Should employees be required to return to the office?

Expectations for where and when work should take place changed radically for workers through the COVID-19 global pandemic. Now that COVID-19 no longer poses a significant safety threat for the typical worker, executives at many organizations are now expecting their employees to return to the office. The issues seem to revolve around perceived barriers to culture, collaboration, and innovation when employees are not present together in the office. Yet, many employees strongly resist a return to the office. They have experienced well-being, productivity, and autonomy benefits from a remote and hybrid work arrangement. Rigid return to office rules feel outdated, manipulative, and controlling to many employees. In the current article we explore expert opinion on the issues of culture, collaboration, and innovation. Specifically, we ask whether a return to office will improve these aspects of organizational functioning and we outline evidence that leads us to provide an answer these questions. Executives and managers may find these expert opinions useful in their consideration of workplace policies and guidelines for the use of remote, hybrid, and in office work arrangements in their organizations.

Job crafting revisited: Implications of an extended framework for active changes at work.

Employees often self-initiate changes to their jobs, a process referred to as job crafting, yet we know little about why and how they initiate such changes. In this paper, we introduce and test an extended framework for job crafting, incorporating individuals' needs and regulatory focus. Our theoretical model posits that individual needs provide employees with the motivation to engage in distinct job-crafting strategies-task, relationship, skill, and cognitive crafting-and that work-related regulatory focus will be associated with promotion- or prevention-oriented forms of these strategies. Across three independent studies and using distinct research designs (Study 1: N = 421 employees; Study 2: N = 144, using experience sampling data; Study 3: N = 388, using a lagged study design), our findings suggest that distinct job-crafting strategies, and their promotion- and prevention-oriented forms, can be meaningfully distinguished and that individual needs (for autonomy, competence, and relatedness) at work differentially shape job-crafting strategies. We also find that promotion- and prevention-oriented forms of job-crafting vary in their relationship with innovative work performance, and we find partial support for work-related regulatory focus strengthening the indirect effect of individual needs on innovative work performance via corresponding forms of job crafting. Our findings suggest that both individual needs and work-related regulatory focus are related to why and how employees will choose to craft their jobs, as well as to the consequences job crafting will have in organizations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Moving Beyond Conventional Wisdom: Advancements in Cross-Cultural Theories of Leadership, Conflict, and Teams.

In this article, we discuss the importance of a cross-cultural approach to organizational behavior. To do so, we illustrate how cross-cultural research in the past two decades has enabled us to reconceptualize constructs, revise models, and extend boundary conditions in traditional organizational behavior theories. We focus on three domains-teams, leadership, and conflict-and review cross-cultural empirical evidence that has extended several theories in each of these domains. We support the claim that even well-established organizational behavior theories vary in the extent to which they may be applied unilaterally across cultures, thus identifying the critical need to advance these theories via a cross-cultural research agenda.

Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams.

Previous distance-related theories and concepts (e.g., social distance) have failed to address the sometimes wide disparity in perceptions between leaders and the teams they lead. Drawing from the extensive literature on teams, leadership, and cognitive models of social information processing, the authors develop the concept of leader-team perceptual distance, defined as differences between a leader and a team in perceptions of the same social stimulus. The authors investigate the effects of perceptual distance on team performance, operationalizing the construct with 3 distinct foci: goal accomplishment, constructive conflict, and decision-making autonomy. Analyzing leader, member, and customer survey responses for a large sample of teams, the authors demonstrate that perceptual distance between a leader and a team regarding goal accomplishment and constructive conflict have a nonlinear relationship with team performance. Greater perceptual differences are associated with decreases in team performance. Moreover, this effect is strongest when a team's perceptions are more positive than the leader's are (as opposed to the reverse). This pattern illustrates the pervasive effects that perceptions can have on team performance, highlighting the importance of developing awareness of perceptions in order to increase effectiveness. Implications for theory and practice are delineated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

What results when firms implement practices: the differential relationship between specific practices, firm financial performance, customer service, and quality.

Previous research on organizational practices is replete with contradictory evidence regarding their effects. Here, the authors argue that these contradictory findings may have occurred because researchers have often examined complex practice combinations and have failed to investigate a broad variety of firm-level outcomes. Thus, past research may obscure important differential effects of specific practices on specific firm-level outcomes. Extending this research, the authors develop hypotheses about the effects of practices that (a) enable information sharing, (b) set boundaries, and (c) enable teams on 3 different firm-level outcomes: financial performance, customer service, and quality. Relationships are tested in a sample of observations from over 200 Fortune 1000 firms. Results indicate that information-sharing practices were positively related to financial performance 1 year following implementation of the practices, boundary-setting practices were positively related to firm-level customer service, and team-enabling practices were related to firm-level quality. No single set of practices predicted all 3 firm-level outcomes, indicating practice-specific effects. These findings help resolve the theoretical tension in the literature regarding the effects of organizational practices and offer guidance as to how to best target practices to increase specific work-related outcomes. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Enhancing the transfer of computer-assisted training proficiency in geographically distributed teams.

The authors examined factors that determine whether knowledge gained from computer-assisted (i.e., technology-based) team training in a geographically distributed team (GDT) context transfers to organizational results. They examined the moderating effects of team trust, technology support, and leader experience on the relation between teams' average individual training proficiency on a computer-assisted (i.e., CD-ROM-based) training program and team performance as assessed by team customer satisfaction ratings. Using data collected from 40 GDTs in a high-technology company, the authors found that the relation between teams' average training proficiency and team performance was complex and moderated by several factors. In particular, teams' average training proficiency had a positive association with customer satisfaction when GDTs were higher, rather than lower, in both trust and technology support and when team leaders had longer, rather than shorter, levels of tenure with their specific team.