The supply chain for producing quality organizational knowledge

Organizational Psychology Review

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 54-70

  Cronin, Matthew A ^a   Bendersky, Corinne ^b  

^a Rutgers University   (United States)

^b OBERLIN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Careers; Methods; Organizational change; Statistics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940106529     PISSN: 20413866     EISSN: 20413874     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2041386611424770     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
2. Argyris, C. (1996). Unrecognized defenses of scho-lars: Impact on theory and research. Organization Science, 7, 78–87.
3. Augier, M., March, J. G., & Sullivan, B. N. (2005). Notes on the evolution of a research community: Organization studies in anglophone North Amer-ica, 1945–2000. Organization Science, 16(1), 85–95.
4. Barley, S. (1991). Contextualizing conflict: Notes on the anthropology of disputes and negotiations. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 3, 165–199.
5. Bendersky, C., & McGinn, K. L. (2010). Open to negotiation: Phenomenological assumptions and knowledge dissemination within organizational studies. Organization Science, 21(3), 781–797.
6. Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I/O psychology: ‘‘Not there yet.’’ Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 3–22.
7. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.
8. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.
9. 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(2), 234–246.
10. Chao, R., & Kavadias, S. (2008). A theoretical framework for managing the NPD portfolio: When and how to use strategic buckets. Management Science, 54(5), 907–921.
11. Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. Multilevel Issues in Organizational Behavior and Process Research in Multi-Level Issues, 3, 273–303.
12. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 26, pp. 231–263). Amster-dam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
13. Dearborn, D. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry, 21, 140–144.
14. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 739–756.
15. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19, 230–251.
16. Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. (2006). Enhancing creativity through ‘‘mindless’’ work: A framework of workday design. Organization Science, 17, 470–485.
17. Feigenbaum, E. A. (1961, May). The simulation of verbal learning behavior. Paper presented at the Western Joint Computer Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.
18. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scien-tific fact. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19. George, J. M., & Jhou, 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(4), 687–697.
20. Gittelman, M. (2007). Does geography matter for science-based firms? Epistemic communities and the geography of research and patenting in biotech-nology. Organization Science, 18(4), 724–741. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0249
21. Grant, A. M., Langer, E. J., Falk, E., & Capodilupo, C. (2004). Mindful creativity: Drawing to draw distinctions. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 261–265.
22. Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE, 50(4), 775–782.
23. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.
24. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.
25. Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. (2001). Big-B versus Big-O: What is organizational about organizational beha-vior? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 43–58.
26. Heath, C., & Staudenmayer, N. (2000). Coordination neglect: How lay theories of organizing compli-cate coordination in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 153–191.
27. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Brid-ging the rigour-relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46, 534–546.
28. 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.
29. Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 516–533.
30. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organi-zations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.
34. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–443.
35. McGahan, A. M. (2007). Academic research that matters to managers: On zebras, dogs, lemmings, hammers, and turnips. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE, 50(4), 748–753.
36. McGrath, J. E. (1981). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 25(2), 179–210.
37. McKelvey, B. (1975). Guidelines for the empirical classification of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 509–525.
38. McKelvey, B. (1978). Organizational systematics: Taxonomic lessons from biology. Managment Science, 24, 1428–1440.
39. Moore, D. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2008). The case for behavioral decision research in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 399–431. doi: 10.1080/19416520802211636
40. Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265.
41. Morton, A. M. (1997). A guide through the theory of knowledge. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
42. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.
43. Paletz, S., Smith-Doerr, L., & Vardi, I. (2010, November). Interdisciplinary collaboration in innovative science and engineering fields. Paper presented at the National Science Foundation Workshop, Boston, MA.
44. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level per-spectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.
45. Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in management and organizational sci-ence: Assembling the field’s full weight of scien-tific knowledge through syntheses. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 475–515.
46. Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource man-agement: Implications for evidence-based man-agement. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 987–1008.
47. nd ed., pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Wiley.
48. Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), 50(2), 249–266.
49. Simon, H. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational: mathematical essays on rational human behavior in asocialsetting. New York, NY: Wiley.
50. Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51. Weingart, L. R., & Cronin, M. A. (2010). Teams research in the 21st century: A case for theory con-solidation. In E. Salas, J. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations and systems: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 509–524). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
52. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learn-ing, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.