Search

We develop a multilevel framework that proposes the main and interactive effects of person-group (PG) fit in values and abilities on creativity at the individual and group levels. Our analysis of field data collected from 738 members comprising 108 work teams provides empirical support for our multilevel model of PG fit. Specifically, ability fit and collective ability fit exhibit consistent positive effects on individual and team creativity, respectively (i.e., multilevel homology). By contrast, at the individual level, value fit suppresses the positive effect of ability fit on individual creativity, while at the group level, collective value fit accentuates the positive effect of collective ability fit on team creativity (i.e., multilevel discontinuity). This study highlights the significance of multilevel interactive perspective on person-environment fit.

This study examines why and how identity cognitions, including group identification and individual differentiation, influence the positive deviance of employees. We identify the risk-taking intention of employees as a critical psychological mechanism to overcome stigma-induced identity threat of positive deviance. The analysis of data collected from 293 members comprising 66 work teams reveals that the relationship between individual differentiation and positive deviance is partially mediated by risk-taking intention. The indirect effect of group identification on positive deviance through risk-taking intention is also significant and positive in groups with low conformity pressure, whereas the same indirect effect is neutralized in groups with high conformity pressure. The current analysis offers new insights into the way the group context and the identity cognition of members explain the development of positive deviance and workplace creativity.

Procrastination has been studied as a dysfunctional, self-effacing behavior that ultimately results in undesirable outcomes. However, A. H. C. Chu and J. N. Choi (2005) found a different form of procrastination (i.e., active procrastination) that leads to desirable outcomes. The construct of active procrastination has a high potential to expand the time management literature and is likely to be adopted by researchers in multiple areas of psychology. To facilitate the research on this new construct and its further integration into the literature, the authors developed and validated a new, expanded measure of active procrastination that reliably assesses its four dimensions. Using this new measure of active procrastination, they further examined its nomological network. The new 16-item measure is a critical step toward further empirical investigation of active procrastination.

Researchers of the work-related commitment of professionals have investigated the possibility of conflict between organizational and professional forms of commitment. Drawing on the organizational socialization literature, the authors hypothesized that both forms of commitment would change with increasing organizational tenure. Specifically, the authors proposed that the patterns of change of the 2 forms of commitment would be complementary: Organizational commitment would take a U-shaped pattern of change, whereas professional commitment would take an inverse U-shaped pattern. The results, based on data collected from a sample of 204 research and development (R&D) professionals with PhDs, confirmed the U-shaped pattern of organizational commitment and the complementary relation between the 2 forms of commitment during the first 14 months after organizational entry. These findings suggest the importance of maintaining a balance between organizational and professional commitment and provide a method for identifying the critical period for interventions designed to increase retention of R&D professionals during their early organizational socialization.

Researchers and practitioners have long regarded procrastination as a self-handicapping and dysfunctional behavior. In the present study, the authors proposed that not all procrastination behaviors either are harmful or lead to negative consequences. Specifically, the authors differentiated two types of procrastinators: passive procrastinators versus active procrastinators. Passive procrastinators are procrastinators in the traditional sense. They are paralyzed by their indecision to act and fail to complete tasks on time. In contrast, active procrastinators are a "positive" type of procrastinator. They prefer to work under pressure, and they make deliberate decisions to procrastinate. The present results showed that although active procrastinators procrastinate to the same degree as passive procrastinators, they are more similar to nonprocrastinators than to passive procrastinators in terms of purposive use of time, control of time, self-efficacy belief, coping styles, and outcomes including academic performance. The present findings offer a more sophisticated understanding of procrastination behavior and indicate a need to reevaluate its implications for outcomes of individuals.