Explore the vast range of titles available.

Management journals are currently responding to challenges raised by the “replication crisis” in experimental social psychology, leading to new standards for transparency. These approaches are spilling over to qualitative research in unhelpful and potentially even dangerous ways. Advocates for transparency in qualitative research mistakenly couple it with replication. Tying transparency tightly to replication is deeply troublesome for qualitative research, where replication misses the point of what the work seeks to accomplish. We suggest that transparency advocates conflate replication with trustworthiness. We challenge this conflation on both ontological and methodological grounds, and we offer alternatives for how to (and how not to) think about trustworthiness in qualitative research. Management journals need to tackle the core issues raised by this tumult over transparency by identifying solutions for enhanced trustworthiness that recognize the unique strengths and considerations of different methodological approaches in our field.

Some occupations and organizations rely heavily on trust, as their members’ roles involve risk and are interdependent. Trust can emerge from two sources: knowledge or evidence that is meaningful in that context, which has been studied extensively in the literature on trust, and faith, which has not. Through a multi-phase, largely inductive study of firefighters in the United States, we explore processes that facilitate and maintain leaps of faith. These processes are critical to trust under high uncertainty, when direct experience in a task domain is chronically limited, as is the case in our context because very few calls coming into a fire station are fire related. We suggest that leaps of faith are initiated and perpetuated through two sets of dynamics: supporting and sustaining. Supporting dynamics, such as telling stories about fighting fires, evoke domain-relevant standards that are applied to weak, non-domain-specific evidence, such as how routine tasks are performed at the fire station, to help members feel a sense of certainty about whom to trust. Sustaining dynamics both limit the impact of new evidence about trustworthiness and bolster one’s sense of certainty surrounding existing evidence. These two sets of dynamics, embedded in broader task and occupational conditions, act together as a largely closed system that allows trustors to be at peace with the uncertainty surrounding trust assessments—they make leaps of faith possible by increasing certainty and inhibiting doubt. Our study helps address key questions in both psychological and sociological treatments of trust, exploring an enigmatic phenomenon core to the concept of trust but rarely examined.

It is not enough for Catholic universities to simply profess having a Christian identity. This identity needs to be enacted throughout the organization via students, faculty, staff, and administrators. Because identity has different foundations, such as groups, roles, material artifacts, and stories, there are a variety of ways a Christian identity can be lived out in a Catholic university. However, despite these many avenues for enacting identity, such enactment comes with several challenges. At the heart of most of these challenges is the fact that Catholic universities have other identities beyond a Christian one. This paper addresses not only how identity can be enacted, but highlights the challenges to such identity enactment and the trade-offs they present for discernment.

The experience of simultaneously positive and negative orientations toward a person, goal, task, idea, and such appears to be quite common in organizations, but it is poorly understood. We develop a multilevel perspective on ambivalence in organizations that demonstrates how this phenomenon is integral to certain cognitive and emotional processes and important outcomes. Specifically, we discuss the organizational triggers of ambivalence and the cognitive and emotional mechanisms through which ambivalence diffuses between the individual and collective levels of analysis. We offer an integrative framework of major responses to highly intense ambivalence (avoidance, domination, compromise, and holism) that is applicable to actors at the individual and collective levels. The positive and negative outcomes associated with each response, and the conditions under which each is most effective, are explored. Although ambivalence is uncomfortable for actors, it has the potential to foster growth in the actor as well as highly adaptive and effective behavior.

In the human quest for meaning, work occupies a central position. Most adults spend the majority of their waking hours at work, which often serves as a primary source of purpose, belongingness, and identity. In light of these benefits to employees and their organizations, organizational scholars are increasingly interested in understanding the factors that contribute to meaningful work, such as the design of jobs, interpersonal relationships, and organizational missions and cultures. In a separate line of inquiry, scholars of business ethics have examined meaningful work as a moral issue concerning the management of others and ourselves, exploring whether there are definable characteristics of meaningful work to which we have moral rights, and whether there are moral duties to ourselves and others to fulfill those rights. In this article, we examine contemporary developments in both disciplines about the nature, causes, and consequences of meaningful work; we explore linkages between these disciplines; and we offer conclusions and research opportunities regarding the interface of ethical and organizational perspectives on performing and providing meaningful work.

Although research has shown that there may be very different types of workplace crimes, scholarly work in this area (a) is currently fragmented with very little communication between very similar streams of research and (b) tends to be incomplete and can lead to conflicting findings. We address both of these shortcomings. First, we propose a typology of different types of workplace crimes (consisting of pro-organizational, nonaligned-organizational, and anti-organizational crimes) based on the intentions of the perpetrators. Second, we link these intentions to various identification “pathologies”—such as over-identification and over-disidentification, under-identification and ambivalent identification—and argue that these pathologies are linked to propensities to commit certain types of workplace crimes. Specifically, we contend that over-identification and over-disidentification have direct effects on workplace crimes, whereas under-identification and ambivalent identification indirectly influence the propensity to engage in workplace crimes. We suggest that this research aids us in clarifying the inconsistent conclusions in previous work in the domain of workplace crimes and that it emphasizes the importance of including organizational identification as a key factor in the extant models of workplace crimes. This research also highlights policy implications regarding workplace crimes in that it suggests that different agencies may be more effective in enforcing the law and disciplining those engaged in the different types of workplace crimes.

Qualitative methods are gaining prominence in psychology, as well as related fields such as organizational behavior. Yet, we can find little evidence of qualitative research in our top industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology journals. We argue that the lack of research employing qualitative methods is a loss for the field, and we explore the reasons why few scholars adopt this approach. We then explore where this type of research is published and where it is not. Finally, we discuss and debunk several myths that continue to characterize qualitative methods with an eye toward encouraging a greater appreciation and acceptance of this research tradition.

An ethnographic study of distributors for Amway, a network marketing organization, examines the practices and processes involved in managing members' organizational identification. It shows that this organization manages identification by using two types of practices: sensebreaking practices that break down meaning and sensegiving practices that provide meaning. When both sensebreaking and sensegiving practices are successful, members positively identify with the organization. When either sensebreaking or sensegiving practices fail, members deidentify, disidentify, or experience ambivalent identification with the organization. A general model of identification management is posited, and implications for both theory and practice are offered.