1932

Abstract

Heuristics are fast, frugal, and accurate strategies that enable rather than limit decision making under uncertainty. Uncertainty, as opposed to calculable risk, is characteristic of most organizational contexts. We review existing research and offer a descriptive and prescriptive theoretical framework to integrate the current patchwork of heuristics scattered across various areas of organizational studies. Research on the adaptive toolbox is descriptive, identifying the repertoire of heuristics on which individuals, teams, and organizations rely. Research on ecological rationality is prescriptive, specifying the conditions under which a given heuristic performs well, that is, when it is smart. Our review finds a relatively small but rapidly developing field. We identify promising future research directions, including research on how culture shapes the use of heuristics and how heuristics shape organizational culture. We also outline an educational program for managers and leaders that follows the general approach of “Don't avoid heuristics—learn how to use them.”

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506
2022-01-21
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/9/1/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adair WL, Weingart L, Brett J 2007. The timing and function of offers in US and Japanese negotiations. J. Appl. Psychol. 924:1056–68
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikman D, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G, Kapadia S, Katsikopoulos KV et al. 2021. Taking uncertainty seriously: simplicity versus complexity in financial regulation. Ind. Corp. Change 30:317–45
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Artinger F, Petersen M, Gigerenzer G, Weibler J. 2015. Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management. J. Organ. Behav. 36:S1S33–52
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Artinger FM, Gigerenzer G. 2017. The cheap twin: from the ecological rationality of heuristic pricing to the aggregate market. Acad. Manag. Proc. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.206
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Artinger FM, Gigerenzer G, Jacobs P. 2021. Satisficing: integrating two traditions. J. Econ. Lit. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Artinger FM, Kozodoi N, Wangenheim Fv, Gigerenzer G 2018. Recency: prediction with smart data. Am. Mark. Assoc. Winter Conf. Proc. 29:L-2
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Axelrod R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation New York: Basic Books
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baum RJ, Wally S 2003. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strat. Manag. J. 24:111107–29
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beaman L, Magruder J. 2012. Who gets the job referral? Evidence from a social networks experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 10:273574–93
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Beilock SL, Bertenthal BI, McCoy AM, Carr TH. 2004. Haste does not always make waste: expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 11:2373–79
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berger J. 2014. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and directions for future research. J. Consumer Psychol. 24:4586–607
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergman ME, Drasgow F, Donovan MA, Henning JB 2006. Scoring situational judgment tests: Once you get the data, your troubles begin. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 14:3223–35
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bettis RA. 2017. Organizationally intractable decision problems and the intellectual virtues of heuristics. J. Manag. 43:2620–37
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bingham CB, Eisenhardt KM. 2011. Rational heuristics: the “simple rules” that strategists learn from process experience. Strat. Manag. J. 32:1437–64
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blume BD, Baldwin TT, Rubin RS. 2009. Reactions to different types of forced distribution performance evaluation systems. J. Bus. Psychol. 24:177–91
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Boyd R, Richerson PJ. 2005. The Origin and Evolution of Cultures New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brett JM. 2007. Negotiating Globally: How to Negotiate Deals, Resolve Disputes, and Make Decisions Across Cultural Boundaries New York: Wiley. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cappelli P. 2019. Your approach to hiring is all wrong. Harv. Bus. Rev. 97:348–58
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Caputo A. 2013. A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. Int. J. Conflict Manag. 24:4374–98
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Challagalla G, Murtha BR, Jaworski B. 2014. Marketing doctrine: a principles-based approach to guiding marketing decision making in firms. J. Mark. 78:44–20
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cohan P. 2012. Why stack ranking worked better at GE than Microsoft. Forbes Jul. 13. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/13/why-stack-ranking-worked-better-at-ge-than-microsoft/?sh=541453083236
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cosmides L, Tooby J 1992. Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture JH Barkow, L Cosmides, J Tooby 163–228 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Czerlinski J, Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG 1999. How good are simple heuristics?. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart G Gigerenzer, PM Todd ABC Res. Group97–118 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Davies A, Dodgson M, Gann D. 2016. Dynamic capabilities in complex projects: the case of London Heathrow Terminal 5. Project Manag. J. 47:226–46
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB. 2009. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Adm. Sci. Q. 54:3413–52
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Day DV. 2012. Leadership. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology SWJ Kozlowski 1696–729 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. DeMiguel V, Garlappi L, Uppal R. 2009. Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy?. Rev. Financial Stud. 22:51915–53
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Druckman D, Wagner LM. 2016. Justice and negotiation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67:387–413
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Duersch P, Oechssler J, Schipper BC. 2012. Unbeatable imitation. Games Econ. Behav. 76:188–96
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dustmann C, Glitz A, Schönberg U, Brücker H. 2016. Referral-based job search networks. Rev. Econ. Stud. 83:2514–46
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Eisenhardt KM, Sull DN. 2001. Strategy as simple rules. Harv. Bus. Rev. 79:1106–19
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Eisenhardt KM, Sull DN. 2015. Simple Rules: How to Thrive in a Complex World New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Equal Employment v. Consolidated Service Systems, 7th Cir. 989 F.2d 233 1993.)
  34. Fiedler FE. 1964. A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1:149–90
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fifić M, Gigerenzer G. 2014. Are two interviewers better than one?. J. Bus. Res. 67:81771–79
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fiske AP. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychol. Rev. 99:4689–723
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gardner AK, Dunkin BJ. 2018. Evaluation of validity evidence for personality, emotional intelligence, and situational judgment tests to identify successful residents. JAMA Surg 153:5409–16
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gigerenzer G. 2006. Follow the leader. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84:58–59
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gigerenzer G. 2007. Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York: Viking Penguin:
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gigerenzer G. 2014. Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions New York: Penguin:
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gigerenzer G 2021. What is bounded rationality?. Routledge Handbook of Bounded Rationality R Viale 55–69 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gigerenzer G. 2022. How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H. 2009. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1:107–43
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62:451–82
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. 1996. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol. Rev. 103:4650–69
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig RE, Pachur TE. 2011. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gigerenzer G, Selten R 2001. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Res. Group 1999. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gilbert-Saad A, Siedlok F, McNaughton RB 2018. Decision and design heuristics in the context of entrepreneurial uncertainties. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 9:75–80
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Goldstein DG, Gigerenzer G. 2002. Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychol. Rev. 109:175–90
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Guion RM. 2011. Assessment, Measurement, and Prediction for Personnel Decisions New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hackman JR 2002. Why teams don't work. Theory and Research on Small Groups RS Tindale, L Heath, J Edwards, EJ Posavac, FB Bryant, et al. 245–67 Boston: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Haksöz Ç, Katsikopoulos K, Gigerenzer G 2018. Less can be more: how to make operations more flexible and robust with fewer resources. Chaos 28:6063102
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Haunschild PR, Miner AS. 1997. Modes of interorganizational imitation: the effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Adm. Sci. Q. 42:472–500
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hauser JR. 2014. Consideration-set heuristics. J. Bus. Res. 67:81688–99
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hertwig RE, Hoffrage UE, ABC Res Group 2013. Simple Heuristics in a Social World New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Holton GJ. 1988. Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Janson A, Levy L, Sitkin SB, Lind EA. 2008. Fairness and other leadership heuristics: a four-nation study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 17:2251–72
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Johnson JG, Raab M 2003. Take the first: option-generation and resulting choices. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 91:2215–29
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Jones D, Martens M. 2009. The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: the formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. J. Organ. Behav. 30:1025–51
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Katsikopoulos KV. 2011. Psychological heuristics for making inferences: definition, performance and the emerging theory and practice. Decis. Anal. 81:10–29
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Katsikopoulos KV, Şimşek Ö, Buckmann M, Gigerenzer G. 2020. Classification in the Wild Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Knight FH. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit Boston: Hart, Schaffner & Marx
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Korobkin R, Guthrie C. 2003. Heuristics and biases at the bargaining table. Marquette Law Rev 87:795–808
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kozlowski SW, Ilgen DR. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 73:77–124
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kuncel NR, Klieger DM, Connelly BS, Ones DS. 2013. Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:61060–72
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Larrick RP. 2016. The social context of decisions. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3:441–67
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Lejarraga J, Pindard-Lejarraga M. 2020. Bounded rationality: cognitive limitations or adaptation to the environment? The implications of ecological rationality for management learning. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 193:289–306
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Lewin K. 1935. A Dynamic Theory of Personality New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lichtman AJ. 2016. Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lievens F, Peters H, Schollaert E. 2008. Situational judgment tests: a review of recent research. Pers. Rev. 37:4426–41
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Loock M, Hinnen G. 2015. Heuristics in organizations: a review and a research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 68:2027–36
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Luan S, Reb J. 2017. Fast-and-frugal trees as noncompensatory models of performance-based personnel decisions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 141:29–42
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Luan S, Reb J, Gigerenzer G 2019. Ecological rationality: fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Acad. Manag. J. 62:1735–59
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Luan S, Schooler LJ, Gigerenzer G. 2011. A signal detection analysis of fast-and-frugal trees. Psychol. Rev. 118:316–38
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Luan S, Schooler LJ, Gigerenzer G. 2014. From perception to preference and on to inference: an approach-avoidance analysis of thresholds. Psychol. Rev. 121:501–25
    [Google Scholar]
  78. MacGillivray BH. 2014. Fast and frugal crisis management: an analysis of rule-based judgment and choice during water contamination events. J. Bus. Res. 67:81717–24
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Maddux WW, Mullen E, Galinsky AD. 2008. Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:2461–68
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Maistry G. 2019. An examination of the effectiveness of a training programme to improve decision making in insurance risk underwriting PhD Diss. Singapore Manag. Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Mannes AE, Soll JB, Larrick RP. 2014. The wisdom of select crowds. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 107:2276–99
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Marcus G, Davis E 2019. Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust New York: Pantheon
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Markowitz H. 1952. Portfolio selection. J. Finance 7:177–91
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Martignon L, Hoffrage U. 2002. Fast, frugal, and fit: simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory Decis 52:129–71
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McDaniel MA, Morgeson FP, Finnegan EB, Campion MA, Braverman EP. 2001. Predicting job performance using situational judgment tests: a clarification of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:4730–40
    [Google Scholar]
  86. McDonald RM, Eisenhardt KM. 2020. Parallel play: startups, nascent markets, and effective business-model design. Adm. Sci. Q. 652:483–523
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Messick DM 1993. Equality as a decision heuristic. Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Application BA Mellers, J Baron 11–31 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Miller GA. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63:81–97
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Moon L. 2020. Manage your team better with the simple “rule of five. Trello Blog Oct. 13. https://blog.trello.com/manage-teams-with-5-things
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Moorman RH, Grover S. 2009. Why does leader integrity matter to followers? An uncertainty management-based explanation. Intern. J. Leadership Stud. 5:2102–14
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Naik AD, Skelton F, Amspoker AB, Glasgow RA, Trautner BW. 2017. A fast and frugal algorithm to strengthen diagnosis and treatment decisions for catheter-associated bacteriuria. PLOS ONE 12:3e0174415
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Norman SM, Avolio BJ, Luthans F. 2010. The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. Leadersh. Q. 21:350–64
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Nowak M, Sigmund K. 1993. A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Nature 364:643256–58
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Ock J, Oswald FL. 2018. The utility of personnel selection decisions: comparing compensatory and multiple-hurdle selection models. J. Pers. Psychol. 17:4172–82
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Oswald FL, Behrend TS, Putka DJ, Sinar E. 2020. Big data in industrial-organizational psychology and human resource management: forward progress for organizational research and practice. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7:505–33
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Page SE. 2007. Making the difference: applying a logic of diversity. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 21:46–20
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Pieper TM, Smith AD, Kudlats J, Astrachan JH. 2015. The persistence of multifamily firms: founder imprinting, simple rules, and monitoring processes. Entrep. Theory Practice 39:61313–37
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Ployhart RE, Moliterno TP. 2011. Emergence of the human capital resource: a multilevel model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36:1127–50
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Pólya G. 1945. How to Solve It Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Popomaronis T. 2020. Jeff Bezos' 3-question rule for hiring new Amazon employees—and how to answer them right. CNBC Make It Oct. 22. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/20/jeff-bezos-3-question-rule-for-hiring-new-amazon-employees.html
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Popomaronis T. 2021. Elon Musk asks this question at every interview to spot a liar—why science says it actually works. CNBC Make It Jan. 26. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/26/elon-musk-favorite-job-interview-question-to-ask-to-spot-a-liar-science-says-it-actually-works.html
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Proudfoot D, Lind EA 2015. Fairness heuristic theory, the uncertainty management model, and fairness at work. The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace R. Cropanzano, ML Ambrose 371–85 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Rapoport A, Chammah AM. 1965. Prisoner's Dilemma Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Sackett PR, Lievens F. 2008. Personnel selection. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59::419–50
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Salas E, Rico R, Passmore J 2017. The psychology of teamwork and collaborative processes. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes E Salas, R Rico, J Passmore 1–11 New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Savage LJ. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol. Bull. 124:2262–74
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM. 2008. Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychol. Bull. 134:207–22
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Sharapov D, Ross JM. 2021. Whom should a leader imitate? Using rivalry-based imitation to manage strategic risk in changing environments. Strat. Manag. J. In press. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3120
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Simon HA. 1947. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations New York: Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Simon HA. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69:99–118
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Simon HA. 1988. Nobel laureate Simon “looks back”: a low-frequency mode. Public Adm. Q. 12:275–300
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Şimşek Ö. 2013. Linear decision rule as aspiration for simple decision heuristics. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 26:2904–12
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Spalding H. 2015. What's the optimal team size for workplace productivity?. Flow Blog Oct. 8. https://www.getflow.com/blog/optimal-team-size-workplace-productivity
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Surowiecki J. 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, italicEconomies, Societies, and Nations London: Little, Brown:
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Swaab RI, Maddux WW, Sinaceur M. 2011. Early words that work: when and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47:3616–21
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Thaler R, Sunstein C. 2008. Nudge: The Gentle Power of Choice Architecture New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Todd PM, Gigerenzer G, ABC Res. Group 2012. Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:41571124–31
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Vroom VH, Jago AG. 2007. The role of the situation in leadership. Am. Psychol. 62:117–24
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Walumbwa FO, Maidique MA, Atamanik C. 2014. Decision-making in a crisis: what every leader needs to know. Organ. Dyn. 44:3284–93
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Weber M. 1925. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Tübingen, Ger: J.C.B. Mohr
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Wegwarth O, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. 2009. Smart strategies for doctors and doctors-in-training: heuristics in medicine. Med. Educ. 43:8721–28
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Wellman N. 2017. Authority or community? A relational models theory of group-level leadership emergence. Acad. Manag. Rev. 42:4596–617
    [Google Scholar]
  125. West D, Ford JB, Farris PW. 2014. How corporate cultures drive advertising and promotion budgets: Best practices combine heuristics and algorithmic tools. J. Adv. Res. 54:2149–62
    [Google Scholar]
  126. West DC, Acar OA, Caruana A. 2020. Choosing among alternative new product development projects: the role of heuristics. Psychol. Mark. 37:111511–24
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Wheelan SA. 2009. Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Res 40:2247–62
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Williamson IO, Cable DM. 2003. Organizational hiring patterns, interfirm network ties, and interorganizational imitation. Acad. Manag. J. 46:3349–58
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Wübben M, Wangenheim Fv. 2008. Instant customer base analysis: Managerial heuristics often “get it right. J. Mark. 72:382–93
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error