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 60 of 63

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • A Role for Ombuds in Embedded Corporate Social Responsibility Processes?

  • Zachary P. Ulrich
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    07 January 2015, pp. 358-360

  • My purpose here is to suggest that the often-overlooked organizational ombudsman (OO) role can and should become an influential component of embedded corporate social responsibility (CSR) processes as defined by Aguinis and Glavas (2013). An OO is an employee who works with individuals and groups to help resolve conflicts inside or outside of an organization and who brings systemic concerns to the attention of organizational leadership (Howard, 2010). An OO does this while maintaining the confidentiality of office visitors, operating from a stance of neutrality and impartiality, remaining independent of formal organizational structures, and not adjudicating disputes or otherwise making policy recommendations regarding conflicts (International Ombudsman Association, 2013; Ziegenfuss & O'Rourke, 2011).

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

  • (Mis)Steps for Attracting High Resilience Workers

  • Kevin J. Eschleman, Chris W. Wright
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 July 2016, pp. 429-435

  • Organizations are becoming increasingly likely to incorporate measures of trait resilience into their selection batteries despite the challenges and validity questions described by Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, and Klieger (2016). Organizations can overcome some of the challenges of selecting high resilience workers by improving attraction and recruitment methods. In the following commentary, we describe common organization efforts to attract high resilience workers for occupations with risk of psychological trauma. We integrate research on organizational attraction and trait resilience to predict which of these approaches are likely to have the desired (attract high resilient workers) or undesired (attract low resilient workers) effect.

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

  • Executive Selection — Response to Commentaries

  • George P. Hollenbeck
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    07 January 2015, pp. 177-180

  • My goal was to generate both heat and light in executive selection. Each of the commentaries adds some light to the context of executive selection as well as new issues, but none were very heated concerning my “rights and wrongs.” I was surprised that no one addressed the central issues of character (although Smith & Howard strike a glancing blow) or the many paths to success in executive jobs; but either of those could be articles in themselves. We have begun a discussion–let the games begin!

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

  • Being Competitive in the Talent Management Space

  • Benjamin Schneider
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 June 2018, pp. 231-236
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • I have three issues I would like to add to Rotolo et al.’s (2018) arguments for research foci and with which academics must be concerned as we move forward. We must pay attention to all of what Rotolo et al. said plus at least my three additions if we are to compete with other fields playing in the talent management (TM) space. First, I will argue we have become overly concerned in our refereed outlets with theory to the detriment of validity against important organizational outcomes. Second, I will note that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has become fixated on individuals and their differences to the almost literal exclusion of research on the psychology of organizational phenomena. Third, I will present an argument for research on reciprocal relationships—on organizations as real systems—in an attempt to counter the left-to-right thinking in all of our research models.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • From the Editor

  • Kevin R. Murphy
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    07 January 2015, pp. 1-2
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • Cited by 1

Page 60 of 63