In Lean In Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, cited a 1999 study suggesting stereotype threat undermines the performance and interest of girls and women for STEM careers – Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. She writes that it “is one of the key reasons that so few study computer science” (p. 22). Stereotype threat is a concept that has generated much social psychological research over the past 20 years. It can apply to any member of any stereotyped group. Sandberg stated that if a woman is aware of stereotypic perceptions of women, then she is more likely to behave or perform consistent with the stereotype. 

There is no question that women are underrepresented in computer science (CS) and information technology (IT).  Stereotype threat may be one factor. Stereotyping by others is another. In 2006 Karen Scales, Mary Ann Edwards, and I published a study about women in IT. Several studies we reviewed addressed socio-cultural assumptions:

• Women receive less encouragement to master computer skills than men do (Smith, 2005).
• Educators are influenced by socio-cultural assumptions about IT and computer science and “steer women away” (Ray et al., 1999).
• Some teachers (17%) and guidance counselors (12%) discouraged young women from IT (Turner et al., 2002).
• To quote one director of undergraduate computer science programs, “Somehow teachers . . . are pushing the idea that this is not a field for girls” (in Grupta & Houtz, 2000).
• In Malaysia women and men pursued undergraduate computer science degrees in near equal numbers. Key CS/IT university administrators and the majority of the computer science faculties were women. Because of the prevalence of female role models and mentors, for young Malaysian women “pursuing a career in CS/IT is a normal, indeed, unremarkable option” (Othman and Latih, 2006, p.114).

What determines whether of not a woman pursues computer science or IT? To quote from our study:

• Adya and Kaiser (2005) concluded, “parents, particularly fathers, are the key influencers of girls’ choice of IT careers” (p. 230).
• Turner et al. (2002) surveyed members of Systers, a listserv for women in IT. For the 275 women who responded, fathers were cited as encouraging by 42% and high school teachers by 37%. For women who earned an undergraduate degree in IT or computer science, by far the most important influences on their career choices were family and teachers, the most frequently mentioned influence being fathers.

The Systers survey also found that only about one third of women in their IT survey had majored in computer science or IT as undergraduates. Richard Rashid, a senior vice president at Microsoft in 2005, suggested to educators, “You need to talk about the romance of the field. It’s not all about people sitting in cubicles eating pizza and typing away endless hours on a keyboard” (Foster, 2005, p. A32). We agree. We found about 90% of the women in our study perceived computer and IT careers as creative activities.

Women are underrepresented in CS/IT. But there are factors we can address individually and institutionally – assumptions about women in IT, the role of teachers, the role of fathers, the way we market computer science and IT. 

For references for the above cited studies, see Ballard, J., Scales, K., & Edwards, M. A.  (2006). Perceptions of information technology careers among women in career development transition. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 24 (2), 1-9.  

Image by FirmBee from https://pixabay.com/photos/office-business-accountant-620822/
Permission: https://pixabay.com/service/terms/#license

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved. Modified from earlier blog, March 2013.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 
New: Now available in paperback.

How would you like the decision as to whether you receive a job offer to be decided by artificial intelligence? You may have already been impacted by employee selection AI, directly or indirectly, but may not have been aware of it. There is no doubt that AI is here and will only grow smarter and reach further into the operations of most organizations with time. 
 
Use of artificial intelligence and concerns about that use were common themes in symposia at this year’s meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In the exhibit hall vendors were demonstrating new AI applications, including use in personnel selection. I enjoy walking through poster sessions, seeing what new research is underway, talking with researchers. There was one poster on AI that I found particularly interesting.
 
Manuel Gonzalez (doctoral candidate, Baruch College & The Graduate Center, CUNY) and his colleagues from Aon Assessment Solutions tried to assess job applicants’ possible attitudes toward use of AI in hiring decisions. They had nearly 200 MTurk workers respond to hypothetical situations and a variety of self-report attitudinal measures. Decision-makers were human or AI. Here were some of their findings:

• “People generally react unfavorably toward AI and the organizations that use them for selection purposes”
• People were less likely to trust organizations that used AI in decision-making.
• People were less likely to promote organizations that used AI in decision-making except people who were very familiar with AI.
• Where AI made the decisions, people had less trust, saw as potentially less fair,  and had concerns about privacy and communications.

Gonzalez and colleagues suggested organizations:

• Emphasize interpersonal interactions in the selection process when using AI. 
• Explain how AI works and how it is used. 

My take-aways:
 
1. Our attitudes toward AI are evolving. Examining attitudes toward AI across many areas of application is smart. Gonzalez and colleagues are to be commended for their contribution. This should be a growing area for research.

2. It is a brave new world. AI can increase efficiencies and help make more effective decisions. Should AI be the deciding factor in personnel decisions? This question echoes Paul Meehl (1954) on the value of statistical prediction versus clinical prediction. Statistical will usually have superior outcomes. However Meehl made a caveat. The statistical prediction must be properly used. I think that is the issue with AI software. The devil is in the details. For example, is AI eliminating people from hiring consideration who might otherwise be good employees? Overheard in one session at the conference: “Perhaps we do not have a shortage of job applicants; perhaps AI is eliminated some good applicants.” Managers and leaders should be familiar with how their organizations use AI to advance objectives. 
 
3. So how do the faculty who teach AI make decisions in hiring new faculty? Do they use AI? My guess is they do it like most faculty usually do -- going through a stack of applicant folders, making decisions to narrow the field, thus producing a smaller pool. Then repeating the process until two or three candidates are invited to campus for job interviews and teaching demonstrations. Then taking a vote. 
 
4. Hiring new employees is one of the great opportunities to build and grow an organization. AI can make the process more efficient. Each organization, each leader, must decide how AI can help.
 
Gonzalez, M. F., Martin, N. R., Justenhoven, R., & Preuss, A. (2019, April). Rage against the machine: Reactions to artificial intelligence in selection systems. Poster session presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, National Harbor, MD. 

Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN, US: University of Minnesota Press.
​
Image by geralt. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/artificial-intelligence-brain-think-3382507/
Free to use. 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 
New: Now available in paperback. 

For those who follow my blogs for the translation of research studies into practical implications for the workplace, stay tuned. A time-out today to share impressions from a conference I just attended. 
 
The 2019 meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) at National Harbor, Maryland, has concluded. Over 5000 people attended. I joined SIOP in 1984 and have spent most of my work-life as a manager, consultant, and professor engaged in various aspects of I/O psychology, directly or indirectly. I attended meetings of SIOP occasionally and meetings of the Academy of Management (AOM) nearly every year. Here are a few of my impressions from this year’s conference, nothing empirical here, just impressions. 

1. The future of I/O psych is in good hands. It would be interested to know the median age of attendees. I talked with many junior PhDs, doctoral students, and doctoral candidates and was impressed with their knowledge and enthusiasm. Practitioner I/Os from businesses and government were active throughout the conference. It was exciting to see the large number of people who appeared to be early in their careers.
2. Increasingly women are choosing I/O psych for their profession. I would venture over half of the attendees were women which speaks volumes for SIOP and I/O programs. It was not that long ago that white men were most of the attendees. More women as I/O psychologists can only strengthen the field. The same with diversity.
3. The scientist-practitioner model, always at the core of I/O, continues to be fully embraced. Over the years though, a gap has grown between researchers and practitioners. Research is seen as increasingly less relevant with less impact on practice. SIOP is trying to help reduce that gap. This year for the first time 39 individuals received Scientist-Practitioner Presidential Recognition Awards. I am especially cognizant of this scholar-practitioner gap. Doing my small part to help reduce it has been the function of my tweets, these blogs, and my book, Decoding the Workplace.   
4. AI has arrived. In one session people were genuinely excited by the possibilities of artificial intelligence, “Every behavioral scientist should be involved in AI.” In another session presenters called for more caution: “Expediency and efficiency crush privacy every time.” Meanwhile in the exhibit hall, businesses offered their latest AI innovations for Human Resources and I/O professionals. 
5. It seemed the pendulum has swung more toward industrial-personnel with less organizational psychology. I had expected more of 50/50 mix. The organizational psychology side is more prevalent in AOM, especially in the OB Division. There was a time when I though I/O psychologists educated in schools of psychology were superior in knowledge to organizational behaviorists educated in business schools. Wrong. We read and publish in the same journals and research mostly the same issues. 
6. Not as many DOD industrial psychologists present. In earlier years I/O psychologists associated with the military, especially personnel testing, were much in evidence at SIOP. Not as much these days. Mostly a few contractors. 
7. Symposia and posters seemed oriented more toward conceptual and technical issues. In several more I/O “in practice” sessions, cases and ideas were discussed with attendee participation. The discussions suggested the AOM workshop model might be applicable to SIOP. AOM has several days of workshops followed by the scholarly presentations. There are a lot more lessons learned that could be shared and discussed through workshops.  
8. One of the joys for me was meeting people I have only known through social media. For example, the I/O community on Twitter is robust. Meeting people with whom we exchange ideas online will make our online discussions even better. 

 
Last, it must be said that one vender in the exhibit hall shared cake with people walking by. I had a piece of chocolate cake and was amazed. It melted in my mouth, easily the best chocolate cake I ever had. Thank you Gaylord National pastry chef!
 
Image by endlesswatts. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/photos/chocolate-cake-dessert-food-1185815/
Free to use. 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 

How do you motivate an employee? There are many theories, but the one I found most useful as a manager is Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory. His theory can sound very academic, but the practical implications are solid. I will not detail the theory here but rather address several questions suggested by this theory. To be better at motivating your employees, managers should consider these questions. If you are not a manager, how would you answer these questions for your boss?

1. Have I made the level of performance I expect clear to those I manage?

• It is easy to think you have made clear the performance you expect when in fact you have not. 
• Perhaps you assumed people knew what you expected.
• Perhaps the standard is clear in your mind but not theirs.
• Perhaps you communicated the standards but the communication process broke down.
• Do your employees really know the performance standards to which you are holding them accountable?

2. Is the level of performance I expect achievable? As a young manager, I expected all my employees to match the performance of my very best employees. This was unrealistic. I wised up and figured out that I really should be setting standards based on good performance. Then I communicated those standards and implemented training for all to get there. Within a year, my team was winning performance awards.

3. Does each employee see the level of performance expected as achievable? This will vary but is crucial. How do employees see the relationship between their efforts and the level of performance required?

• Some employees know they can achieve the standards.
• Others may have doubts. Why those doubts? Do they need training? Equipment? Coaching? Or are there other issues distracting them from their efforts?
• In a few cases, the person-job match may not be a good one. 

If I do not see my efforts resulting in achieving the performance expected, my motivation will be low.

4. Do I give feedback and hold employees accountable?
Sometimes employees may not understand what is expected or may not realize they are not measuring up to expectations. Without feedback they will not know.

• To develop employees, feedback is essential.  
• Give positive feedback where warranted.
• Give corrective feedback where needed.

I think a major responsibility of managers is growing their employees.

5. Do I make clear to employees the relationship between their performance and outcomes they desire? Feedback from managers in corporate America: This is where we drop the ball.

• Link performance to individually desired outcomes wherever possible.
• Unless everyone performs equally, don't reward everyone equally
• If there is little or no relationship between performance and outcomes, why reward?

If I see no or little relationship between my performance and the outcomes I desire, my motivation will be low.
 
6. Do I know the outcomes that employees really value? This can be tough. Nearly all want to keep their jobs, perhaps increase pay, achieve desired promotions. The tickets to the professional baseball game that everyone received may be nice for some but not for all. If I do not value the outcomes, my motivation will be low. Highly desired outcomes can vary widely from person to person.

• If your span of control is 20 or less, you may know your direct reports well enough to know the outcomes they really want.

This really helped me as a manager. For example, I took over an operation with an outstanding program leader who had not received a promotion in many years. I told him, “Just give me the consistent high level of performance you gave your last boss, and I’ll do all I can to get you promoted.” He did and with some help I made it happen. But if I had failed, my employee would still have known I cared and I tried.

At the Academy of Management meeting in Boston in 2012, I listened to Vic Vroom talk about his career and his expectancy theory. He said that if he were developing expectancy theory today, he would give more thought to intrinsic rewards. For managers, it is easier to manage extrinsic motivational factors (pay, benefits, etc.) than intrinsic factors (job satisfaction, feeling of accomplishment, meaningfulness of work, etc.). But sometimes the most valued outcomes may be intrinsic. A simple “great job” may make someone's day. 

Modified from my original article published online, October 8, 2014, in the American Management Association's Playbook. 

Image by edman_eu. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/graph-success-cooperation-together-1019845/​
Free to use. 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 

Several years ago the last time the Academy of Management met in Boston, I attended an interesting season on the relationship between authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being, a term with which I was not familiar. 
​
While the definitions of eudaemonic well-being vary somewhat, most come down to a distinction between hedonic or pleasure based well-being and eudaemonic or meaningful, purposive well-being.

In a 2005 Leadership Quarterly article ​Ilies, Morgeson, and Nahrgang stated that eudaemonic well being "reflects the Aristotelian concept of eudaemonia: Aristotle’s view of human happiness that assesses the goodness of life based on 'living in a manner that actively expresses excellence of character or virtue.' " Aristotle, like Maslow and other humanistic psychologists, saw life as being about growth, realizing one's potential. Ilona Boniwell provides an easy to read overview of theories of eudaimonic well-being. 

Ilies et al. argued that authentic leaders tend to have eudaemonic well-being and nurture such in their followers. So how do we develop authentic leaders with eudaemonic well being? The presenters at the conference emphasized experiential learning, that people can become more authentic leaders through training and development. Louis Baron presented the results of a three-year study that support this. Training and development sessions were 20% theory and 80% activities. Baron also used peer coaching where people were teamed up across companies to help each other, be "sounding boards" for each other, especially during "trigger events," moments in organizational life that pose significant challenges to leaders.

My take-away:

Authenticity in leadership goes back to ideas discussed by Mary Follett almost a hundred years ago. To grow as a leader, as a person, one needs to reflect on one's own experiences and then try new approaches where needed. It is not enough to be self aware. We grow by reflecting on our experiences and making adjustments. Thus we learn by informed trial and error. Having a "sounding board" can help.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D.  (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower relations.The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394.

Image, "Sunset", by bussdriver. From https://pixabay.com/photos/sunset-outdoor-sky-nature-natural-3424570/ 
No permission required.

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved. Modified from earlier blog, August 2012.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018.

Textbooks present a variety of leadership theories from traits to behaviors (Ohio State and Michigan studies of leadership from the 1950’s) to situational (Fiedler, Path-Goal Theory). In recent decades we find leader-member exchange (Graen) and transactional/transformation leadership. In my opinion all but transformational leadership are more management style than leadership. Transformational, authentic leadership and servant leadership come closer to my idea of real leadership. 

Heroic leadership is rarely mentioned in textbooks. In a 2013 article in Organizational Dynamics, Bill Cohen reviewed criticisms of heroic leadership, discussed his research, and concluded with principles of heroic leadership. I found his article to be thought-provoking.

Cohen argues heroic leadership is transformational leadership, “not transactional leadership.” It may involve followers participating in decision-making or not. It can be found across organizational structures from hierarchies to organic. The degree of “direct control” will vary with the situation. 

What are heroic leaders? Here in Cohen's words are principles that mark heroic leaders:

• Maintain absolute integrity.
• Know your stuff.
• Declare your expectations.
• Show uncommon commitment.
• Expect positive results.
• Take care of your people.
• Put duty before self.
• Get out in front. 

Looks like great principles for leaders regardless of what leadership is called. In what some may perceive as an anti-heroic age, there is still a need for heroic leaders.

Cohen, W. A. (2013). Peter Drucker wants you to be a heroic leader. Organizational Dynamics, 42, 70-80.

Image of statue of Washington by Peter Kaminski. Used with permission. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved. Modified from earlier blog, January 2014.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018.

Stress is a normal part of most workplaces. A little stress can be good but stress can easily become dysfunctional and cost time, money, and energy. Estimates for the annual cost of dysfunctional stress in U.S. organizations range as high as $300 billion. Managers play a big role in determining the amount of stress is in the workplace. If you are a manager,  how well do you help reduce stress in the workplace? Or do you unnecessarily increase stress in the workplace? Here are six questions for managers to reflect on.  

1.  Do I inadvertently support stress-inducing norms? Every workplace has formal and informal rules. Some informal rules or norms become well established even though they may be dysfunctional. 

• Do employees work long hours beyond what is really necessary? 
• How long is the workday really? 
• Is time off for vacations encouraged or seen as behavior of those less loyal?

2. Do I consider the potential negative impact of my behaviors on others? Some managers behave inconsistently such that employees are not sure what to expect. A manager gives instructions on Monday, changes them on Wednesday, and changes them again on Friday. Others assign work to be done at the last minute and expect immediate results.

3. What information do I provide to my employees? Often managers tell employees what employees need to know but not necessarily what employees want to know. They may not need to know the context of a decision but where that context can be provided, it may be helpful. It is also good to avoid surprises. As soon as possible, stop rumors, especially those that may have a negative impact.

4. Am I really a good listener or do I just think that I am? I am continually surprised by the number of managers who think they are great listeners but aren’t. 

• Can you actively listen? 
• What is going on in your mind when someone is talking with you? 
• Are you thinking about answers to questions or formulating questions, or are you truly listening to the words, emotions, and body language of the other. 
• Worse yet, are you multi-tasking, for example, working on your computer? 

One key to helping employees manage workplace stress is recognizing it. Actively listening helps.

5. Do I support my employees? Easy to answer “sure” but do you?

• How easy is it for employees to come to you with requests or questions?
• How often do you ask, “Is there anything where you need my help?”
• Do you know your direct reports well enough to know what rewards they value the most?
• Can you identify recent actions on your part that demonstrate you support your people?

6. Am I a good role model? The leader sets the example. 

• Do you stay in the office until your boss is gone? 
• Do you manage your stress? Do you take time to exercise? 
• Do you meditate, do yoga, or engage in other activities that reduce your stress?Do you encourage use of any company policies that encourage wellness?

Stress impacts the bottom-line through health care costs and lost productivity. If you are a manager, assess your impact on stress in the workplace and adjust as best you can. For those not in managerial positions, think about your supervisors. How would you size them up on these questions? 

Modified from my original article published online, September 2, 2015, in the American Management Association's Playbook. 

Image, "stress-management", by Mohamed Hassan. Obtained from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/angry-businesswoman-conflict-3233158/
Free to use. 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 

How do we develop leaders? Is training leadership skills enough? With environments becoming more uncertain, with change accelerating, leadership needs to emerge across organizations. Increasingly leadership needs to be collective, shared, relational. 

In 2013 leadership scholars at Auckland University Business School in New Zealand published an article describing leadership development predominantly as skills-based training. Kennedy, Carroll, and Francoeur suggested leadership development requires less training and evaluation of individual skills and greater attention to mindset, where mindset addresses underlying assumptions about how the social world is perceived and acted upon. 

From this perspective, they suggest leadership development should:

• Question and unsettle established patterns
• Test assumptions and thought processes 
• Develop practices attune to a “complex, indeterminate, and relational world”

My take-aways:

1. To some degree I think Kennedy, Carroll, and Francoeur are building on the work of David Day. Day makes a very important distinction between leader development and leadership development. Leader development grows human capital. Leadership development grows social capital. Day differentiated as follows:

Orientation toward human capital [leader development] emphasizes the development of individual capabilities such as those related to self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-motivation that serve as the foundation of intrapersonal competence. Orientation toward social capital [leadership development] emphasizes the development of reciprocal obligations and commitments built on a foundation of mutual trust and respect; it rests on a foundation of interpersonal competence, but ultimately, it requires enactment. Leadership is developed through the enactment of leadership. (p. 605)

Perhaps this is at the heart of Kennedy et al.’s argument. We have traditionally emphasized leader development (behavioral skills). Now our organizations need leadership development (new and varied mindsets to deal with our fluid and complex world).

2. As I stated in an earlier blog: "Organizations can easily confuse leader development with leadership development (see Day, 2000). Leader development focuses more on the individual, trying to develop skills and competencies to lead. On the other hand, leadership development seeks to grow leadership throughout an organization developing relationships among leaders, understanding followership, to insure leaders are on the same page, not at cross-purposes. And when this happens, magic happens." 

Day, D.V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613.

Kennedy, F., Carroll, B., & Francoeur, J. (2013) Mindset not skill set: evaluating in new paradigms of leadership development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15 (1), 10-26.   

Image of Auckland from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesclay/4161292580/in/photostream/
Permission from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved. Modified from an earlier blog, May 2013.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018. 

Think about your relationships in the workplace. With whom do you enjoy working or seeking advice? Who do you try to avoid? Relationships at work strongly impact the work experience. These relationships may be positive, negative, or both. According to research recently published in the Academy of Management Journal, the quality of work relationships affects employee engagement, commitment to the organization, and more. 
 
Kyle Ehrbardt (University of Colorado Denver) and Belle Rose Ragins (University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee) explored workplace relationships in three large-scale studies (nearly 700 participants total). They tested a model of how work relationships affect organizational concerns. We have “relational needs” that result in varying degrees of “relational attachment.” The degree of relational attachment is related, in turn, to our organizational commitment, work engagement, turnover, absenteeism, and more.
 
They built on the work of William Kahn (2007) who talked about two types of relational needs:

• instrumental support needs – “help with job tasks and/or making sense of the environment"
• personal support needs – “help with personal challenges”

Workplace relationships can help fulfill these two types of needs resulting in a person feeling more connected to others in the workplace (relational attachment).
 
Ehrbardt's and Ragins's findings supported their model: “relational needs fit predicted relational attachment.” Relational attachment predicted organizational commitment, turnover, absenteeism, and life satisfaction.
 
But as they also predicted, work relationships can be “too close for comfort.” When employees get too much support, it can negatively impact relationships. In other words, work relationships are good to some point but at some point they can become intrusive. That point will vary from person to person.
 
Ehrbardt and Ragins suggest managers and organizations recognize that positive workplace relationships can lead to positive organizational outcomes, but managers need good listening skills and emotional intelligence so they do not become too intrusive.
 
My take-aways:
 
1. Ehrbardt and Ragins have provided a useful model for researchers interested in the impact of positive workplace relationships. However there is a flipside, the effect of negative workplace relationships. I would venture the impact of negative workplace relationships is different than just the absence of positive relationships. 
 
2. I see large individual differences here. Some people are very social and naturally build positive relationships at work. Others are less social and may interact as little as possible. In other words, there are significant differences in the relational needs of employees. My guess is, all things being equal, it should be easy to perceive who is which.
 
3. But all things are rarely equal. You could have very strong work relationships where everyone disagrees with how the organization is being run or even the organization’s objectives. For example, a medical facility, to the disagreement of employees, may put profits above patient care. Congruence between employee perceptions and organizational objectives may moderate the impact of the relationships-commitment linkage.
 
4. For organizations, this research shines a light on the importance of positive workplace relationships in discussions of workplace engagement. The most important of these is the relationship with one’s boss. In my consulting and managerial experience, turnover was most often attributable to a poor supervisor. The importance of positive workplace relationships underscores the need for organizations to stay abreast of what managers are doing in the workplace and the organizational climate they create.
 
5. For me the article caused me to look back over my workplace experiences and think about relationships. Many were instrumental making it easier to get things done. Others were more social, some people becoming close friends. As I say in Decoding the Workplace, “the world of work and the world of organizations are worlds of people.” Or as Ehrbardt and Ragins put it, “Relationships are the threads in the fabric of organizational life.”
 
Ehrhardt, K. & Ragins, B. R. (2019). Relational attachment at work: A complementary fit perspective on the role of relationships in organizational life. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1), 248-282.
 
Kahn, W. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at work. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation, 189-206. New York: Routledge.
 
Image, "Brainstorming-workplace-coffee", by mohamed_hassan. Image obtained from https://pixabay.com/en/brain-storming-workplace-coffee-3232627/​ Used in accordance with: https://pixabay.com/en/service/license/

© John Ballard, PhD,  2019. All rights reserved.
_______________________
Decoding the Workplace “deals with principles and practices that are timeless . . . Is this a must-have for managers and would-be managers? Yes.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, June, 2018.