Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Industrial and Organizational Psychology
  4. Most cited
Journal Home
Refine listing
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Most cited

This page lists all time most cited articles for this title. Please use the publication date filters on the left if you would like to restrict this list to recently published content, for example to articles published in the last three years. The number of times each article was cited is displayed to the right of its title and can be clicked to access a list of all titles this article has been cited by.

Contents

Page 58 of 63

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • Making Corporate Social Responsibility Work: Recommendations for Utilizing the Power of a Shared Purpose

  • Eileen Linnabery, Dominic Cottone, Karen West
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    07 January 2015, pp. 377-379

  • Aguinis and Glavas (2013) provide a framework for understanding corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs and their outcomes. They suggest that embedding CSR within the strategy and everyday practices of an organization will help employees find meaning and purpose in their work. However, successfully implementing a large-scale organizational change—such as embedding CSR in all aspects of strategy and day-to-day business practices—brings many challenges. For example, in order for organizational change initiatives to succeed, organizational members must buy into the change, those at the top must drive the change, organizational members must be held accountable for implementing the change, and rewards should be tied to the behaviors that align with the change (Austin & Bartunek, 2003). In this article, we will expand upon Aguinis and Glavas to provide recommendations of how to uncover a shared purpose to inform CSR initiatives. Herein we provide recommendations for how to increase the likelihood of success when embedding CSR by first achieving the necessary understanding of what drives the organizational members' purpose and meaning before implementing the change.

  • Cited by 1

  • A Profession Awry or Poised for the Future? Work Psychology and Professional Identity

  • Ann Marie Ryan, J. Kevin Ford
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    07 January 2015, pp. 300-304

  • The commentaries provided an array of perspectives on identity management in our profession. However, there was general agreement on what should be central and distinctive about our field and on the need to cultivate a positive identity for the profession. The commentators also suggested a number of ways to cultivate this identity. For us, the commentaries also stimulated further reflection on our approach to training graduate students. We share our reflections and encourage readers to take the time to reflect on their own efforts to contribute to the profession's management of identity.

  • Cited by 1

  • Analytics and Information: A Case for Performance Ratings

  • Sylvia G. Roch
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    23 March 2017, pp. 39-42

  • Schiemann and Ulrich's (2017) discussion of opportunities for industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology speaks directly to the growing movement of companies eliminating their performance ratings. One of the main issues that the focal article highlights is the need for strong analytics and measurement. A core domain of industrial psychology historically has been employee performance measurement. However, by some accounts, as of September 2015, at least 51 large companies were in the process of eliminating their performance ratings (Rock & Jones, 2015). Whether eliminating performance ratings is a good idea is a subject of debate in the I-O psychology community. In addition to a focal article in the summer of 2016 edition of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Adler, Campion, et al., 2016), several sessions addressed this topic at the 2016 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology convention (e.g., Adler, Colquitt, et al., 2016; Hettal, Garza, Levy, & Cleveland, 2016; Hunt et al., 2016; Roch & Gorman, 2016). The I-O psychology community appears to be divided on the value of performance ratings. In my opinion, the recent drive to abandon rigorous performance measurement appears to be a step backward rather than a step forward.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • To understand ICT use, instead of defragmentation, we need to build requisite complexity

  • Michael Knoll, Hannes Zacher
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 September 2021, pp. 432-435
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • Taking Workplace Decisions Seriously: This Conversation Has Been Fruitful!

  • Silvia Bonaccio, Reeshad S. Dalal, Scott Highhouse, Daniel R. Ilgen, Susan Mohammed, Jerel E. Slaughter
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    07 January 2015, pp. 455-464

  • We are gratified by the large number of commentaries to our focal article (Dalal, Bonaccio, et al., 2010) that advocated greater integration of industrial–organizational psychology and organizational behavior (IOOB) with the field of judgment and decision making (JDM). The commentaries were uniformly constructive and civil. Our disagreements with the commentaries are mild and are limited primarily to the roles of external validity, internal validity, and laboratory experiments in IOOB. For the majority of our response, we attempt to build on the views expressed in the commentaries and to articulate some thoughts regarding the future. We structure our response according to the following themes: barriers to cross-fertilization between IOOB and JDM, areas of existing and potential JDM-to-IOOB cross-fertilization, areas of potential IOOB-to-JDM cross-fertilization, and ways to increase (and ideally institutionalize) cross-fertilization. We hope our focal article and our response to the commentaries will help to ignite exciting basic research and important practical applications associated with decision making in the workplace.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

Page 58 of 63