Institute of Mental Health, Department
of Labor, and the Society for Human Resource Management Foundation. She
has consulted with a variety of government organizations and is on the editorial
review boards of the Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology.
Elizabeth M. Weiss received her Master’s degree from the Georgia Institute of
Technology in 2001 and is working on her Ph.D. Her research interests include
employee learning and development and the role of technology in social science
research. Her work on these and related topics has been published in Computers in
Human Behavior and Behavior and Information Technology, and is soon to appear
in Journal of Applied Psychology and Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
She is currently working in the field of performance improvement and training
development.
431
Elizabeth T. Welsh is a Ph.D. student in Human Resources and Industrial

Relations at the University of Minnesota. She also has a Masters in Business
Administration from UCLA. Before returning to school, she was Vice-President
of Human Resources for a software company. She has been a consultant and
worked at companies including First Boston and Microsoft. Her research interests
include employee development and staffing.
Kimberly A. Wrenn earned her Master’s degree and is a Ph.D. candidate in
Industrial-Organizational Psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology. She has
published research in the areas of employee development and selection. She is
employed at Management Psychology Group where she has conducted job/task
analysis, test development, selection system development and validation, and
360-degree surveys.
Kelly L. Zellars is an assistant professor of Management at the University
of North Carolina at Charlotte. She received her bachelor’s and M.B.A. de-
grees from the University of Notre Dame, her M.S.T. from the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and her Ph.D. in Business Administration from Florida
State University. Dr. Zellars has focused her research interests in the areas of job
stress and burnout, personality, and perceptions of fairness. She has published
in journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, and Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Jing Zhou is an associate professor of Management and Mays Fellow in the Man-
agement Department at the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. She
received her Ph.D. degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Her current research interests include contextual factors that promote or inhibit
employee creative performance. She has published in such journals as Academy
of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management,
and Personnel Psychology. Currently, she serves on the editorial boards of Journal
of Applied Psychology and Journal of Management. Beginning in fall 2003, she
will join the Jones Graduate School of Management at Rice University as an
associate professor of Management.

Research in HR1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Research in HR1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CONTENTS

THE IMPACT OF TEAM FLUIDITY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

MENTORING RESEARCH: A REVIEW AND DYNAMIC

THE IMPACT OF TELECOMMUTING DESIGN ON SOCIAL

RESEARCH ON EMPLOYEE CREATIVITY: A CRITICAL

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK-FAMILY HUMAN

TOWARD UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING

CURRENT DIRECTIONS AND ISSUES IN PERSONNEL

APPLYING SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY TO

BEYOND SOCIAL EXCHANGE: NEW DIRECTIONS FOR

ABOUT THE AUTHORS 425

We are pleased to present nine papers on long-standing foundation and emerging

development, and informal mentoring. These authors also discussed various

by others, perceived learning and development inhibitors internal to the older

Brian R. Dineen and Raymond A. Noe

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF

from more traditional indices of turnover. Whereas turnover traditionally accounts

There is little continuity in findings that attempt to relate turnover in teams

A DYNAMIC APPROACH: TEAM FLUIDITY

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEAM FLUIDITY AND

Team Emergent States

collective sense of identity is likely to be lessened. Furthermore, the makeup of

Proposition 1. Team fluidity is negatively related to collective efficacy in a

of rotating members among different teams are well recognized by knowledge

Proposition 2. Team fluidity is negatively related to team flexibility.

Transitional processes are posited to occur when a team is in transition between

Action processes occur as a task is accomplished and include such activities as

Researchers also are recognizing the importance of boundary spanning, or

Proposition 7. Team fluidity is positively related to relationship conflict in a

Identiﬁcation of Potential Boundary Conditions

changing team membership precludes cross-training and skill sharing among

Other Potential Boundary Conditions

Fig. 2. Central Members Leave a Team.

Fig. 3. Peripheral Members Leave a Team.

of fluidity is potentially important. Membership change just before a big team

IMPLICATIONS OF TEAM FLUIDITY FOR HUMAN

A wide range of individual characteristics and skills have been suggested as

factors (openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness,

Team effectiveness is usually evaluated by looking at team outcomes such as

positions on the team, skills in leadership or team management, feedback and

Creation of Intellectual Capital

Intellectual capital is created through the combination and exchange of existing

In teams that experience fluidity, forms of compensation that reward flexibility

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN STUDYING

individual difference variables might help predict success when working in a

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1,

Connie R. Wanberg, Elizabeth T. Welsh and

Organizations have become increasingly interested in developing their

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management

MENTORING RESEARCH: WHERE ARE WE NOW?

The Concept of Mentoring

A number of authors have proposed typologies differentiating “traditional” (one-

CONNIE R. WANBERG, ELIZABETH T. WELSH AND SARAH A. HEZLETT

is valid. It is unquestionable that it would be useful for researchers to agree

Table 2. Characteristics of Empirical Studies Examining Mentoring Outcomes.

formal mentoring programs are reviewed separately in a later section of this

Correlational relationship results. A narrative summary of the over 90 studies

A detailed examination of studies on the effects of mentoring leads us to suggest,

as a benefit for mentors, and executives agreed mentoring was a “rewarding

management development, managerial succession, productivity and socialization

Research Priorities: Mentoring Outcomes

Mentoring and Diversity

Mentoring and Gender