Although scholars in the field of organizational behavior have raised concerns about a lack of contextual appreciation, there has been a recent embrace of contextual thinking in the organizational sciences. In this review, I discuss several recent theories and measures of context. The added value of a contextual approach is illustrated by how context can shape personality, how it affects the emergence of work designs, and how it benefits the study of organizational demography. Future research topics include context cue sensitivity, the way context is shaped, the mediators of context effects, and the breadth and limits of contextual impact. A recurrent theme is that although context enables a demarcation of what is distinctive about situations, it also permits integration across research areas and levels of analysis, identifying what they have in common as settings for organizational behavior.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Adair WL, Buchan NR, Chen X-P, Liu D. 2016. A model of communication context and measure of context dependence. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2:198–217 [Google Scholar]
  2. Addae HM, Johns G, Boies K. 2013. The legitimacy of absenteeism from work: a nine-nation exploratory study. Cross Cult. Manag. 20:402–28 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashford SJ, George E, Blatt R. 2007. Old assumptions, new work: the opportunities and challenges of research on nonstandard employment. Acad. Manag. Ann. 1:65–117 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bacharach SB, Bamberger PA. 2007. 9/11 and New York City firefighters' post hoc unit support and control climates: a context theory of the consequences of involvement in traumatic work-related events. Acad. Manag. J. 50:849–68 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barley SR. 2015. Why the Internet makes buying a car less loathsome: how technologies change role relations. Acad. Manag. Discov. 1:5–35 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnes CM, Lefter AM, Bhave DP, Wagner DT. 2016. The benefits of bad economies: business cycles and time-based work-life conflict. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 21:235–49 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Li N. 2013. The theory of purposive work behavior: the role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 38:132–53 [Google Scholar]
  8. Becker TE, Atinc G, Breaugh JA, Carlson KD, Edwards JR, Spector PE. 2016. Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. J. Organ. Behav. 37:157–67 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benner MJ, Tushman ML. 2015. Reflections on the 2013 decade award—“Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited” ten years later. Acad. Manag. Rev. 40:497–514 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergman ME, Jean VA. 2016. Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial-organizational psychology literature. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9:84–113 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bhave DP, Glomb TM. 2016. The role of occupational emotional labor requirements on the surface acting–job satisfaction relationship. J. Manag. 42:722–41 [Google Scholar]
  12. Blalock HM. 1984. Contextual-effects models: theoretical and methodological issues. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 10:353–72 [Google Scholar]
  13. Borgogni L, Dello Russo S, Petitta L, Latham GP. 2009. Collective efficacy and organizational commitment in an Italian city hall. Eur. Psychol. 14:363–71 [Google Scholar]
  14. Borgogni L, Dello Russo S, Petitta L, Vecchione M. 2010a. Predicting job satisfaction and job performance in a privatized organization. Int. Public Manag. J. 13:275–96 [Google Scholar]
  15. Borgogni L, Petitta L, Mastrorilli A. 2010b. Correlates of collective efficacy in the Italian Air Force. Appl. Psychol.: Int. Rev. 59:515–37 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bosco FA, Steel P, Oswald FL, Uggerslev K, Field JG. 2015. Cloud-based meta-analysis to bridge science and practice: welcome to metaBUS. Pers. Assess. Decis. 1:3–17 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bowling NA, Khazon S, Meyer RD, Burrus CJ. 2015. Situational strength as a moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analytic examination. J. Bus. Psychol. 30:89–104 [Google Scholar]
  18. Boyce CJ, Wood AM, Daly M, Sedikides C. 2015. Personality change following unemployment. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:991–1011 [Google Scholar]
  19. Burke MJ, Chan-Serafin S, Salvador R, Smith A, Sarpy SA. 2008. The role of national culture and organizational climate in safety training effectiveness. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 17:133–52 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cappelli P, Sherer PD. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: the need for a meso-level approach. Res. Organ. Behav. 13:55–110 [Google Scholar]
  21. Chatman JA Jehn KA. 1994. Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be. ? Acad. Manag. J. 37:522–53 [Google Scholar]
  22. Christensen CM, van Bever D. 2014. The capitalist's dilemma. Harv. Bus. Rev. 92:660–68 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cohen L, Duberley J. 2015. Three faces of context and their implications for career: a study of public sector careers cut short. J. Vocat. Behav. 91:189–202 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cooper WH, Withey MJ. 2009. The strong situation hypothesis. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13:62–72 [Google Scholar]
  25. Côté S. 2011. How social class shapes thoughts and actions in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 31:43–71 [Google Scholar]
  26. Crossland C, Hambrick DC. 2011. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: how nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strateg. Manag. J. 32:797–819 [Google Scholar]
  27. de Treville S, Antonakis J. 2006. Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. J. Oper. Manag. 24:99–123 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dello Russo S, Miraglia M, Borgogni L, Johns G. 2013. How time and perceptions of social context shape employee absenteeism trajectories. J. Vocat. Behav. 83:209–17 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dierdorff EC, Morgeson FP. 2013. Getting what the occupation gives: exploring multilevel links between work design and occupational values. Pers. Psychol. 66:687–721 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dierdorff EC, Rubin RS, Bachrach DG. 2012. Role expectations as antecedents of citizenship and the moderating effects of work context. J. Manag. 38:573–98 [Google Scholar]
  31. Dierdorff EC, Rubin RS, Morgeson FP. 2009. The milieu of managerial work: an integrative framework linking work context to role requirements. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:972–88 [Google Scholar]
  32. Djurdjevic E, Wheeler AR. 2014. A dynamic multilevel model of performance rating. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 32:147–76 [Google Scholar]
  33. Eriksson-Zetterquist U, Lindberg K, Styhre A. 2009. When the good times are over: professionals encountering new technology. Hum. Relat. 62:1145–70 [Google Scholar]
  34. Felin T, Foss NJ, Ployhart RE. 2015. The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad. Manag. Ann. 9:575–632 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ferris GR, Harris JN, Russell ZA, Ellen BP III, Martinez AD, Blass RR. 2014. The role of reputation in the organizational sciences: a multilevel review, construct assessment, and research. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 32:241–303 [Google Scholar]
  36. Fiss PC. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32:1180–98 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gersick CJG. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Acad. Manag. J. 31:9–41 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gino F, Pierce L. 2009. The abundance effect: unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 109:142–55 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gino F, Pierce L. 2010. Robin Hood under the hood: wealth-based discrimination in illicit customer help. Organ. Sci. 21:1176–94 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gioia DA, Chittipeddi K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strateg. Manag. J. 12:433–48 [Google Scholar]
  41. Grant AM, Parker SK. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Acad. Manag. Ann. 3:317–75 [Google Scholar]
  42. Guarana CL, Hernandez M. 2016. Identified ambivalence: when cognitive conflicts can help individuals overcome cognitive traps. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1013–29 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gulati R, Sytch M. 2007. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement. Adm. Sci. Q. 52:32–69 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hackman JR. 2003. Learning more by crossing levels: evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. J. Organ. Behav. 24:905–22 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hambrick DC, Abrahamson E. 1995. Assessing managerial discretion across industries: a multimethod approach. Acad. Manag. J. 38:1427–41 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S. 1987. Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Res. Organ. Behav. 9:369–406 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hernandez JI. 2015. Regional variation in work absence cultures in the United States PhD Thesis, Dep. Psychol., Univ. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign [Google Scholar]
  48. Hershcovis MS. 2011. “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: a call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. J. Organ. Behav. 32:499–519 [Google Scholar]
  49. Higgins A, O'Halloran P, Porter S. 2012. Management of long term sickness absence: a systematic realist review. J. Occup. Rehabil. 22:322–32 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hirsch PM. 1987. Pack Your Own Parachute New York: Addison-Wesley [Google Scholar]
  51. Hochschild AR. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  52. Irwin N. 2015. How Stanford took on the giants of economics. New York Times Sept. 10. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/upshot/how-stanford-took-on-the-giants-of-economics.html?_r=0 [Google Scholar]
  53. Johns G. 1991. Substantive and methodological constraints on behavior and attitudes in organizational research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 49:80–104 [Google Scholar]
  54. Johns G. 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-based personnel practices: lessons from organizational innovation. Pers. Psychol. 46:569–92 [Google Scholar]
  55. Johns G. 1999. A multi-level theory of self-serving behavior in and by organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 21:1–38 [Google Scholar]
  56. Johns G. 2001. In praise of context. J. Organ. Behav. 22:31–42 [Google Scholar]
  57. Johns G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:386–408 [Google Scholar]
  58. Johns G. 2010. Some unintended consequences of job design. J. Organ. Behav. 31:361–69 [Google Scholar]
  59. Johns G. 2017. Reflections on the 2016 Decade Award: incorporating context in organizational research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 42:577–95 [Google Scholar]
  60. Jordan PJ, Lindebaum D. 2015. A model of within person variation in leadership: emotion regulation and scripts as predictors of situationally appropriate leadership. Leadersh. Q. 26:594–605 [Google Scholar]
  61. Joshi A, Roh H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic review. Acad. Manag. J. 52:599–627 [Google Scholar]
  62. Judge TA, Bono JE, Locke EA. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:237–49 [Google Scholar]
  63. Judge TA, Zapata CP. 2015. The person-situation debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 58:1149–79 [Google Scholar]
  64. Karam CM, Kwantes CT. 2011. Contextualizing cultural orientation and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Int. Manag. 17:303–15 [Google Scholar]
  65. Kelley HH, Holmes JG, Kerr NL, Reis HT, Rusbult C, van Lange PAM. 2003. An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  66. Kirzner IM. 1979. Perception, Opportunity, and Profit Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Kish-Gephart JJ, Campbell JT. 2015. Don't forget your roots: the influence of CEO social class background on strategic risk taking. Acad. Manag. J. 58:1614–36 [Google Scholar]
  68. Kitayama S, Conway LG III, Pietromonaco PR, Park H, Plaut VC. 2010. Ethos of independence across regions in the United States: the production-adoption model of cultural change. Am. Psychol. 65:559–74 [Google Scholar]
  69. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ. 2000. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  70. Klimoski R. 2013. When it comes to leadership, context matters. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership MG Rumsey 267–87 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. Kraus MW, Piff PK, Mendoza-Denton R, Rheinschmidt ML, Keltner D. 2012. Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: how the rich are different from the poor. Psychol. Rev. 119:546–72 [Google Scholar]
  72. Larrick RP. 2016. The social context of decisions. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3:441–67 [Google Scholar]
  73. Leana CR, Meuris J. 2015. Living to work and working to live: income as a driver of organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Ann. 9:55–95 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lee TW, Mitchell TR. 1994. An alternative approach: the unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19:51–89 [Google Scholar]
  75. Levy PE, Williams JR. 2004. The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future. J. Manag. 30:881–905 [Google Scholar]
  76. Li H, Chen Y-R, Blader SL. 2016. Where is context? Advancing status research with a contextual value perspective. Res. Organ. Behav. 36:185–98 [Google Scholar]
  77. Li PP. 2014. A tentative typology of context for trust research and beyond. J. Trust Res. 4:83–89 [Google Scholar]
  78. Li W-D, Zhang Z, Song Z, Arvey RD. 2016. It is also in our nature: genetic influences on work characteristics and in explaining their relationships with well-being. J. Organ. Behav. 37:868–88 [Google Scholar]
  79. Liden RC, Antonakis J. 2009. Considering context in leadership research. Hum. Relat. 62:1587–605 [Google Scholar]
  80. Lockett A, Currie G, Finn R, Martin G, Waring J. 2014. The influence of social position on sensemaking about organizational change. Acad. Manag. J. 57:1102–29 [Google Scholar]
  81. Maloney MM, Bresman H, Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Beaver GR. 2016. Contextualization and context theorizing in teams research: a look back and a path forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 10:891–942 [Google Scholar]
  82. Maréchal G, Linstead S, Munro I. 2013. The territorial organization: history, divergence and possibilities. Cult. Organ. 19:185–208 [Google Scholar]
  83. McDaniel MA, Morgeson FP, Finnegan EB, Campion MA, Braverman EP. 2001. Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: a clarification of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:730–40 [Google Scholar]
  84. McFarland LA, Ployhart RE. 2015. Social media: a contextual framework to guide research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1653–77 [Google Scholar]
  85. Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB, Dukerich JM. 1985. The romance of leadership. Adm. Sci. Q. 30:78–102 [Google Scholar]
  86. Meneghel I, Borgogni L, Miraglia M, Salanova M, Martínez IM. 2016. From social context and resilience to performance through job satisfaction: a multilevel study over time. Hum. Relat. 69:2047–67 [Google Scholar]
  87. Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovitch L, Topolnytsky L. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 61:20–52 [Google Scholar]
  88. Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Bonaccio S. 2009. A meta-analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness-performance relationship. J. Organ. Behav. 30:1077–102 [Google Scholar]
  89. Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Hermida R. 2010. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. J. Manag. 36:121–40 [Google Scholar]
  90. Meyer RD, Dalal RS, José IJ, Hermida R, Chen TR. et al. 2014. Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects. J. Manag. 40:1010–41 [Google Scholar]
  91. Mischel W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology D Magnusson, NS Endler 333–52 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  92. Molloy JC, Ployhart RE, Wright PM. 2011. The myth of “the” micro-macro divide: bridging system-level and disciplinary divides. J. Manag. 37:581–609 [Google Scholar]
  93. Morgeson FP, Dierdorff EC, Hmurovic JL. 2010. Work design in situ: understanding the role of occupational and organizational context. J. Organ. Behav. 31:351–60 [Google Scholar]
  94. Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:1321–39 [Google Scholar]
  95. Morgeson FP, Mitchell TR, Liu D. 2015. Event system theory: an event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 40:515–37 [Google Scholar]
  96. Mowday R T, Sutton RI. 1993. Organizational behavior: linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 44:195–229 [Google Scholar]
  97. Mullins JW, Cummings LL. 1999. Situational strength: a framework for understanding the role of individuals in initiating proactive strategic change. J. Organ. Change Manag. 12:462–79 [Google Scholar]
  98. Navis C, Osbeck OV. 2016. The right people in the wrong places: the paradox of entrepreneurial entry and successful opportunity realization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 41:109–29 [Google Scholar]
  99. Nelson AJ, Irwin J. 2014. “Defining what we do—all over again”: occupational identity, technological change, and the librarian/Internet-search relationship. Acad. Manag. J. 57:892–928 [Google Scholar]
  100. Obschonka M, Schmitt-Rodermund E, Silbereisen RK, Gosling SD, Potter J. 2013. The regional distribution and correlates of an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom: a socioecological perspective. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 105:104–22 [Google Scholar]
  101. Ocasio W. 2011. Attention to attention. Organ. Sci. 22:1286–96 [Google Scholar]
  102. O'Leary MB, Almond BA. 2009. The industry settings of leading organizational research: the role of economic and non-economic factors. J. Organ. Behav. 30:497–524 [Google Scholar]
  103. Ostroff C, Bowen DE. 2016. Reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there strength in the construct of HR system strength. ? Acad. Manag. Rev. 41:196–214 [Google Scholar]
  104. Park N, Peterson C. 2010. Does it matter where we live? The urban psychology of character strengths. Am. Psychol. 65:535–47 [Google Scholar]
  105. Parmigiani A, Rivera-Santos M. 2011. Clearing a path through the forest: a meta-review of interorganizational relationships. J. Manag. 37:1108–36 [Google Scholar]
  106. Patterson MG, West MA, Shackleton VJ, Dawson JF, Lawthom R. et al. 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. J. Organ. Behav. 26:379–408 [Google Scholar]
  107. Patton E, Johns G. 2007. Women's absenteeism in the popular press: evidence for a gender-specific absence culture. Hum. Relat. 60:1579–612 [Google Scholar]
  108. Peng MW, Heath PS. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21:492–528 [Google Scholar]
  109. Pignault A, Houssemand C. 2016. Construction and initial validation of the Work Context Inventory. J. Vocat. Behav. 92:1–11 [Google Scholar]
  110. Porter LW, Schneider B. 2014. What was, what is, and what may be in OP/OB. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:1–21 [Google Scholar]
  111. Quinn RE, Rohrbaugh J. 1981. A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Prod. Rev. 5:122–40 [Google Scholar]
  112. Raja U, Johns G. 2010. The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Hum. Relat. 63:981–1005 [Google Scholar]
  113. Reis HT. 2008. Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 12:311–29 [Google Scholar]
  114. Rentfrow PJ. 2010. Statewide differences in personality: toward a psychological geography of the United States. Am. Psychol. 65:548–58 [Google Scholar]
  115. Rentfrow PJ, Gosling SD, Jokela M, Stillwell DJ, Kosinsky M, Potter J. 2013. Divided we stand: three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 105:996–1012 [Google Scholar]
  116. Rockmann KW, Pratt MG. 2015. Contagious offsite work and the lonely office: the unintended consequences of distributed work. Acad. Manag. Discov. 1:150–64 [Google Scholar]
  117. Rousseau DM, Fried Y. 2001. Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research. J. Organ. Behav. 22:1–13 [Google Scholar]
  118. Rynes SL, Bartunek JM, Daft RL. 2001. Across the great divide: knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Acad. Manag. J. 44:340–55 [Google Scholar]
  119. Schmit MJ, Ryan AM, Stierwalt SL, Powell AB. 1995. Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 80:607–20 [Google Scholar]
  120. Schmitt DP, Allik JA, McCrae RR, Benet-Martínez V. 2007. The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 38:173–212 [Google Scholar]
  121. Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH. 2013. Organizational climate and culture. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64:361–88 [Google Scholar]
  122. Schooler C, Mulatu MS, Oates G. 2004. Occupational self‐direction, intellectual functioning, and self‐directed orientation in older workers: findings and implications for individuals and societies. Am. J. Sociol. 110:161–97 [Google Scholar]
  123. Sergeeva A, Andreeva T. 2016. Knowledge sharing research: bringing context back. J. Manag. Inq. 25:240–61 [Google Scholar]
  124. Shaffer JA, Postlethwaite BE. 2012. A matter of context: a meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Pers. Psychol. 65:445–94 [Google Scholar]
  125. Sillince JAA. 2007. Organizational context and the discursive construction of organizing. Manag. Commun. Q. 20:363–94 [Google Scholar]
  126. Tang J, Kacmar KM, Busenitz L. 2012. Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. J. Bus. Ventur. 27:77–94 [Google Scholar]
  127. Teece DJ. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 28:1319–50 [Google Scholar]
  128. Tett RP, Burnett DD. 2003. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:500–17 [Google Scholar]
  129. Tsui AS. 2004. Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous research. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 21:491–513 [Google Scholar]
  130. Waller MJ, Huber GP, Glick WH. 1995. Functional background as a determinant of executives' selective perception. Acad. Manag. J. 38:943–74 [Google Scholar]
  131. Wang Q, Bowling NA, Eschleman KJ. 2010. A meta-analytic examination of work and general locus of control. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:761–68 [Google Scholar]
  132. Wangrow DB, Schepker DJ, Barker VL III. 2015. Managerial discretion: an empirical review and focus on future research directions. J. Manag. 41:199–135 [Google Scholar]
  133. Wasti SA, Peterson MF, Breitsohl H, Cohen A, Jørgensen F. et al. 2016. Location, location, location: contextualizing workplace commitment. J. Organ. Behav. 37:613–32 [Google Scholar]
  134. Wegman LA, Hoffman BJ, Carter NT, Twenge JM, Guenole N. 2016. Placing job characteristics in context: cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job characteristics since 1975. J. Manag. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316654545 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 18:1–74 [Google Scholar]
  136. Whetten DA. 2009. An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Manag. Organ. Rev. 5:29–55 [Google Scholar]
  137. Ybarra O, Kross E, Sanchez-Burks J. 2014. The “big idea” that is yet to be: toward a more motivated, contextual, and dynamic model of emotional intelligence. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 28:93–107 [Google Scholar]
  138. Yoder J, Khan AS. 2003. Making gender comparisons more meaningful: a call for more attention to social context. Psychol. Women Q. 27:281–90 [Google Scholar]

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