1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
  4. Volume 12, 2025
  5. Article

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 12, 2025

Dynamic Interpersonal Processes at Work: Taking Social Interactions Seriously

Abstract

Dynamic interpersonal processes are the core foundation of many phenomena of interest to organizational psychology and organizational behavior scholars. This article views the organization as a system of social interaction. From this vantage point, I present a selective review of the current literature that supports a behavioral interaction perspective of interpersonal processes at work. I organize insights into phenomena such as (emergent) leadership, team processes, change management, coaching, selection, and negotiation according to the respective interaction constellation (i.e., dyadic, group, or across the organizational boundary). For each of these constellations, I highlight key empirical insights into behavioral interaction dynamics at the core of each interpersonal phenomenon. I discuss gaps and derive commonalities across different interaction constellations. To promote the consistent pursuit of a social interaction perspective and theory-method alignment, I derive a future research agenda including methodological recommendations for identifying meaningful patterns of social interaction at work.

Keyword(s): behavior, interpersonal dynamics, organizing, patterns, social interaction
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-035421
2025-01-21
2025-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/12/1/annurev-orgpsych-110622-035421.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-035421&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Albert LS, Moskowitz DS. 2014.. Quarrelsomeness in the workplace: an exploration of the interpersonal construct within the organizational context. . Organ. Psychol. Rev. 4:(1):27–48
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen JA, Lehmann-Willenbrock N. 2023.. The key features of workplace meetings: conceptualizing the why, how, and what of meetings at work. . Organ. Psychol. Rev. 13:(4):355–78
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alison L, Power N, van den Heuvel C, Humann M, Palasinksi M, Crego J. 2015.. Decision inertia: deciding between least worst outcomes in emergency responses to disasters. . J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 88:(2):295–321
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson AH, McEwan R, Bal J, Carletta J. 2007.. Virtual team meetings: an analysis of communication and context. . Comput. Hum. Behav. 23:(5):2558–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Asmuß B. 2008.. Performance appraisal interviews: preference organization in assessment sequences. . J. Bus. Commun. 45:(4):408–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Asmuß B. 2013.. The emergence of symmetries and asymmetries in performance appraisal interviews: an interactional perspective. . Econ. Ind. Democr. 34:(3):553–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Banks GC, Woznyj HM, Mansfield CA. 2023.. Where is “behavior” in organizational behavior? A call for a revolution in leadership research and beyond. . Leadersh. Q. 34:(6):101581
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Funder DC. 2007.. Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2:(4):396–403
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Begemann V, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Stein M. 2023.. Peeling away the layers of workplace gossip: a framework, review, and future research agenda to study workplace gossip as a dynamic and complex behavior. . Merits 3:(2):297–317
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Begemann V, Lübstorf S, Meinecke AL, Steinicke F, Lehmann-Willenbrock N. 2021.. Capturing workplace gossip as dynamic conversational events: first insights from care team meetings. . Front. Psychol. 12::725720
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Beyan C, Capozzi F, Becchio C, Murino V. 2017.. Prediction of the leadership style of an emergent leader using audio and visual nonverbal features. . IEEE Trans. Multimed. 20:(2):441–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Beyan C, Katsageorgiou VM, Murino V. 2019.. A sequential data analysis approach to detect emergent leaders in small groups. . IEEE Trans. Multimed. 21:(8):2107–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Boies K, Fiset J. 2018.. Leadership and communication as antecedents of shared mental model emergence. . Perf. Improv. Q. 31::293–316
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonito JA, Sanders RE. 2011.. The existential center of small groups: member's conduct and interaction. . Small Group Res. 42:(3):343–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Boothby EJ, Cooney G, Schweitzer ME. 2023.. Embracing complexity: a review of negotiation research. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 74::299–332
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bozer G, Jones RJ. 2018.. Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: a systematic literature review. . Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27:(3):342–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Brauner E, Boos M, Kolbe M. 2018.. The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis. New York:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Brown O, Power N, Conchie SM. 2021.. Communication and coordination across event phases: a multi-team system emergency response. . J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 94:(3):591–615
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Capozzi F, Beyan C, Pierro A, Koul A, Murino V, et al. 2019.. Tracking the leader: gaze behavior in group interactions. . iScience 16::242–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Casakin H, Badke-Schaub P. 2017.. Sharedness of team mental models in the course of design-related interaction between architects and clients. . Design Sci. 3::e14
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Chapman DS, Rowe PM. 2001.. The impact of videoconference technology, interview structure, and interviewer gender on interviewer evaluations in the employment interview: a field experiment. . J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 74:(3):279–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Charlier SD, Stewart GL, Greco LM, Reeves CJ. 2016.. Emergent leadership in virtual teams: a multilevel investigation of individual communication and team dispersion antecedents. . Leadersh. Q. 27:(5):745–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Cheshin A, Rafaeli A, Bos N. 2011.. Anger and happiness in virtual teams: emotional influences of text and behavior on others affect in the absence of non-verbal cues. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116:(1):2–16
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chetouani M, Delaherche E, Dumas G, Cohen D. 2017.. Interpersonal synchrony: from social perception to social interaction. . In Social Signal Processing, ed. JK Burgoon, N Magnenat-Thalmann, M Pantic, A Vinciarelli , pp. 202–12. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Clarke JS, Cornelissen JP, Healey MP. 2019.. Actions speak louder than words: how figurative language and gesturing in entrepreneurial pitches influences investment judgments. . Acad. Manag. J. 62:(2):335–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Craig RT. 1999.. Communication theory as a field. . Commun. Theory 9:(2):119–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Curhan JR, Pentland A. 2007.. Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. . J. Appl. Psychol. 92:(3):802–11
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Darics E. 2020.. E-leadership or “how to be boss in instant messaging?” The role of nonverbal communication. . Int. J. Bus. Commun. 57:(1):3–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Day DV, Antonakis J, eds. 2012.. Leadership: past, present, and future. . In The Nature of Leadership, pp. 3–26. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dores Cruz TD, Nieper AS, Testori M, Martinescu E, Beersma B. 2021.. An integrative definition and framework to study gossip. . Group Organ. Manag. 46:(2):252–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Eby LT, Robertson MM. 2020.. The psychology of workplace mentoring relationships. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7::75–100
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Endrejat PC, Klonek FE, Müller-Frommeyer LC, Kauffeld S. 2021.. Turning change resistance into readiness: how change agents’ communication shapes recipient reactions. . Eur. Manag. J. 39:(5):595–604
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Erdös T, Ramseyer FT. 2021.. Change process in coaching: interplay of nonverbal synchrony, working alliance, self-regulation, and goal attainment. . Front. Psychol. 12::580351
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Fay MJ. 2011.. Informal communication of co-workers: a thematic analysis of messages. . Qual. Res. Organ. Manag. Int. J. 6:(3):212–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Fischer T, Dietz J, Antonakis J. 2017.. Leadership process models: a review and synthesis. . J. Manag. 43:(6):1726–53
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gabriel AS, Diefendorff JM, Bennett AA, Sloan MD. 2017.. It's about time: the promise of continuous rating assessments for the organizational sciences. . Organ. Res. Methods 20:(1):32–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Galin A, Gross M, Gosalker G. 2007.. E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation what has changed—if anything?. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23:(1):787–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Gerpott FH, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Scheibe S. 2020.. Is work and aging research a science of questionnaires? Moving the field forward by considering perceived versus actual behaviors. . Work Aging Retire. 6:(2):65–70
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gerpott FH, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Silvis JD, Van Vugt M. 2018.. In the eye of the beholder? An eye-tracking experiment on emergent leadership in team interactions. . Leadersh. Q. 29:(4):523–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gerpott FH, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Voelpel SC, Van Vugt M. 2019.. It's not just what is said, but when it's said: a temporal account of verbal behaviors and emergent leadership in self-managed teams. . Acad. Manag. J. 62:(3):717–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Gessnitzer S, Schulte E-M, Kauffeld S. 2016.. I am going to succeed: the power of self-efficient language in coaching and how coaches can use it. . Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 68:(4):294–312
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Giddens A. 1993.. New Rules of Sociological Method. Redwood City, CA:: Stanford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Gorse CA, Emmitt S. 2007.. Communication behaviour during management and design team meetings: a comparison of group interaction. . Constr. Manag. Econ. 25:(11):1197–213
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Grant AM, Christianson MK, Price RH. 2007.. Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. . Acad. Manag. Perspect. 21:(3):51–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Guerci M, Hauff S, Gilardi S. 2022.. High performance work practices and their associations with health, happiness and relational well-being: Are there any tradeoffs?. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 33:(2):329–59
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Güntner AV, Meinecke AL, Lüders ZE. 2023.. Interaction coding in leadership research: a critical review and best-practice recommendations to measure behavior. . Leadersh. Q. 34:(6):101751
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Hall JA, Horgan TG, Murphy NA. 2019.. Nonverbal communication. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70::271–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Hemshorn de Sanchez CS, Gerpott FH, Lehmann-Willenbrock N. 2022.. A review and future agenda for behavioral research on leader–follower interactions at different temporal scopes. . J. Organ. Behav. 43:(2):342–68
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Herde CN, Lievens F. 2024.. The chemistry between us: illuminating complementarity patterns in interpersonal role-play assessment via moment-to-moment analyses. . J. Appl. Psychol. 109:(4):534–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Hess KP. 2013.. Nonverbal discrimination. . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43:(3):544–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Hess YD, Carnevale JJ, Rosario M. 2018.. A construal level approach to understanding interpersonal processes. . Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 12:(8):e12409
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Hohenschwert L, Geiger S. 2015.. Interpersonal influence strategies in complex B2B sales and the socio-cognitive construction of relationship value. . Ind. Mark. Manag. 49::139–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Holmes J. 2006.. Sharing a laugh: pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. . J. Pragmat. 38:(1):26–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hoogeboom MA, Saeed A, Noordzij ML, Wilderom CP. 2021.. Physiological arousal variability accompanying relations-oriented behaviors of effective leaders: triangulating skin conductance, video-based behavior coding and perceived effectiveness. . Leadersh. Q. 32:(6):101493
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Hung H, Gatica-Perez D. 2010.. Estimating cohesion in small groups using audio-visual nonverbal behavior. . IEEE Trans. Multimed. 12:(6):563–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Ianiro PM, Lehmann-Willenbrock NK, Kauffeld S. 2015.. Coaches and clients in action: a sequential analysis of interpersonal coach and client behavior. . J. Bus. Psychol. 30::435–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ianiro PM, Schermuly CC, Kauffeld S. 2013.. Why interpersonal dominance and affiliation matter: an interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship. . Coaching Int. J. Theory Res. Practice 6:(1):25–46
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Jäckel E, Zerres A, Hemshorn de Sanchez CS, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Hüffmeier J. 2024.. NegotiAct: introducing a comprehensive coding scheme to capture temporal interaction patterns in negotiations. . Group Organ. Manag. 49:(3):743–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Jones C, Volet S, Pino-Pasternak D. 2021.. Observational research in face-to-face small groupwork: capturing affect as socio-dynamic interpersonal phenomena. . Small Group Res. 52:(3):341–76
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Kangasharju H, Nikko T. 2009.. Emotions in organizations: joint laughter in workplace meetings. . J. Bus. Commun. 46:(1):100–19
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Kanze D, Huang L, Conley MA, Higgins ET. 2018.. We ask men to win and women not to lose: closing the gender gap in startup funding. . Acad. Manag. J. 61:(2):586–614
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Keyton J. 2017.. Communication in organizations. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 4::501–26
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Klonek FE, Gerpott FH, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Parker S. 2019.. Time to go wild: how to conceptualize and measure process dynamics in real teams with high resolution. . Organ. Psychol. Rev. 9:(4):245–75
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Köhler T, Tenzer H, Cramton CD. 2023.. Culture-driven scripts for meetings: an integrative theoretical lens for studying workplace meetings. . Organ. Psychol. Rev. 13:(4):400–28
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Kolbe M, Grande B, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Seelandt JC. 2023.. Helping healthcare teams to debrief effectively: associations of debriefers’ actions and participants’ reflections during team debriefings. . BMJ Qual. Saf. 32:(3):160–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kolbe M, Grote G, Waller MJ, Wacker J, Grande B, et al. 2014.. Monitoring and talking to the room: autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. . J. Appl. Psychol. 99:(6):1254
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kozlowski SW, Chao GT. 2018.. Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods. . Am. Psychol. 73:(4):576–92
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Kozlowski SW, Mak S, Chao GT. 2016.. Team-centric leadership: an integrative review. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3::21–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Landers VM, Jones CLE, Barney C. 2024.. The social influence of employee groups: understanding the impact of employee groups on customer intentions through intimidation. . J. Bus. Res. 170::114301
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Latu IM, Schmid Mast M. 2016.. Male interviewers’ nonverbal dominance predicts lower evaluations of female applicants in simulated job interviews. . J. Pers. Psychol. 15:(3):116–24
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Allen JA. 2014.. How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. . J. Appl. Psychol. 99:(6):1278
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Allen JA. 2018.. Modeling temporal interaction dynamics in organizational settings. . J. Bus. Psychol. 33:(3):325–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Chiu MM. 2018.. Igniting and resolving content disagreements during team interactions: a statistical discourse analysis of team dynamics at work. . J. Organ. Behav. 39:(9):1142–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Hung H. 2024.. A multimodal social signal processing approach to team interactions. . Organ. Res. Methods 27:(3):477–515
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Meinecke AL, Rowold J, Kauffeld S. 2015.. How transformational leadership works during team interactions: a behavioral process analysis. . Leadersh. Q. 26:(6):1017–33
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lei Z, Waller MJ, Hagen J, Kaplan S. 2016.. Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. . Group Organ. Manag. 41:(4):491–525
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Meinecke AL, Kauffeld S. 2019.. Engaging the hearts and minds of followers: leader empathy and language style matching during appraisal interviews. . J. Bus. Psychol. 34::485–501
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Meinecke AL, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Kauffeld S. 2017.. What happens during annual appraisal interviews? How leader–follower interactions unfold and impact interview outcomes. . J. Appl. Psychol. 102:(7):1054–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Mell JN, DeChurch LA, Leenders RTA, Contractor N. 2020.. Identity asymmetries: an experimental investigation of social identity and information exchange in multiteam systems. . Acad. Manag. J. 63:(5):1561–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Meyer B, Burtscher MJ, Jonas K, Feese S, Arnrich B, et al. 2016.. What good leaders actually do: micro-level leadership behaviour, leader evaluations, and team decision quality. . Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25:(6):773–89
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Mikkola L, Valo M, eds. 2019.. Workplace Communication. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA. 1999.. The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. . Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:(2):249–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Mortensen M, Haas MR. 2018.. Perspective—rethinking teams: from bounded membership to dynamic participation. . Organ. Sci. 29:(2):341–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Oliver T, Hausdorf P, Lievens F, Conlon P. 2016.. Interpersonal dynamics in assessment center exercises: effects of role player portrayed disposition. . J. Manag. 42:(7):1992–2017
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Oostrom JK, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Klehe UC. 2019.. A new scoring procedure in assessment centers: insights from interaction analysis. . Pers. Assess. Dec. 5:(1):73–82
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Paletz SB, Schunn CD, Kim KH. 2011.. Intragroup conflict under the microscope: micro-conflicts in naturalistic team discussions. . Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 4:(4):314–51
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Pälli P, Lehtinen E. 2014.. Making objectives common in performance appraisal interviews. . Lang. Commun. 39::92–108
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Park S, Scherer S, Gratch J, Carnevale PJ, Morency LP. 2015.. I can already guess your answer: predicting respondent reactions during dyadic negotiation. . IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 6:(2):86–96
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Previtali F, Spedale S. 2021.. Doing age in the workplace: exploring age categorisation in performance appraisal. . J. Aging Stud. 59::100981
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. Rodriguez-Lluesma C, García-Ruiz P, Pinto-Garay J. 2021.. The digital transformation of work: a relational view. . Bus. Ethics Environ. Responsib. 30:(1):157–67
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. Rogerson-Revell P. 2007.. Humour in business: a double-edged sword. A study of humour and style shifting in intercultural business meetings. . J. Pragmat. 39:(1):4–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Saatçi B, Rädle R, Rintel S, O'Hara K, Nylandsted Klokmose C. 2019.. Hybrid meetings in the modern workplace: stories of success and failure. . In Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing: 25th International Conference, CRIWG+ CollabTech 2019, Proceedings 25, ed. H Nakanishi, H Egi, IA Chounta, H Takada, S Ichimura, U Hoppe , pp. 45–61. Cham, Switz:.: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Sadler P, Woody E. 2016.. Manual for the Continuous Assessment of Interpersonal Dynamics (CAID) Joystick Monitor Program.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Scheuer J. 2014.. Managing employees’ talk about problems in work in performance appraisal interviews. . Discourse Stud. 16:(3):407–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Schlamp S, Gerpott FH, Voelpel SC. 2021.. Same talk, different reaction? Communication, emergent leadership and gender. . J. Manag. Psychol. 36:(1):51–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. Semnani-Azad Z, Adair WL. 2011.. The display of “dominant” nonverbal cues in negotiation: the role of culture and gender. . Int. Negot. 16:(3):451–79
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Sharma K, Castellini C, Stulp F, Van den Broek EL. 2017.. Continuous, real-time emotion annotation: a novel joystick-based analysis framework. . IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 11:(1):78–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Sias PM, Shin Y. 2019.. Workplace relationships. . In Origins and Traditions of Organizational Communication, ed. A Maydan Nicotera , pp. 187–206. New York:: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Smite D, Moe NB, Hildrum J, Gonzalez-Huerta J, Mendez D. 2023.. Work-from-home is here to stay: call for flexibility in post-pandemic work policies. . J. Syst. Softw. 195::111552
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Smith-Jentsch KA, Scielzo SA, Yarbrough CS, Rosopa PJ. 2008.. A comparison of face-to-face and electronic peer-mentoring: interactions with mentor gender. . J. Vocat. Behav. 72:(2):193–206
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Snyder M, Stukas AA Jr. 1999.. Interpersonal processes: the interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. . Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50::273–303
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Sorsa V, Pälli P, Mikkola P. 2014.. Appropriating the words of strategy in performance appraisal interviews. . Manage. Commun. Q. 28:(1):56–83
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Stachowski AA, Kaplan SA, Waller MJ. 2009.. The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. . J. Appl. Psychol. 94:(6):1536–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Uitdewilligen S, Rico R, Waller MJ. 2018.. Fluid and stable: dynamics of team action patterns and adaptive outcomes. . J. Organ. Behav. 39:(9):1113–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. van der Haar S, Koeslag-Kreunen M, Euwe E, Segers M. 2017.. Team leader structuring for team effectiveness and team learning in command-and-control teams. . Small Group Res. 48:(2):215–48
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Van Herck RE, Vangehuchten L. 2024.. Unpacking the art of customer complaint handling in Spanish and British telecom emails: a cross-cultural webcare study with a human touch. . Int. J. Bus. Commun. 61:(1):115–47
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. van Oortmerssen LA, van Woerkum CM, Aarts N. 2015.. When interaction flows: an exploration of collective creative processes on a collaborative governance board. . Group Organ. Manag. 40:(4):500–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Wageman R, Gardner H, Mortensen M. 2012.. The changing ecology of teams: new directions for teams research. . J. Organ. Behav. 33:(3):301–15
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Waller MJ, Kaplan SA. 2018.. Systematic behavioral observation for emergent team phenomena: key considerations for quantitative video-based approaches. . Organ. Res. Methods 21:(2):500–15
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Waller MJ, Uitdewilligen S, Rico R, Thommes MS. 2021.. Interaction pattern and trajectory analysis for studying group communication. . In The Emerald Handbook of Group and Team Communication Research, ed. S Beck, J Keyton, MS Poole , pp. 135–53. Bingley, UK:: Emerald
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Watkins T, Kleshinski CE, Longmire NH, He W. 2023.. Rekindling the fire and stoking the flames: how and when workplace interpersonal capitalization facilitates pride and knowledge sharing at work. . Acad. Manag. J. 66:(3):953–78
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Wax A, Rodriguez WA, Asencio R. 2022.. Spilling tea at the water cooler: a meta-analysis of the literature on workplace gossip. . Organ. Psychol. Rev. 12:(4):453–506
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Weick KE. 1979.. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA:: Addison-Wesley. , 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Weick KE. 1995.. Sensemaking in Organizations: Foundations for Organizational Science. Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. 2005.. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. . Organ. Sci. 16:(4):409–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Weiss M, Kolbe M, Grote G, Spahn DR, Grande B. 2017.. Why didn't you say something? Effects of after-event reviews on voice behaviour and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams. . Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 26:(1):66–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Wilson JM, Fletcher TD, Pescosolido T, Major DA. 2021.. Extraversion and leadership emergence: differences in virtual and face-to-face teams. . Small Group Res. 52:(5):535–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Yeomans M, Boland FK, Collins HK, Abi-Esber N, Brooks AW. 2023.. A practical guide to conversation research: how to study what people say to each other. . Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 6:(4):138
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Zaccaro SJ, Dubrow S, Torres EM, Campbell LN. 2020.. Multiteam systems: an integrated review and comparison of different forms. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7::479–503
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Zhang-Zhang Y, Rohlfer S, Varma A. 2022.. Strategic people management in contemporary highly dynamic VUCA contexts: a knowledge worker perspective. . J. Bus. Res. 144::587–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Zhou L, Wang M, Zhang Z. 2021.. Intensive longitudinal data analyses with dynamic structural equation modeling. . Organ. Res. Methods 24:(2):219–50
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-035421
Loading
Dynamic Interpersonal Processes at Work: Taking Social Interactions Seriously
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 12, 133 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-035421
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-035421
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-035421
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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