Article Review

Locate a peer-reviewed article that discusses research in an organization(see attached).  Topic ideas include the role of research, development of research studies, integration of different types of methods, or the communication of research results within an organization. Note that these are ideas; please expand within the parameters of research used within organizations. Respond to the following questions/topics: 

1. Summarize the article with an eye on the author’s main point. 

2. How does this article contribute to contemporary thinking about research? 

3. How does this article illustrate the importance of using research to make decisions within an organization? 

4. How can information in this article be applied to your field?

5. What is your opinion on the topic of this article? 

Your APA-formatted response must be a minimum of three pages in length (not including the title page and the reference page). Your sources must be peer-reviewed. All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations. 

Q Academy of Management Review
2017, Vol. 42, No. 4, 577–595.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0044Invited

2016 Decade Award Invited Article

REFLECTIONS ON THE 2016 DECADE AWARD: INCORPORATING
CONTEXT IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH

GARY JOHNS
Concordia University and University of British Columbia

This is a reflection on my 2006 article, “The Essential Impact of Context on Organiza-
tional Behavior,” which received the 2016 Academy of Management Review Decade
Award. I review some studies supporting my earlier contention that the impact of context
has been underappreciated in management research and then recount the genesis of
the article, particularly emphasizing the capacity of context to explain anomalous and
counterintuitive research findings. I offer conjectures as to why the article has been cited
and present evidence that contextual appreciation is increasing in management, and
that this is part of a general trend in the social and behavioral sciences. I discuss some
newer theories and measures of context and consider the desirable properties of theo-
ries that incorporate context. Finally, I argue that it is not easy to control away context,
that context is about similarities as well as differences and about change as well as
stability, and that variables and relationships vary in their sensitivity to context.

The purpose of this article is to offer some re-
flections on “The Essential Impact of Context on
Organizational Behavior” (Johns, 2006), the re-
cipient of the 2016 AMR Decade Award. I was
surprised to learn that the context article had re-
ceived the award, because its contribution to
theory is less traditional in approach than that of
most AMR articles, and one reviewer disliked the
manuscript in all of its iterations. Furthermore,
the subject of the article is not my main scholarly
preoccupation. However, I had visited the topic of
context earlier (Johns, 1991, 1993, 2001), and I
thought I had something more to say on the mat-
ter, even though that initial 1991 effort was first
rejected by AMR, to my distinct displeasure!

A PRÉCIS OF THE ARTICLE

The basic premise of the 2006 article was that
the impact of context on organizational behavior
is underrecognized and underappreciated. I
rather broadly defined context as situational or
environmental constraints and opportunities that
have the functional capacity to affect the occur-
rence and meaning of organizational behavior.
Contextual stimuli can be located at, above, or
below a focal level of analysis and can operate as
main or moderator effects. I offered several ways

of thinking about context, including context as
salient situational features, situational strength,
cross-level effects, configurations of stimuli, en-
vironmental events, situational shapers of
meaning, and a fairly constant ambient back-
ground factor. The point of the article was not that
context had never been studied before. Rather, it
was that it should be incorporated more mindfully
and systematically into our research.
In the article I argued that it is helpful to think

about context as operating at a broader, more gen-
eral, more distal level (omnibus context) and a nar-
rower, more specific, more proximal level (discrete
context), with the latter usually roughly nested un-
der the former and serving as a mediator of more
distal effects. I suggested that the journalistic im-
peratives to report who, what, when, where, and
why exemplify omnibus context. Drawing on social
and environmental psychology, I asserted that dis-
crete context comprised task, social, and physical
stimuli. I proposed that more important aspects of
these context dimensions are theoretically perva-
sive and operate at multiple levels of analysis. For
instance, the task variables uncertainty, autonomy,
and interdependence appear in a variety of man-
agement theories and have been applied at levels
ranging from individuals to industries. Despite this,
there are fewer theories of such variables (Whetten,
2009) and even fewer literature reviews focusing on
such variables than one might expect. And if they
are not explicitly modeled and measured, they are

I thank Blake Ashforth, Aparna Joshi, and Sharon Parker for
comments that improved this article.

577
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0044Invited

often simply ignored, despite their proven influence
on organizational behavior.

In what I consider to be the core of the article, I
provided a number of examples of how context
affects organizational behavior and related re-
search results by restricting range, determining
base rates, reversing causality, reversing signs,
prompting curvilinearity, and tipping relation-
ships. A key argument was that many anomalous
research findings can be explained when context
is taken into consideration. Unrecognized, context
effects can threaten internal validity, challenge
external validity, and limit the application of
management research. Recognized, such effects
can identify boundary conditions for theories, of-
fer opportunities to enlarge the scope of theories,
and facilitate research application.

The article concluded with some ways to con-
textualize research (see also Rousseau & Fried,
2001) and its reportage, along with relevant ex-
amples. In design terms, I encouraged cross-level,
comparative, and qualitative research, as well as
the study of processes and events. I also encour-
aged the provision of more qualitative data in
conjunction with otherwise quantitative designs,
particularly to facilitate future meta-analyses. In
terms of measurement and analysis, I placed
special emphasis on the choice of dependent
variables, with “more and varied” being the pre-
scription. The general idea of this is to identify
variables that are differentially susceptible to
contextual opportunities and constraints. This
prescription contrasts with disciplinary conven-
tions to dwell on a rather limited range of de-
pendent variables (as in strategy) or to study
a plethora of seemingly similar dependent vari-
ables one by one, in isolation (as in organizational
behavior). I discouraged the cavalier designation
of contextual features as control variables,
a point I will reemphasize in this article. Finally, I
encouraged better reporting of context, particu-
larly in the omnibus domains of who or what is
studied and when, where, and why the research
is conducted.

SOME DATA ON THE PROBLEM

During the review process, I was fortunate that
no one asked for proof that context had been
neglected in the organizational sciences, since I
did not really have any data to this effect. Since
then, however, some empirical evidence has
emerged for the contention. Gorgievski and

Stephan (2016) examined 142 articles concerning
the psychology of entrepreneurship published
between 2000 and 2015. Only eight articles ex-
plored context at any level of analysis. A compi-
lation of 373 articles on leadership published
between 1990 and 2005 concluded that only 16
percent “took into account the organizational
context to at least a moderate extent” (Porter &
McLaughlin, 2006: 561), and a review of 52 articles
concerning knowledge sharing concluded that 31
were “context free” and only 7 were decidedly
context aware (Sergeeva & Andreeva, 2016).
Cronin, Weingart, and Todorovic (2011) enu-

merated the articles on workgroups and teams
published in six prominent management journals
in 2010. Only 16 percent of the group-level con-
structs studied were contextual (e.g., resource
levels, presence of intergroup competition), and
over half of these were employed as control vari-
ables rather than employed substantively. Simi-
larly, a review of team diversity research
concluded “overwhelmingly . . . contextual vari-
ables were considered as control variables rather
than directly incorporated into study hypotheses”
(Joshi & Roh, 2007: 29). Maloney, Bresman, Zellmer-
Bruhn, and Beaver (2016) rated the richness of the
contextual descriptions included in 271 teams
articles published between 2004 and 2013. Only 25
percent provided rich descriptions that addressed
the social, physical, organizational, and in-
dustrial nature of the research settings, while 29
percent provided no contextual information at all.
The remaining articles simply provided the geo-
graphic location of the research site. Given all
of this, it is fair to conclude that “much extant
research treats groups as closed systems”
(Kouchaki, Okhuysen, Waller, & Tajeddin,
2012: 171).
Although these findings present a rather neg-

ative picture, it must be remembered that they are
necessarily looking backward rather than for-
ward. As things progress, I will present additional
evidence that changes have occurred in the ap-
preciation of context in and beyond the manage-
ment discipline. These changes should be
reflected in such reviews in the future.

THE GENESIS OF THE ARTICLE

Over the years, as a reviewer of manuscripts, I
had been struck by the frequency with which re-
searchers attempted to test hypotheses that could
almost certainly not be confirmed given the

578 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

apparent distribution of at least one of the vari-
ables in question. Technically, this is a problem of
restriction of range, in which there is not enough
variance in a variable to detect an underlying
true-score association with another variable. In
essence, researchers are studying things that
don’t exist, because they have sampled from an
inappropriate context. It is tempting to write this
off as a methodological error and something that
should have been resolved before the data were
even collected (see Aguinis & Vandenberg, 2014).
However, I began to discern that constraints on
behavior (which lead either to direct restriction of
range or to an inappropriate range of response to
address the question at hand) were equally
a property of substance, not just methodological
choice, and were often inherent in the context
chosen for a study (Johns, 1991). Hence, trying to
validate the existence of a need hierarchy using
respondents from a single occupation is probably
a methodological misstep, but the collected data
will still accurately reflect the reality of occupa-
tional constraints and opportunities for that
sample, such as they are. The bottom line here is
that the interplay among theory, data, and method
cannot be avoided (Van Maanen, Sørensen, &
Mitchell, 2007).

At about this same time, I read a book chapter
that cited a survey indicating a work absenteeism
rate of 14 percent in Italy and 1 percent in Swit-
zerland, Italy’s next-door neighbor (Steers &
Rhodes, 1984). Subsequently, I read a meta-
analysis of the relationship between job perfor-
mance and turnover that recorded turnover rates
ranging from 3 percent to 106 percent for the an-
alyzed samples (McEvoy & Cascio, 1987). These
data suggested strong respective effects for na-
tional and organizational context. As an absen-
teeism researcher struggling to account for an
additional percentage point of variance in
individual-level absence, I found such effects
most impressive, and I knew that the Swiss were
not that much healthier than Italians. This insight,
of course, required a shift in level of analysis, as
an appreciation of context often does, with the
caution that collective rates of behavior are not
reflecting the same pool of variance as individual
behavior. Nevertheless, I saw the value of being
attentive to levels effects (Hackman, 2003) some-
what before it became fashionable, and this set
the stage for thinking about context. One concrete
outcome of this was the development and re-
finement of the absence culture construct

(Nicholson & Johns, 1985), which specifies how
individual employee absenteeism levels are
markedly determined by the social context, in-
cluding workgroup peer behavior, occupational
norms, social class dynamics, and manifestations
of national culture. This construct complemented
the prevailing individual-level ethos that absen-
tees were ill, unethical, or job dissatisfied.
During this period, a number of surveys

appeared in the literature documenting the fail-
ure of organizations to adopt various scientifi-
cally validated human resources (HR) practices.
It seemed to me that this paradox could be
explained in part by applying the massive liter-
ature on innovation to the context in which such
practices are actually implemented. In particular,
I argued that scholars tend to frame valid HR
practices as technical innovations while man-
agers frame them as administrative innovations
(Johns, 1993). Practices associated with the latter
are more likely to be seen as matters of manage-
rial style and taste, offering more freedom of
choice and more openness to nonexpert influence.
All of this induces uncertainty, allowing contex-
tual factors such as institutional forces, govern-
ment regulation, organizational politics, and
management fads and fashions to overwhelm
technical merit as a determinant of HR practice
adoption (cf. Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol, 2008). The
overarching point was that not understanding the
context in which organizational innovations are
enacted contributes to the so-called relevance
gap or science-practice gap for management
research.
Perhaps the most impactful factor that shaped

the genesis of the Decade Award manuscript was
my collection, over the years, of a number of arti-
cles revealing (sometimes extremely) counterin-
tuitive results that appeared to be attributable to
contextual factors. These results included dra-
matic sign reversals, reversals of causality, and
reversals of conventional scholarly wisdom that
were understandable when put in context (Johns,
2001). Thus, workers can feel more controlled un-
der self-management than under bureaucratic
control (Barker, 1993), convenience stores with
friendlier personnel can have lower sales (Sutton
& Rafaeli, 1988), employees can choose to work
off-site when they don’t really want to do so
(Rockmann & Pratt, 2015), and more domain ex-
perts on corporate boards can increase the chan-
ces of organizational failure (Almandoz & Tilcsik,
2016).

2017 579Johns

Similar to the investigative journalism dictum
to “follow the money,” such anomalies and para-
doxes are signals to look for the operation of
context, and they often constitute “empirical
mysteries” that can serve as a basis for theorizing
(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007), in the spirit of the
recently established Academy of Management
Discoveries. Consider the supply chain position
paradox (Schmidt, Foerstl, & Schaltenbrand,
2017). Schmidt and colleagues correctly pre-
dicted that green supply chain practices would
facilitate firm market and financial performance,
and that such practices would be most common
lower in the supply chain. However, they in-
correctly anticipated that the link between green
practices and performance would be stronger
lower in the chain; in fact, upstream firms profited
more from going green, despite their general ret-
icence to do so. Applying an explicitly contextual
frame, the authors were able to theorize an ex-
planation for the paradox based on factors such
as stakeholder attention, green practice maturity,
and economies of scope.

Sign reversals are among the most common
research anomalies. Weyman and Clarke (2003)
studied the degree of perceived danger of various
questionable working practices among English
underground coal mining personnel, finding that
those who were physically and experientially
closer to the actual work (e.g., miners, as opposed
to managers) were most likely to view the prac-
tices as risky. It is easy enough to concoct a theory
to explain these results, but it is much harder to
simultaneously incorporate the results of Östberg
(1980), whose study Weyman and Clarke were
replicating. Studying Swedish forestry personnel,
Östberg found a distance-danger gradient pre-
cisely the opposite—those closer to the work
found the various questionable working practices
less risky! Although the reason for this particular
sign reversal is not clear, careful analysis of the
context will often yield explanatory dividends.
For instance, Bresman and Zellmer-Bruhn (2013)
found that more organizational structure gener-
ally hurt the external learning of self-managed
pharmaceutical teams but facilitated learning
when the teams themselves lacked structure.
Similarly, in a recent meta-analysis concerning
gender differences in negotiation, the researchers
concluded that while, on average, men obtained
better economic outcomes than women, this effect
was actually reversed to favor women when the
negotiation context was role congruent for women

(i.e., negotiating for another person, bargaining
range specified; Mazei et al., 2015). This finding
supports Yoder and Khan’s (2003) contention that
contexts themselves are gendered and that
established gender effects can be greatly modi-
fied by context.
All three of these examples of sign reversals

suggest how an appreciation of context can de-
marcate theoretical boundary conditions con-
cerning underlying processes (Busse, Kach, &
Wagner, in press), but they simultaneously invite
us to incorporate context into our theories
(Bamberger, 2008; Maloney et al., 2016), thus en-
larging their scope. For a thorough discussion of
such sign reversals, see Cavarretta, Trinchera,
Choi, and Hannah (2016).
These rather dramatic opposite effects should

not obscure the fact that context often operates in
a more nuanced way. For instance, Latham and
Erez had to conduct a meticulous series of repli-
cations to uncover how subtle contextual varia-
tions led one of these researchers to conclude that
participation in goal setting enhanced goal com-
mitment while the other researcher did not (see
Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). Sometimes, salient
situational features have little impact because
their effects are countervailed by other features
that comprise context. In other cases, apparently
minor changes in context have big effects be-
cause of tipping mechanisms (Johns, 2006). For
example, Konrad, Kramer, and Urkut (2008) de-
scribed how the dynamic of corporate boards
changes when the number of women directors
reaches or exceeds the critical mass of three.

WHY HAS THE DECADE AWARD ARTICLE
BEEN CITED?

The AMR editor asks the authors of Decade
Award articles to reflect on the reasons these ar-
ticles have been cited. In the spirit of the subject
matter at hand, one reason is, well . . . context!
That is, the 2006 article appeared at an opportune
time, corresponding to a trend away from uni-
versalism and toward a more nuanced and con-
tingent view of natural and social phenomena. In
addition, this trend has occurred across disci-
plines, underlining the fact that context is rele-
vant to a wide range of scholarly pursuits.
In his book Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is

Just Right for Life, the physicist Paul Davies pro-
poses that “the laws of physics might be just local
by-laws” (2007: 166). By this he means that thelaws

580 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

of physics might vary over the universe or over
time, rather than applying universally. Many
other disciplines and areas of study outside
of management have been experiencing calls
for greater attention to context, including soft-
ware engineering and development (Clarke &
O’Connor, 2012), information systems (Davison &
Martinsons, 2016; Hong, Chan, Thong, Chasalow,
& Dhillon, 2014; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2016),
information and communication technology
(Senarathne Tennakoon, da Silveira, & Taras,
2013), supply chain management (Schmidt et al.,
2017), gender studies (Yoder & Kahn, 2003), com-
munity psychology (Calvard, 2015), social psy-
chology (Reis, 2008), personality psychology
(Rauthmann, Sherman, & Funder, 2015; Rentfrow,
2010), positive psychology (McNulty & Fincham,
2012), intelligence (Sternberg, 2004), cognition
(Smith & Semin, 2004), memory and aging (Hess,
2005), immunology (Morey, Boggero, Scott, &
Segerstrom, 2015), health (Short & Mollborn, 2015;
Weibe, Helgeson, & Berg, 2016), safety (Rosness,
Blakstad, Forseth, Dahle, & Wiig, 2012), criminol-
ogy (Smith, Torstensson, & Johansson, 2001), and
public administration (O’Toole & Meier, 2015).
Special sections and issues of Social Science &
Medicine (Placing Health in Context, November
2007), American Psychologist (Geography and
Psychology, September 2010), European Journal of
Personality (European Personality Reviews, May/
June 2015), Journal of Personality (Contextualized
Identities, December 2007), Human-Computer In-
teraction (Context-Aware Computing, issues 2–4,
2001), and Journal of Information Technology (De-
bates and Perspectives, September 2016) signal
the thrust of this phenomenon. Given all this, it is
not surprising that the management discipline
has also exhibited increased interest in context,
a point that will be documented below. To its
credit, our discipline, in fact, served as a bell-
wether in this regard, with prescient attention de-
voted to issues concerning context (Cappelli &
Sherer,1991;Hattrup& Jackson,1996;Heath& Sitkin,
2001; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; Rousseau & Fried,
2001). Much of this work makes the point that such
attention should indeed be a core competence of
the management discipline.

I believe another reason the article has been
cited resides in its simple explication of levels of
context. In this sense, the article complemented
the growing interest in levels of analysis in
the organizational sciences (Klein & Koslowski,
2000), the rise of cross-cultural research, and the

emergence of “big science” that cuts across dis-
ciplinary boundaries (and, hence, levels of
analysis). Some of the most elaborate applica-
tions of the AMR context article to frame new
theory (e.g., Dierdorff, Rubin, & Morgeson, 2009;
McFarland & Ployhart, 2015) or provide advice
concerning the contextualization of specific re-
search areas (e.g., Bell, Fisher, Brown, & Mann, in
press; Joshi & Roh, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2016)
have made particular use of the roughly nested
multilevel division between discrete and omni-
bus context. This division solves the practical
problem of how to use the concept of context to
describe something as broad as a cross-cultural
comparison or as specific as the comparison of
various work designs in a single organization. To
some extent it also addresses the issue of where
lower levels of context originate. Thus, local work
designs are neither random nor the exclusive
product of managerial choice but, instead, stem
from contextual factors at several levels, in-
cluding global, national, occupational, and or-
ganizational (Parker, Van den Broeck, & Holman,
2017).
Finally, and perhaps paradoxically, the article

has been cited because of the recognized impli-
cations of contextual appreciation for both theory
building and practice. Concerning theorization,
this is perhaps best exemplified by the pace of
change in the organizational landscape. A num-
ber of authors have speculated explicitly about
how extant management theories might not be
relevant to the changing context of work and
organizations, and the speed with which such
change has occurred has often removed con-
text from the murky background and given it
a more salient, event-like status. Thus, Benner
and Tushman (2015) questioned whether extant
theories of innovation and constructs such as
boundary spanning, absorptive capacity, and
transaction costs are still applicable as the cost of
information acquisition, processing, and storage
rapidly approaches nil. Similarly, McFarland and
Ployhart (2015) discussed in detail how current
versions of social contagion theory, social ex-
change theory, and social network theory might
have to be augmented or revised in light of the
growing dominance of social media.
On the applied side of the coin, scholars have

called attention to the limitations of acontextual
“best practices” thinking, as it is commonly
employed (Andrews, 2012; Benner & Tushman,
2015; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). For instance, vom

2017 581Johns

Brocke, Zelt, and Schmiedel (2016) discussed the
prevalence of project failures in business process
management (BPM), noting that BPM best prac-
tices are derived from a specific structured busi-
ness context that is dissimilar to many of the
settings where it has been attempted with poor
success; as 3M discovered, you can’t engineer
creativity (Paul & Fenlason, 2014). Fostering an
appreciation of the social and business context has
been a particular preoccupation of researchers in
information systems and technology, where one-
size-fits-all information solutions have proven es-
pecially untenable (Dwivedi et al., 2015).

Also in the applied domain, contextual appre-
ciation alerts us to consider the most appropriate
nexus for work and organizational interventions.
For instance, fostering excellent service in the
tourism sector could rely on individual-level
training, but service is also susceptible to team,
organizational, and occupational influences, as
well as institutional regimes and national eco-
nomic initiatives (cf. Hong, Liao, Raub, & Han,
2016; Parker, Van den Broeck, & Holman, 2017).
Understanding the complex linkages among such
contextual factors and effectiveness indicators is
a subject of paramount concern for the organiza-
tional sciences (Goodman, 2000).

A SEA CHANGE?

Although it is possible to document a lack of
systematic attention to contextual issues in
management research, as illustrated earlier,
there is definite evidence of a change of direction
in recent years. Special issues of Human Re-
lations (The Context of Leadership, November
2009), Journal of Organizational Behavior (Spec-
ifying Organizational Contexts, October 2007;
Putting Job Design in Context, February 2010;
Contextualizing Creativity and Innovation
Across Cultures, October 2015), Personnel Psy-
chology (The Global Context and People at Work,
Spring 2014), Management and Organization
Review (Country Context in Management Re-
search, November 2014), Culture and Organiza-
tion (The Territorial Organization, issue 3, 2013),
and International Studies of Management &
Organization (issue 3, 2006) all speak to in-
creased interest in context, as have invited ar-
ticles (Härtel & O’Connor, 2014; Johns, 2001) and
editorials in the Academy of Management
Journal (Bamberger, 2008; Bamberger & Pratt,
2010; George, 2014), Academy of Management

Learning & Education (Egri, 2013), Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior (Griffin, 2007; Rousseau
& Fried, 2001), Journal of Trust Research (Li, 2014),
Journal of Management & Organization (Galvin,
2014), and Journal of International Business
Studies (Cuervo-Cazurra, Andersson, Brannen,
Nielsen, & Reuber, 2016).
Underlining both the perceived need for at-

tention to context and the argued increased in-
terest in the subject, many “how to incorporate
context” articles have appeared in the organi-
zational behavior literature, spanning such
subjects as teams (Maloney et al., 2016), forgive-
ness (Bies, Barclay, Tripp, & Aquino, 2016), resil-
ience (Kossek & Perrigino, 2016), and social
status (Li, Chen, & Blader, 2016). Perhaps more
surprising is recognition of a context deficit, with
suggested remedies, in a field like entrepre-
neurship (Welter, 2011; Zahra, 2007; Zahra,
Wright, & Abdelgawad, 2014), which has its
scholarly roots in the conviction that the domi-
nant paradigm in business research gave in-
adequate attention to the distinctive situational
aspects of founding a business from scratch.
Similar calls for contextual attention have been
made in other more macro areas of scholarship
that might already be thought to be contextu-
alized, including international management
and business (Jack et al., 2011; Michailova,
2011), enterprise sustainability (Shrivastava &
Kennelly, 2013), corporate social responsibility
(Athanasopoulou & Selsky, 2015), networks
(Sorenson & Stuart, 2008), organizational politics
(Courpasson, Dany, & Delbridge, 2017), knowledge
management (Thompson & Walsham, 2004), stra-
tegic decision making (Shepherd & Rudd, 2014),
and strategic HRM (Kim & Wright, 2010).
In recent years context has also been used ex-

plicitly to frame meta-analyses in such domains
as job characteristics (Wegman, Hoffman, Carter,
Twenge, & Guenole, in press), team diversity
(Joshi & Roh, 2009), and gender differences in
performance and rewards (Joshi, Son, & Roh, 2015),
and narrative literature reviews in such domains
as decision making (Larrick, 2016), HRM (Cooke,
Veen, & Wood, 2017), and strategic decision mak-
ing (Shepherd & Rudd, 2014).
Finally, heightened interest in context is re-

flected by new theories and measures of context,
as well as by the increased deployment of re-
search designs that facilitate contextual un-
derstanding. I discuss these subjects in the
following section.

582 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

SOME NEWER THEORIES, MEASURES, AND
RESEARCH DESIGNS PERTINENT TO CONTEXT

The best way to stimulate the contextualization
of research is to develop theories and measures
that incorporate context (Whetten, 2009). Thus, it is
encouraging to see the emergence of several
theories that specify how context affects organi-
zational behavior and several measures that
capture or reflect this context. Elsewhere I review
some of these theories and measures in more de-
tail (Johns, in press). Here I provide several ex-
amples to illustrate some desirable properties of
theories having to do with context. I also consider
a couple of research designs to probe context.

Theories

Promising theories incorporating context in-
clude trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003),
theory of interpersonal situations (Kelley et al.,
2003), theory of managerial role requirements
(Dierdorff et al., 2009), event system theory
(Morgeson, Mitchell, & Liu, 2015), contextual the-
ory of social media (McFarland & Ployhart, 2015),
contextual distance theory of international stra-
tegic alliance performance (Li, Tian, & Wan, 2015),
theory of purposeful work behavior (Barrick,
Mount, & Li, 2013), theory of work-role perfor-
mance (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007), too-much-of-
a-good-thing theory (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013), CEO
in context theory (Hambrick & Quigley, 2014),
theory of communication context (Adair, Buchan,
Chen, & Liu, 2016), and contextual theory of orga-
nizational discourse (Sillince, 2007).

A useful theory incorporating context provides
an orderly way to proceed with research. This is
especially important in the case of context, be-
cause situations or environments have a plethora
of distinctive features that are, in principle, all
open to scrutiny. A good theory addresses which
contextual features are most important given the
other variables under consideration and suggests
how to systematically package contextual fea-
tures for empirical study. For more microlevel
theories, the importance of contextual features
hinges on their “psychologically active in-
gredients” (Reis, 2008: 313) vis-à-vis the other
variables in the theory, or what Dalal, Bhave, and
Fiset call the “psychological content of situations”
(2014: 1413). For instance, the core of trait activa-
tion theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003) is a matrix of five
personality traits (the Big Five) by three levels or

dimensions of context (task, social, and organi-
zational) by four nested situational mediators of
these dimensions (demands, constraints, dis-
tractors, and releasers) that might or might not
psychologically activate the trait in question to
affect job performance. One obviously cannot do
justice to such a large matrix in a single study.
However, it is entirely feasible to examine a sin-
gle row or column: When does task, social, or or-
ganizational context activate conscientiousness
to facilitate performance? How does social con-
text differentially activate the Big Five to affect
performance? This efficient approach mitigates
the common problem of a reviewer faulting
a manuscript for a lack of theory because it tests
an apparently random set of moderator effects.
The point is to saw off a piece of the matrix for
investigation, not to throw darts at it.
Good theories specify the levers by which con-

text affects organizational behavior. Although
specifying levers or mechanisms is important for
all theories (Bromiley & Johnson, 2005), it is par-
ticularly important for those incorporating con-
text. This is because such theories often span
levels, traverse a good bit of causal distance be-
tween context and its effects, and/or consist of
omnibus features at their higher levels (e.g., na-
tion or culture), and these characteristics put
a premium on identifying the exact mechanics of
causality. In trait activation theory the nested
situational features (e.g., constraints) are the
proposed mechanisms. In their contextual theory
of social media, McFarland and Ployhart (2015)
specify a number of variables that mediate the
influence of higher-level communication media
context (face to face, digital, or social) on lower-
level psychological outcomes, including the la-
tency, synchronicity, permanence, and anonymity
of communication.
As suggested, the importance of specifying

mediating mechanisms is magnified when the
contextual features under consideration are
more distal and/or broader in specification
(i.e., omnibus context). While distal context ef-
fects are compelling, they do bear the greater
onus of explicating mediators and ruling out
competing explanations. Consider Van de Vliert,
Janssen, and Van der Vegt’s (2016) provocative
findings concerning climate and entrepreneur-
ship. Creating a new business is perceived to be
most difficult in poorer nations with cooler sum-
mers and colder winters and least difficult in
richer nations with warmer winters and hotter

2017 583Johns

summers. This combination of conditions con-
stitutes a three-way interaction, and such a con-
figuration is a legitimate way to represent
context (Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).
Given the archival data the authors used, no direct
evidence was available for the climato-economic
theory that the former nations constituted “threat-
ening environments” and the latter “challenging
environments” for entrepreneurship (cf. hindrance
and challenge stressors; Podsakoff, LePine, &
LePine, 2007). However, the authors were sensi-
tive to competing explanations, examining poten-
tial confounds due to degree of industrialization,
education, democratization, and colonial or com-
munist history.

If there has been a deficit in contextual theo-
rizing, it is most apparent in a basic lack of theo-
ries that treat discrete events as context, that
incorporate change in (or as) context, or that allow
for bottom-up as opposed to top-down contextual
influence. In true Swiss Army Knife tradition,
event system theory (Morgeson et al., 2015) man-
ages to incorporate all three of these important
properties, beginning with events as context.
Events are portrayed as distinct occurrences that
vary in strength (indexed by criticality, novelty,
and disruption), happen at a particular time (but
can evolve temporally), and manifest in a partic-
ular location and level of analysis (but can spread
vertically and horizontally). The interaction of
strength, time, and space is said to constitute an
event system. Very importantly, the theory sug-
gests ways to quantify how processes unfold as
events take their course, a limitation of most
existing process-oriented research.

Measures

Complementing the development of several
theories are some newer measures pertinent to
context. These include the Work Design Ques-
tionnaire (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), Organi-
zational Climate Measure (Patterson et al., 2005),
Work Context Inventory (Pignault & Houssemand,
2016), Situational Strength at Work Scale (Meyer
et al., 2014), Perceptions of Social Context Scale
(e.g., Borgogni, Dello Russo, Petitta, & Vecchione,
2010), and (Communication) Context Dependence
Measure (Adair et al., 2016).

These self-report measures vary in their de-
gree of development, and most are reviewed in
Johns (in press). Perceptual self-reports of context
can be useful when (1) objective measures are

unavailable, (2) researchers wish to tap more
proximal mediators of distal context, (3) these re-
ports can be aggregated to a higher level to proxy
objectivity, or, conversely, (4) individual differ-
ences in perceived context are thought to be likely
and important. Illustrating the last case, for ex-
ample, Powell and Baker (2014) explained how
textile and apparel company founders facing ob-
jectively similar business adversity differentially
viewed it as a threat, an opportunity, or a chal-
lenge, in accordance with their personal identi-
ties. Revisiting a subject as old as psychology
itself, Rauthmann et al. (2015) presented the
groundwork for a theory of psychological situa-
tions in which context can be objective, consen-
sual (case 3 above), or idiosyncratic (case 4
above). However, they also submitted that, as-
suming equivalent objective cue exposure, peo-
ple will tend to agree on the nature of
environmental opportunities and constraints, in
part because of wired-in evolutionary forces for
survival. This argument would suggest that
Powell and Baker’s entrepreneurs attended to
different contextual cues in accordance with their
variations in identity, despite all facing objective
business adversity.
All of this being said, recent theories in-

corporating context show a decided bias for ob-
jective context, whatever else might be measured.
Thus, the authors of some of the theories listed
earlier are explicit in their preference for the ob-
jective representation of context (event system
theory [Morgeson et al., 2015], theory of in-
terpersonal situations [Kelley et al., 2003]). In other
cases this preference can be inferred from the
design of supporting research (theory of mana-
gerial role requirements [Dierdorff et al., 2009],
CEO in context theory [Hambrick & Quigley, 2014])
or deduced from the structure of the theory itself
(contextual theory of social media [McFarland &
Ployhart, 2015]). Furthermore, there is copious
empirical evidence for the impact of objective
context without recourse to perceptions. Virtually
all of the examples given in the Decade Award
article and many in Johns (in press) entail objec-
tive context. I admit to being perplexed by the
ongoing debate among entrepreneurship
scholars about whether entrepreneurial opportu-
nities are “real” contextual entities or mere per-
ceptions on the part of entrepreneurs (see
Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016). In particular, I fail to
see how the latter position accounts for the nota-
ble variation in entrepreneurial activity across

584 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

states and regions, which differentially attract,
shape, and reward those inclined toward entre-
preneurship (Bergmann & Hundt, 2016; Bergmann,
Hundt, & Sternberg, 2016; Obschonka, Schmitt-
Rodermund, Silbereisen, Gosling, & Potter, 2013).

Designs

As noted earlier, the Decade Award article in-
cluded some advice for designing research that
can probe context, including the use of cross-level
and comparative designs, the study of events and
processes, and the collection of qualitative data.
Here I would simply underline a couple of designs
that have shown a good track record in the ensu-
ing decade: multilevel modeling and configural
designs.

One major purpose of multilevel modeling is
the examination of the influence of higher-level
entities on lower-level phenomena, perhaps the
most common conceptualization of a context ef-
fect. For example, Hong et al. (2016) showed how
the personal initiative of individual hotel em-
ployees was influenced by the initiative climate
of their work departments and how this climate
was itself affected by the extent to which various
hotels had implemented initiative-enhancing HR
systems. The study shows how organizational
and departmental context cascade down to in-
fluence individual motivation, and multilevel
models have now become a common way of in-
corporating context.

Two variations on multilevel modeling are
noteworthy for their added value in studying
context. One involves the incorporation of data
from large-scale databases, either at the higher
levels of analysis or as a basis for the entire
study. For instance, Jiang and Probst (2017) used
individual-level data concerning job insecurity
and burnout from the International Social Survey
Program and country-level income inequality
data from the Standardized World Income In-
equality Database to show that increasing in-
equality exacerbates the relationship between
insecurity and burnout. They also replicated the
effect at the U.S. state level by combining their
own original survey data on individual insecurity
and burnout with state-level inequality data
from the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps
program.

The other noteworthy variation on multilevel
modeling is experience sampling, which in-
volves the repeated measurement of ongoing

experiences (e.g., concerning the work context
and work stress) in a naturalistic setting, ac-
counting for context effects both within and be-
tween respondents (Uy, Foo, & Aguinis, 2010). The
technique is multilevel in that, minimally, re-
peated experiences are nested under individuals,
organizations, or some other unit of analysis. Us-
ing repeated measurement, experience sampling
is particularly useful for studying two important
phenomena: (1) changes in context over time and
(2) the impact of specific events that can constitute
such changes. The technique has been used with
particular success to examine how changes in the
work context (e.g., stressor events) affect health
and well-being (Ilies, Aw, & Lim, 2016).
Configural designs have also been used with

success to understand contextual influence.
Among other things, such designs can accom-
modate the complexity that can be characteristic
of context effects (MacDougall, Baur, Novicevic, &
Buckley, 2014). This complexity is inherent in the
sheer number of contextual features that might be
relevant, the possibility of synergistic or non-
linear relationships, and the likelihood that more
than one combination of contextualfeatures could
result in a given outcome (viz. equifinality; Fiss,
2007). Illustrating the last point, Joshi et al. (2015)
used a configural design in conjunction with
meta-analysis to show that women employed in
more routine jobs received higher performance
ratings than men when the industry in question
had a higher proportion of women executives or
the occupation in question was characterized by
gender balance. The opportunity to identify such
equifinal substitution effects is a particular
strength of configural designs, which represent
combinations of variables as typologies or
(sometimes) taxonomies. This approach has per-
haps been most commonly used to identify par-
ticular “bundles” of HR practices—typologies that
are associated with pursuing certain organiza-
tional strategies. These bundles both constitute
a work context for employees and emerge from the
larger organizational context in which the prac-
tices are embedded, thus providing a dual lesson
in context. As a case in point, Toh, Morgeson, and
Campion (2008) found that organizations tended to
adopt one of five distinct bundles of HR practices
(e.g., oriented toward cost minimization or toward
maximizing employee commitment) and that this
adoption corresponded to a fit with organizational
values and structure. The authors contended that
the idea that organizations freely choose their HR

2017 585Johns

practices neglects the operation of contextual
constraints, not to mention the synergy or lack
thereof between or among certain of these
practices.

THE VALUE OF CONTEXTUAL APPRECIATION

A few examples can highlight the value of
building a more contextual perspective into re-
search. I can only agree with Hackman (2003) that
it is useful to bracket one’s preferred level of
analysis by also incorporating appropriate data
from a higher and a lower level of analysis. That
having been said, it is striking how often looking
to higher levels can prove fruitful. For instance,
the notion of work safety climate was proposed in
part to deal with the limitations of viewing safety
from an exclusively individual-level perspective,
which is best reflected in the idea of personal
accident proneness. Over the years, considerable
research has accumulated showing that this
work unit or organizational contextual variable
is notably associated with safety-related behav-
iors, as well as work accidents and injuries
(Beus, McCord, & Zohar, 2016; Christian, Bradley,
Wallace, & Burke, 2009). However, research also
suggests the value of putting safety climate itself
into context, moving up yet another level. In
a twenty-one-country study, Noort, Reader,
Shorrock, and Kirwan (2016) found that national
variation in uncertainty avoidance was related
to the safety climate responses of air traffic con-
trol employees, with more avoidance pointing to
a less favorable climate. Similarly, Burke, Chan-
Serafin, Salvador, Smith, and Sarpy (2008) de-
termined that national uncertainty avoidance
moderated the relationship between safety
training and safety outcomes, rendering training
less effective at higher levels of avoidance. Con-
textual effects can be paradoxical, and Burke and
colleagues make the point: trying to ensure pre-
dictability can induce rigidity of response, ulti-
mately escalating uncertainty and damaging
safety effectiveness.

The value of contextual appreciation in re-
solving organizational anomalies should be re-
iterated. De Rond and Lok (2016) explain that
noncombat medical personnel exhibit post-
traumatic stress at the same rate as combat sol-
diers, despite the fact that medical personnel are
not directly engaged in fighting and have con-
siderable past experience dealing with trauma.
The authors assert that psychological injury due

to war has often been “explained” by referencing
individual inability to cope or by obtusely refer-
encing the work setting (i.e., “war is hell”). How-
ever, employing an explicit contextual frame,
their ethnographic research among military
medical teams in Afghanistan showed how dis-
crete, specific features of the occupational and
organizational context contributed to elevated
psychological injury by engendering feelings of
futility, senselessness, and surreality among the
medics. Importantly, these factors seem action-
able in terms of potential for change, highlight-
ing the aforementioned relevance of context to
practice.
Given the premise that context has been ig-

nored or treated in a haphazard manner in the
past, it can be suggested that there is consider-
able scope for re-viewing traditional research
topics with a more contextual lens. In Johns (in
press), I discuss how our understanding of several
traditional variables that have generally been
treated at the individual level (personality, de-
mographics, and work design) has been consid-
erably augmented by a contextual perspective.
Thus, some contemporary researchers see per-
sonality as modifiable by context, portray de-
mography as context imported into the
organization, and position much work design as
a product of contextual change rather than man-
agerial dictate. For instance, personality has
been shown to vary between nations, regions,
states, cities, and life spaces (e.g., work versus
nonwork) in ways that suggest considerable
contextual influence, both in terms of shaping and
self-selection (Johns, in press).
Finally, the value of contextual appreciation

can be seen in conjunction with what has been
called the “replication crisis”—the inability to
reproduce previously published research find-
ings, a phenomenon observed across a wide
range of disciplines. For instance, in psychology,
the Reproducibility Project involved 270 re-
searchers in the Open Science Collaboration
(2015) attempting to replicate 100 published ef-
fects, of which only 39 percent were clearly
reproduced. This is not the kind of finding that
inspires the confidence of granting agencies,
policy makers, or the general public. However,
there is growing awareness that variation in
contextual factors may be responsible for many
failures to replicate. Van Bavel, Mende-Siedlecki,
Brady, and Reinero (2016) had coders rate the
original 100 Reproducibility Project studies as to

586 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

how sensitive each research topic would be to
contextual variation over time, location, or cul-
ture. Contextual sensitivity was negatively re-
lated to replicability and, hence, to external
validity. Also, it had a larger effect than the sam-
ple size of the original study, the technical simi-
larity of the replication, the original effect size,
and the degree of surprise of the original finding,
all factors that might plausibly influence re-
producibility. I will return to context sensitivity
later in the article.

SOME UNDERAPPRECIATED TRUTHS
ABOUT CONTEXT

It Is Not Easy to Control Away Context

It is a common misconception that it is easy to
control away or remove the impact of context in
a research study using simple statistical pro-
cedures, and a typical approach is to include
contextual variables as controls in a regression
equation with predictors of substantive interest.
Like most research myths and legends (Lance &
Vandenberg, 2015), there is a grain of truth to this
belief. However, as has been discussed in a num-
ber of recent articles (well summarized by Becker
et al., 2016), many deployments of control vari-
ables in the organizational sciences are ill-
advised. In most cases simple statistical control
is inferior to more mindful procedural control in
which the operation of context is explicitly mod-
eled and examined, even if it is not of central in-
terest to theresearcher. An anecdote by DiMaggio
(1995) illustrates the point: after making a pre-
sentation about network effects, a member of
the audience queried why DiMaggio had not
shown an interest in organizational size, which
explained twice as much variance in his orga-
nizational outcomes. Admitting that he did not
find size very interesting, DiMaggio implied that
the search for novelty often leads to attempts to
control away context so as to focus on something
else. In contrast to this, Maloney et al. (2016) ad-
vise teams scholars to examine previous re-
search for salient context effects that have been
relegated to control status and systematically
study these effects.

In particular for context effects, most applica-
tions of statistical control make a default as-
sumption that violates the basic logic of such
effects. This assumption is that the relationship
between substantive predictors and outcome

variables is the same for all levels of the contex-
tual control variables. However, context effects
can comprise both main effects and interactions
between context variables and substantive vari-
ables of interest. The usual approach in-
corporates main effects but ignores such
interactions, which can constitute critical un-
measured variables. In fact, one of the most
striking context effects is that of an X-shaped
disordinal interaction with no main effects, where
context produces a marked sign reversal in the
predictor-outcome relationship. For example,
Wegman et al. (in press) found little relationship
between the year of publication of research
studies and reported levels of task significance.
However, over the years, accounting for the oc-
cupational context revealed increases in signifi-
cance for samples dominated by women and
decreases for those dominated by men. This ex-
ample calls attention to the fact that the possi-
bility of context effects should be entertained
even in the absence of main effects. However, in
practice, interactions are seldom proposed until
evidence of main effects is found.
While on the subject of main effects versus in-

teractions, there are examples in the literature
where the opposite problem can be observed, in
that researchers examine interaction effects
and altogether ignore main effects. Ployhart
and Schneider (2012) indict the field of personnel
selection for this. Meta-analysis has shown
conclusively that cognitive ability tests predict
performance across a wide range of situations.
That is, context tends not to moderate selection
test validity. According to Ployhart and Schneider,
this important finding has somehow ended up
precluding the search for main effects of context
on performance, its predictors, and indeed the
entire selection process, locking personnel se-
lection in an acontextual unilevel prison of its own
making. Accumulating evidence suggests that
this is a bad idea (Djurdjevic & Wheeler, 2014). For
instance, Ellington and Wilson used multilevel
analysis to determine that “much of what may
often be interpreted as idiosyncratic [perfor-
mance] rater variance, may actually reflect sys-
tematic rating variability across contexts” (2017:
87). One of those contexts is almost surely defined
by workplace politics. Hence, Rosen, Kacmar,
Harris, Gavin, and Hochwarter (2017) demon-
strated that group politics affected the joint effects
of in-role and extra-role behavior on overall per-
formance ratings made by managers. The political

2017 587Johns

contextaffected howinformation was combinedas
managers strove to balance conflict avoidance
with due rating diligence, with extra-role behavior
having an undue influence on overall ratings in
more political contexts.

Context Is About Similarities As Well
As Differences

Context is most commonly invoked to denote
what is distinctive and even unique about situa-
tions or environments. This is apparent from ex-
amining the great majority of the articles that
have cited the Decade Award article, as well as
many other treatments of context, and it is un-
derstandable since it is one of the signature con-
tributions of contextual appreciation. However,
the Latin root of the word “context” pertains to
weaving or knitting together (Rousseau & Fried,
2001), and a clear appreciation of context can lead
to integration, not just differentiation (Johns, in
press). A common example can highlight the
problem of too much differentiation: readers
might be familiar with scholars so immersed in
a particular context (e.g., a strategy Ph.D. student
fascinated by the craft beer industry or an orga-
nizational behavior colleague with extensive
previous experience in health care) that they fail
to see commonalities with other settings, result-
ing in a kind of atheoretical contextual myopia.

As an example of needed integration, consider
the following variables that comprise what
Potočnik and Anderson call the “change and in-
novation literatures” (2016: 481): innovation, cre-
ativity, proactivity, job crafting, voice, taking
charge, personal initiative, and extra-role be-
haviors. While the discriminant validity of these
various concepts is of interest (see Parker &
Collins, 2010), so is the extent to which they
share common contextual antecedents, such as
material resources, social resources, or specific
work design features. Knowing this could inform
us about the likely co-occurrence of these behav-
iors, which are almost always studied in isolation.
This isolation is unfortunate because the de-
ployment of multiple dependent variables is one
excellent way to understand the operation of
context (Johns, 2006). For instance, it is most un-
likely that these eight change variables are the
product of eight wholly distinct contextual pro-
files, and knowing the details of this smaller set of
profiles would provide for integration across re-
search areas, allowing for theory pruning (Leavitt,

Mitchell, & Peterson, 2010) on the one hand and
combining related constructs (Newman, Harrison,
Carpenter, & Rariden, 2016) on the other. Using
scientific mapping, a visual bibliometric tech-
nique, Parker, Morgeson, and Johns (2017) illus-
trate how various traditional theories of work
design (which specify the proximal context of
work) tend to cluster with particular dependent
variables, such as performance versus health and
well-being. This clustering reflects limited in-
tegration across theories, a fact being partially
rectified by some more recent approaches to work
design.
Bell et al. (in press) apply the ideas of omnibus

and discrete context to delineate the situations
faced by “extreme teams.” Such teams operate
under contextual features that are atypical in
level or kind, and where ineffective performance
will have extremely negative consequences. Al-
though such teams are often idiosyncratic or even
unique in character, the authors make the case
that a contextual approach can lead to the needed
accumulation and integration of research results
across studies. This is especially important be-
cause such teams can be hard to access and often
involve small samples, putting a premium on the
gradual accumulation of rather sparse evidence.
Multilevel theories are one way of seeking

integration (Johns, in press). Such theories pro-
pose that the (in this case, contextual) anteced-
ents of organizational phenomena are similar
(i.e., isomorphic or functionally equivalent) across
levels of analysis (cf. Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999).
Thus, theories have been proposed that the basic
contextual antecedents of self-serving behavior
(Johns, 1999) and reputation (Ferris et al., 2014) are
similar for individuals, groups, and organiza-
tions. In addition, the situational antecedents of
interpersonal and interorganizational trust have
been identified as similar (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt,
& Camerer, 1998).

Context Is About Change As Well As Stability

Notwithstanding the earlier contention that the
pace of change has put a premium on a contextual
perspective, there is a tendency to view and por-
tray context as more stable than it really is
(Blalock, 1984), in part because context is a back-
ground factor in much research. A great deal has
been written about planned organizational
change, and some has been written about the
change occasioned by salient organizational

588 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

events and crises. However, natural, ambient
change that accrues gradually has been treated
haphazardly, despite its potential importance. For
example, Wegman et al. (in press) examined the
reported levels of several basic job characteris-
tics (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) over a forty-year
period, finding increases in skill variety, auton-
omy, and interdependence. These changes in job
design represent notable changes in work context
for job incumbents, but they also raise questions
as to the source of such changes. In fact, the
agentic term job design belies the truth that many
jobs are “designed” by changing contextual cir-
cumstances, not by managers (Johns, 2010; Parker,
Van den Broeck, & Holman, 2017). The job design
changes reported by Wegman and colleagues
represent average effects across occupations,
and a finer-grained analysis would surely reveal
both winners and losers in the job design lottery
as constraints and opportunities shake out. No-
where is this more apparent than in the omnibus
changes in work and organizational context
prompted by advances in information technology
and the radically reduced cost of acquiring and
processing information (see Johns, in press). Thus,
Barley (2015) studied how the advent of internet
shopping has severely constrained the autonomy
of car salespeople to manipulate customers. Such
constraints (and countervailing opportunities) are
the essence of context, and they vary over time.

As illustrated by a couple of examples in the
Decade Award article, studies employing ex-
treme longitudinality are especially suited to
uncovering changes in contextual impact. For
instance, Eric Patton and I content analyzed the
coverage of absenteeism from work that
appeared in 2,847 New York Times articles pub-
lished between 1851 and 2010 (Patton & Johns,
2012). Decade-by-decade breakdowns of thematic
content clearly illustrated how the ambient social
context and events of the day shaped views of
absence. Thus, during World War II, absenteeism
was viewed as individual deviance among
Americans, damaging the war effort and contrib-
uting to lives lost on the front. During the Cold
War, the same behavior was viewed as a social
pathology among Russians and Cubans, reflect-
ing anomie stemming from the communist sys-
tem. Hence, context shifts the interpretation of
a commonplace organizational behavior, but this
has its limits. The Times study showed that, across
the decades, and no matter the focus of the article,
absenteeism was virtually always portrayed as

negative behavior, a point mirrored in academic
research on the subject. This raises the issue of
context sensitivity.

Variables and Relationships Vary in Their
Contextual Sensitivity

The fact that context is important should not
obscure the likelihood that some variables and
relationships (i.e., effects) are more sensitive to
context than others. Mapping this degree of sen-
sitivity could elucidate the boundary conditions
that pertain to various theories concerning con-
text. For instance, on the one hand, as noted ear-
lier, the relationship between cognitive ability
and job performance is not very context sensitive,
since the validity of selection tests generalizes
across work situations. On the other hand, recent
research demonstrates that ethical behavior is
notably sensitive to context, illustrating the situ-
ational limits of the dispositional moral compass.
Thus, time pressure, tasks that sap self-regulatory
energy, and even the time of day have been shown
to contribute to unethical behavior. For instance,
Kouchaki and Smith (2014) reported four experi-
ments demonstrating the “morning morality
effect”—the tendency for people to behave more
ethically in the morning rather than later in the
day. Resource depletion over time from coping
with mundane activities is thought to underlie
this and other such effects. Writing about teams
research, Maloney and colleagues advised that
“one approach to context theorizing, then, in-
volves determining where and when teams are
interdependent with the external context, or sus-
ceptible to its influences, and where and when
they are not” (2016: 915).
Van Bavel and colleagues (2016) found that,

with minimal training, raters could agree on the
likely degree of context sensitivity of various
published psychological effects. For instance,
a study of visual statistical learning was rated
low on context sensitivity, whereas one on racial
diversity cues was rated high. As explained ear-
lier, these ratings were negatively related to the
replicability of their associated effects. A working
hypothesis might be that behaviors are more
context sensitive than attitudes, and attitudes are
more context sensitive than values. Similarly,
states should be more context sensitive than
traits.
It should be appreciated that context sensitivity

will often be second-order sensitivity. That is, one

2017 589Johns

variable will exhibit relative sensitivity to context
because a counterpart variable is itself con-
strained by the context (see above for the value of
multiple dependent variables to understand
context). For example, there is meta-analytic evi-
dence that sickness presenteeism (going to work
ill) is more sensitive to work design features than
is sickness absenteeism (Miraglia & Johns, 2016).
At least some of this differential sensitivity may
stem from the fact that organizations go to con-
siderable trouble to prevent absenteeism but
might be completely unaware of presenteeism.
Thus, organizations are stronger situations for
absenteeism than for presenteeism, providing
more and stronger cues as to the (in)advisability
of absence.

In principle, variation in context sensitivity
should be demonstrable using meta-analysis and
meta-analytic regression to illustrate differential
criterion-related validity. For instance, contextual
variables should prove to be more valid pre-
dictors of state measures than trait measures of
some construct. However, in 2017 it pains me to
repeat that “most site descriptions in research
reports . . . can only be described as pallid, often
lacking basic information about variables that
might have a critical impact on the behavior be-
ing studied” (Johns, 1993: 576). Thus, the above-
mentioned meta-analysis of the correlates of
presenteeism involved 109 independent sam-
ples, only 5 of which specified the strictness of
absenteeism policies in operation. Logically,
strict policies against absence should provoke
presenteeism, and this was indeed the strongest
effect out of fifty-five included in the study. Yet
absence policies were virtually unmentioned,
let alone studied as substantive context, thus not
much enabling post hoc coding.

CONCLUSION

It is, of course, very gratifying to have received
the Decade Award and to see that the article has
been of interest to a wide range of scholars in
management and many other disciplines. In the
very spirit of the article, I believe that a tipping
point has now occurred in which the notion of
context will more mindfully and systematically
affect the conception, design, interpretation, and
reportage of research. To be sure, many studies
that incorporate moderator variables, for in-
stance, can be seen to concern context. However, it
is the mindful and systematic aspect that is

sometimes missing, leading to inefficiency in the
accumulation of knowledge. My evidence for
a tipping point comes particularly from the large
number of articles that have appeared that pro-
vide theories, models, reviews, and advice con-
cerning the contextualization of specific research
areas. The Decade Award article was necessarily
somewhat generic, and the tailoring of advice to
specific research domains should go a long way
toward fostering contextual appreciation in every
area of management.

REFERENCES

Adair, W. L., Buchan, N. R., Chen, X.-P., & Liu, D. 2016. A model
of communication context and measure of context depen-
dence. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2: 198–217.

Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2014. An ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality be-
fore data collection. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 569–595.

Almandoz, J., & Tilcsik, A. 2016. When experts become liabil-
ities: Domain experts on boards and organizational fail-
ure. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1124–1149.

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery:
Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of
Management Review, 32: 1265–1281.

Andrews, M. 2012. The logical limits of best practice admin-
istrative solutions in developing countries. Public Ad-
ministration and Development, 32: 137–153.

Athanasopoulou, A., & Selsky, J. W. 2015. The social context of
corporate social responsibility: Enriching research with
multiple perspectives and multiple levels. Business &
Society, 54: 322–364.

Bamberger, P. 2008. Beyond contextualization: Using context
theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management
research. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 839–846.

Bamberger, P. A., & Pratt, M. G. 2010. Moving forward by
looking back: Reclaiming unconventional research con-
texts and samples in organizational scholarship. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 53: 665–671.

Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control
in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 38: 408–437.

Barley, S. R. 2015. Why the internet makes buying a car less
loathsome: How technologies change role relations.
Academy of Management Discoveries, 1: 5–35.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. 2013. The theory of purpo-
sive work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order
goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management
Review, 38: 132–153.

Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards,
J. R., & Spector, P. E. 2016. Statistical control in correla-
tional studies: 10 essential recommendations for organi-
zational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
37: 157–167.

590 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

Bell, S. T., Fisher, D. M., Brown, S. G., & Mann, K. E. In press. An
approach for conducting actionable research with ex-
treme teams. Journal of Management.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2015. Reflections on the 2013
Decade Award—“Exploitation, Exploration, and Process
Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited” ten
years later. Academy of Management Review, 40:
497–514.

Bergmann, H., & Hundt, C. 2016. Explaining new firm creation
in Europe from a spatial and time perspective: A multi-
level analysis based upon data of individuals, regions
and countries. Papers in Regional Science, 95: 223–258.

Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. 2016. What makes
student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrele-
vance) of the university and the regional context for stu-
dent start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47: 53–76.

Beus, J. M., McCord, M. A., & Zohar, D. 2016. Workplace safety:
A review and research synthesis. Organizational Psy-
chology Review, 6: 352–381.

Bies, R. J., Barclay, L. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. 2016. A
systems perspective on forgiveness in organizations.
Academy of Management Annals, 10: 245–318.

Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. 2008. Management in-
novation. Academy of Management Review, 33: 825–845.

Blalock, H. M. 1984. Contextual-effects models: Theoretical
and methodological issues. Annual Review of Sociology,
10: 353–372.

Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., Petitta, L., & Vecchione, M. 2010.
Predicting job satisfaction and job performance in a pri-
vatized organization. International Public Management
Journal, 13: 275–296.

Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. 2013. The structural context
of team learning: Effects of organizational and team
structure on internal and external learning. Organization
Science, 24: 1120–1139.

Bromiley, P., & Johnson, S. 2005. Mechanisms and empirical
research. Research Methodology in Strategy and Man-
agement, 2: 15–29.

Burke, M. J., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R., Smith, A., & Sarpy,
S. A. 2008. The role of national culture and organizational
climate in safety training effectiveness. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 133–152.

Busse, C., Kach, A. P., & Wagner, S. M. In press. Boundary
conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we
need them, and when to consider them. Organizational
Research Methods.

Calvard, T. S. 2015. Integrating organization studies and
community psychology: A process model of an organizing
sense of place in working lives. Journal of Community
Psychology, 43: 654–686.

Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. 1991. The missing role of context in
OB: The need for a meso-level approach. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 13: 55–110.

Cavarretta, F. L., Trinchera, L., Choi, D. O., & Hannah, S. T.
2016. When “it depends” amounts to more than simple
contingent relationships: Three canonical forms of in-
versions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: 933–945.

Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J.
2009. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of
person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 94: 1103–1127.

Clarke, P., & O’Connor, R. V. 2012. The situational factors that
affect the software development process: Towards
a comprehensive reference framework. Information and
Software Technology, 54: 433–447.

Cooke, F., Veen, A., & Wood, G. 2017. What do we know about
cross-country comparative studies in HRM? A critical re-
view of literature in the period of 2000–2014. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 28: 196–233.

Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Delbridge, R. 2017. Politics of
place: The meaningfulness of resisting places. Human
Relations, 70: 237–259.

Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorovic, G. 2011. Dynamics
in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management
Annals, 5: 571–612.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Andersson, U., Brannen, M. Y., Nielsen,
B. B., & Reuber, A. B. 2016. From the editors: Can I trust
your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in in-
ternational business research. Journal of International
Business Studies, 47: 881-897.

Dalal, R. D., Bhave, D. P., & Fiset, J. 2014. Within-person vari-
ability in job performance: A theoretical review and re-
search agenda. Journal of Management, 40: 1396–1436.

Davies, P. 2007. Cosmic jackpot: Why our universe is just right
for life. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Davison, R. M., & Martinsons, M. G. 2016. Context is king!
Considering particularism in research design and
reporting. Journal of Information Technology, 31: 241–249.

de Rond, M., & Lok, J. 2016. Some things can never be unseen:
The role of context in psychological injury at war. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 59: 1965–1993.

Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Morgeson, F. P. 2009. The milieu
of managerial work: An integrative framework linking
work context to role requirements. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94: 972–988.

DiMaggio, P. J. 1995. Comments on “What Theory Is Not.”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 391–397.

Djurdjevic, E., & Wheeler, A. R. 2014. A dynamic multilevel
model of performance rating. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 32: 147–176.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z.,
Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., Elbanna, A., Ravishankar, M. N.,
& Srivastava, S. C. 2015. Research on information sys-
tems failures and successes: Status update and future
directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 17: 143–157.

Egri, C. 2013. Context matters in management education
scholarship. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-
cation, 12: 155–157.

Ellington, J. K., & Wilson, M. A. 2017. The performance ap-
praisal milieu: A multilevel analysis of context effects in
performance ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology,
32: 87–100.

Ferris, G. R., Harris, J. N., Russell, Z. A., Ellen, B. P., III, Martinez,
A. D., & Blass, R. R. 2014. The role of reputation in the

2017 591Johns

organizational sciences: A multilevel review, construct
assessment, and research. Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, 32: 241–303.

Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational
configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32:
1180–1198.

Galvin, P. 2014. A new vision for the Journal of Management &
Organization: The role of context. Journal of Management
& Organization, 20: 1–5.

George, G. 2014. Rethinking management scholarship.
Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1–6.

Goodman, P. S. 2000. Missing organizational linkages: Tools
for cross-level research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gorgievski, M. J., & Stephan, U. 2016. Advancing the psychol-
ogy of entrepreneurship: A review of the psychological
literature and an introduction. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 65: 437–468.

Griffin, M. A. 2007. Specifying organizational contexts: Sys-
tematic links between contexts and processes in organi-
zational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28:
859–863.

Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A new model of
work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain
and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management
Journal, 50: 327–347.

Hackman, J. R. 2003. Learning more by crossing levels: Evi-
dence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 24: 905–922.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hambrick, D. C., & Quigley, T. J. 2014. Toward more accurate
contextualization of the CEO effect on firm performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 35: 473–491.

Härtel, C. E. J., & O’Connor, J. M. 2014. Contextualizing re-
search: Putting context back into organizational behavior
research. Journal of Management & Organization, 20:
417–422.

Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. 1996. Learning about individual
differences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy
(Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organiza-
tions: 507–547. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. 2001. Big-B versus big-O: What is
organizational about organizational behavior? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22: 43–58.

Hess, T. M. 2005. Memory and aging in context. Psychological
Bulletin, 131: 383–406.

Hong, W., Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., &
Dhillon, G. 2014. A framework and guidelines for context-
specific theorizing in information systems research. In-
formation Systems Research, 25: 111–136.

Hong, Y., Liao, H., Raub, S., & Han, J. H. 2016. What it takes to
get proactive: An integrative multilevel model of the an-
tecedents of personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 101: 687–701.

Ilies, R., Aw, S. S. Y., & Lim, V. K. G. 2016. A naturalistic mul-
tilevel framework for studying transient and chronic

effects of psychosocial work stressors on employee
health and well-being. Applied Psychology: An In-
ternational Review, 65: 223–258.

Jack, G., Zhu, Y., Barney, J., Brannen, M. Y., Prichard, C., Singh, K.,
& Whetten, D. 2011. Refining, reinforcing and reimagining
universal and indigenous theory development in inter-
national management. Journal of Management Inquiry,
22: 148–164.

Jiang, L., & Probst, T. M. 2017. The rich get richer and the poor
get poorer: Country- and state-level income inequality
moderates the job insecurity–burnout relationship. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 102: 672–681.

Johns, G. 1991. Substantive and methodological constraints on
behavior and attitudes in organizational research. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49:
80–104.

Johns, G. 1993. Constraints on the adoption of psychology-
based personnel practices: Lessons from organizational
innovation. Personnel Psychology, 46: 569–592.

Johns, G. 1999. A multi-level theory of self-serving behavior in
and by organizations. Research in Organizational Be-
havior, 21: 1–38.

Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22: 31–42.

Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organiza-
tional behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31:
386–408.

Johns, G. 2010. Some unintended consequences of job design.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 361–369.

Johns, G. In press. Advances in the treatment of context in
organizational research. Annual Review of Organiza-
tional Psychology and Organizational Behavior.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2007. Context matters: A multilevel
framework for work team diversity research. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 26: 1–48.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team
diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of
Management Journal, 52: 599–627.

Joshi, A., Son, J., & Roh, H. 2015. When can women close the
gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in perfor-
mance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal,
58: 1516–1545.

Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E.,
& van Lange, P. A. M. 2003. An atlas of interpersonal sit-
uations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, S., & Wright, P. M. 2010. Putting strategic human resource
management in context: A contextualized model of high
commitment work systems and its implications in China.
Management and Organization Review, 7: 153–174.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.). 2000. Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Konrad, A. M., Kramer, V., & Urkut, S. 2008. Critical mass: The
impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Or-
ganizational Dynamics, 37: 145–164.

592 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

Kossek, E. E., & Perrigino, M. B. 2016. Resilience: A review
using a grounded integrated occupational approach.
Academy of Management Annals, 10: 729–797.

Kouchaki, M., Okhuysen, G. A., Waller, M. J., & Tajeddin, G.
2012. The treatment of the relationship between groups
and their environments: A review and critical examina-
tion of common assumptions in research. Group & Or-
ganization Management, 37: 171–203.

Kouchaki, M., & Smith, I. H. 2014. The morning morality effect:
The influence of time of day on unethical behavior. Psy-
chological Science, 25: 95–102.

Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (Eds.). 2015. More statistical
and methodological myths and urban legends. New York:
Routledge.

Larrick, R. P. 2016. The social context of decisions. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 3: 441–467.

Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. 1988. Resolving scientific
disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the
antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute re-
garding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73: 753–772.

Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. 2010. Theory pruning:
Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape.
Organizational Research Methods, 13: 644–667.

Li, H., Chen, Y.-R., & Blader, S. L. 2016. Where is context? Ad-
vancing status research with a contextual value perspec-
tive. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36: 185–198.

Li, J. T., Tian, L., & Wan, G. 2015. Contextual distance and the
international strategic alliance performance: A concep-
tual framework and a partial meta-analytic test. Man-
agement and Organization Review, 11: 289–313.

Li, P. P. 2014. A tentative typology of context for trust research
and beyond. Journal of Trust Research, 4: 83–89.

MacDougall, A. E., Baur, J. E., Novicevic, M. M., & Buckley, M. R.
2014. Toward the pattern-oriented approach to research in
human resources management: A review of configura-
tional and category theorizing, methods, and applica-
tions. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 32: 177–240.

Maloney, M. M., Bresman, H., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Beaver,
G. R. 2016. Contextualization and context theorizing in
teams research: A look back and a path forward. Acad-
emy of Management Annals, 10: 891–942.

Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P. A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Bilke,
L., & Hertel, G. 2015. A meta-analysis on gender differ-
ences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators.
Psychological Bulletin, 141: 85–104.

McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. 1987. Do good or poor per-
formers leave? A meta-analysis of the relationship be-
tween performance and turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 30: 744–762.

McFarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. 2015. Social media: A con-
textual framework to guide research and practice. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 100: 1653–1677.

McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. 2012. Beyond positive psy-
chology? Toward a contextual view of psychological

processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67:
101–110.

Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., José, I. J., Hermida, R., Chen, T. R.,
Vega, R. P., Brooks, C. K., & Khare, V. P. 2014. Measuring
job-related situational strength and assessing its in-
teractive effects. Journal of Management, 40: 1010–1041.

Michailova, S. 2011. Contextualizing in international business
research: Why do we need more of it and how can we be
better at it? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27:
129–139.

Miraglia, M., & Johns, G. 2016. Going to work ill: A meta-
analysis of the correlates of presenteeism and a dual-
path model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
21: 261–283.

Morey, J. N., Boggero, I. A., Scott, A. B., & Segerstrom, S. C. 2015.
Current directions in stress and human immune function.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 5: 13–17.

Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. 1999. The structure and
function of collective constructs: Implications for multi-
level research and theory development. Academy of
Management Review, 24: 249–265.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design
Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a com-
prehensive measure for assessing job design and the na-
ture of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1321–1339.

Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. 2015. Event system
theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational
sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40: 515–537.

Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. 1993. Organizational behavior:
Linking individuals and groups to organizational con-
texts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44: 195–229.

Newman, D. A., Harrison, D. A., Carpenter, N. C., & Rariden,
S. M. 2016. Construct mixology: Forming new manage-
ment constructs by combining old ones. Academy of
Management Annals, 10: 943–995.

Nicholson, N., & Johns, G. 1985. The absence culture and the
psychological contract—Who’s in control of absence?
Academy of Management Review, 10: 397–407.

Noort, M., Reader, T. W., Shorrock, S., & Kirwan, B. 2016. The
relationship between national culture and safety culture:
Implications for international safety culture assessments.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
89: 515–538.

Obschonka, M., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., Silbereisen, R. K.,
Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. 2013. The regional distribution
and correlates of an entrepreneurship-prone personality
profile in the United States, Germany, and the United
Kingdom: A socioecological perspective. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 105: 104–122.

Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Psychology: Estimating the
reproducibility of psychological science. Science,
349(6251).

Östberg, O. 1980. Risk perception and work behaviour in for-
estry: Implications for accident prevention policy. Acci-
dent Analysis and Prevention, 12: 189–200.

O’Toole, L. J., III, & Meier, K. J. 2015. Public management,
context, and performance: In quest of a more general

2017 593Johns

theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 25: 237–256.

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. 2010. Taking stock: Integrating
and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal
of Management, 36: 633–662.

Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. 2017. One hundred
years of work design research: Looking back and looking
forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 403–420.

Parker, S. K., Van den Broeck, A., & Holman, D. 2017. Work
design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that
affect the design of jobs. Academy of Management An-
nals, 11: 267–308.

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F.,
Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D. L., & Wallace, A. M.
2005. Validating the Organizational Climate Measure:
Links to managerial practices, productivity and in-
novation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 379–408.

Patton, E., & Johns, G. 2012. Context and the social represen-
tation of absenteeism: Absence in the popular press and
in academic research. Human Relations, 65: 217–240.

Paul, K. B., & Fenlason, K. J. 2014. Transforming a legacy
culture at 3M: Teaching an elephant how to dance.
In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), Oxford handbook
of organizational climate and culture: 569–583. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2006. Hard facts, dangerous half-truths,
and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based man-
agement. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. 2013. The too-much-of-a-good-thing
effect in management. Journal of Management, 39:
313–338.

Pignault, A., & Houssemand, C. 2016. Construction and initial
validation of the Work Context Inventory. Journal of Vo-
cational Behavior, 92: 1–11.

Ployhart, R. E., & Schneider, B. 2012. The social and organi-
zational context of personnel selection. In N. Schmitt (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection:
48–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. 2007. Differential
challenge stressor–hindrance stressor relationships with
job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and with-
drawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 438–454.

Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. 2006. Leadership and the
organizational context: Like the weather? Leadership
Quarterly, 17: 559–576.

Potočnik, K., & Anderson, N. 2016. A constructively critical re-
view of change and innovation-related concepts: To-
wards conceptual and operational clarity. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25:
481–494.

Powell, E. E., & Baker, T. 2014. It’s what you make of it: Founder
identity and enacting strategic responses to adversity.
Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1406–1433.

Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2016. A realist perspective of
entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 41: 410–434.

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. 2015. Prin-
ciples of situation research: Towards a better un-
derstanding of psychological situations. European
Journal of Personality, 29: 363–381.

Reis, H. T. 2008. Reinvigorating the concept of situation in
social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12: 311–329.

Rentfrow, P. J. 2010. Statewide differences in personality: To-
ward a psychological geography of the United States.
American Psychologist, 65: 548–558.

Rockmann, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. 2015. Contagious offsite work
and the lonely office: The unintended consequences of
distributed work. Academy of Management Discoveries,
1: 150–164.

Rosen, C. C., Kacmar, K. M., Harris, K. J., Gavin, M. B., &
Hochwarter, W. A. 2017. Workplace politics and perfor-
mance appraisal: A two-study, multilevel field in-
vestigation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 24: 20–38.

Rosness, R., Blakstad, H. C., Forseth, U., Dahle, I. B., & Wiig, S.
2012. Environmental conditions for safety work—
Theoretical foundations. Safety Science, 50: 1967–1976.

Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location:
Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 22: 1–13.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998.
Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust.
Academy of Management Review, 23: 393–404.

Schmidt, C. G., Foerstl, K., & Schaltenbrand, B. 2017. The
supply chain position paradox: Green practices and firm
performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53:
3–25.

Senarathne Tennakoon, K. L. U., da Silveira, G. J. C., & Taras,
D. G. 2013. Drivers of context-specific ICT use across work
and nonwork domains: A boundary theory perspective.
Information and Organization, 23: 107–128.

Sergeeva, A., & Andreeva, T. 2016. Knowledge sharing re-
search: Bringing context back in. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 25: 240–261.

Shepherd, N. G., & Rudd, J. M. 2014. The influence of context on
the strategic decision-making process: A review of the
literature. International Journal of Management Reviews,
16: 340–364.

Short, S. E., & Mollborn, S. 2015. Social determinants and
health behaviors: Conceptual frames and empirical ad-
vances. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5: 78-84.

Shrivastava, P., & Kennelly, J. J. 2013. Sustainability and place-
based enterprise. Organization & Environment, 26:
83–101.

Sillince, J. A. A. 2007. Organizational context and the discur-
sive construction of organizing. Management Communi-
cation Quarterly, 20: 363–394.

Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. 2004. Socially situated cognition:
Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 36: 53–117.

Smith, W. R., Torstensson, M., & Johansson, K. 2001. Perceived
risk and fear of crime: Gender differences in contextual

594 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

sensitivity. International Review of Victimology, 8:
159–181.

Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. 2008. Bringing the context back in:
Settings and the search for partners in venture capital
investment networks. Administrative Science Quarterly,
53: 266–294.

Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. 1984. Knowledge and speculation
about absenteeism. In P. S. Goodman & R. S. Atkin (Eds.),
Absenteeism: New approaches to understanding, mea-
suring, and managing employee absence: 229–275. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sternberg, R. J. 2004. Culture and intelligence. American Psy-
chologist, 59: 325–338.

Sutton, R. I., & Rafaeli, A. 1988. Untangling the relationship
between displayed emotions and organizational sales:
The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management
Journal, 31: 461–487.

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. 2003. A personality trait-based
interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 88: 500–517.

Thompson, M. P. A., & Walsham, G. 2004. Placing knowledge
management in context. Journal of Management Studies,
41: 725–747.

Toh, S. M., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. 2008. Human
resource configurations: Investigating fit with the orga-
nizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:
864–882.

Uy, M. A., Foo, M.-D., & Aguinis, H. 2010. Using experience
sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory
and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 31–54.

Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero,
D. A. 2016. Contextual sensitivity in scientific re-
producibility. PNAS, 113: 6454–6459.

Van de Vliert, E., Janssen, O., & Van der Vegt, G. S. 2016. Hard
or easy? Difficulty of entrepreneurial startups in 107
climato-economic environments. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 65: 469–489.

Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. The
interplay between theory and method. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 32: 1145–1154.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. 2016. Unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the
road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 17: 328–376.

vom Brocke, J., Zelt, S., & Schmiedel, T. 2016. On the role of
context in business process management. International
Journal of Information Management, 36: 486–495.

Wegman, L. A., Hoffman, B. J., Carter, N. T., Twenge, J. M., &
Guenole, N. In press. Placing job characteristics in con-
text: Cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job
characteristics since 1975. Journal of Management.

Weibe, D. J., Helgeson, V., & Berg, C. A. 2016. The social context
of managing diabetes across the life span. American
Psychologist, 71: 526–538.

Welter, F. 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship—
Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, 35: 165–184.

Weyman, A. K., & Clarke, D. D. 2003. Investigating the influ-
ence of organizational role on perceptions of risk in deep
coal mines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 404–412.

Whetten, D. A. 2009. An examination of the interface between
context and theory applied to the study of Chinese orga-
nizations. Management and Organization Review, 5:
29–55.

Yoder, J. D., & Kahn, A. S. 2003. Making gender comparisons
more meaningful: A call for more attention to social
context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27: 281–290.

Zahra, S. A. 2007. Contextualizing theory building in entre-
preneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22:
443–452.

Zahra, S. A., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. G. 2014. Con-
textualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship
research. International Small Business Journal, 32:
479–500.

Gary Johns (gary.johns@concordia.ca) is professor emeritus of management in the John
Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, and adjunct professor in the
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia. He received his Ph.D. from
Wayne State University. Research interests include absenteeism, presenteeism, work
design, research methodology, and context.

2017 595Johns

mailto:gary.johns@concordia.ca

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

SafeAssignCheckTest – CSU SafeAssign Plagiarism Check Tool
SafeAssign Originality Report Generator I

Natasha McClarin
on Sun, Mar 04 2018, 7:21 PM

100% highest match

Submission ID: 4f8962cc-8827-4588-92a0-7ce75197425b

2 x

Word Count: 1,030
Attachment ID: 202573015

100%

Citations (1/1)

1

Another student’s paper

Citation is highlighted. Click to remove highlighting

1

PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES

5

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES 5

Source – Another student’s paper
PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES 5

PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES

Source – Another student’s paper
PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES

Natasha McClarin
March 2nd, 2018

1
Peer-reviewed journals are articles are written by experts and are reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published in the journal in order to insure the article’s quality.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Peer-reviewed journals are articles are written by experts and are reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published in the journal in order to insure the article’s quality

Source – Another student’s paper
Peer-reviewed journals are articles are written by experts and are reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published in the journal in order to insure the article’s quality

Research is a critical tool in the performance of any business based .This paper looks at the peer reviewed article on the role of research on the business of any organization.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Research is a critical tool in the performance of any business based .This paper looks at the peer reviewed article on the role of research on the business of any organization

Source – Another student’s paper
Research is a critical tool in the performance of any business based .This paper looks at the peer reviewed article on the role of research on the business of any organization

The process of research is not only left to the sector of medicine but a whole round process that is geared towards the provision of better service delivery in any field.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
The process of research is not only left to the sector of medicine but a whole round process that is geared towards the provision of better service delivery in any field

Source – Another student’s paper
The process of research is not only left to the sector of medicine but a whole round process that is geared towards the provision of better service delivery in any field

If the research systems are fully utilized, there is no doubt that the activities of the firm will be immensely improved.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
If the research systems are fully utilized, there is no doubt that the activities of the firm will be immensely improved

Source – Another student’s paper
If the research systems are fully utilized, there is no doubt that the activities of the firm will be immensely improved

Research plays big roles on the performance of our companies and businesses.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Research plays big roles on the performance of our companies and businesses

Source – Another student’s paper
Research plays big roles on the performance of our companies and businesses

Business research can connect to business strategy, business ethics and economics.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Business research can connect to business strategy, business ethics and economics

Source – Another student’s paper
Business research can connect to business strategy, business ethics and economics

Research in business management can help business plan for the futures and be flexible for changes due to environment.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Research in business management can help business plan for the futures and be flexible for changes due to environment

Source – Another student’s paper
Research in business management can help business plan for the futures and be flexible for changes due to environment

This is because it can help choose the best employees for a given department by the human resource team (Cooke, F., Veen, A., & Wood, G.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This is because it can help choose the best employees for a given department by the human resource team (Cooke, F., Veen, A., & Wood, G

Source – Another student’s paper
This is because it can help choose the best employees for a given department by the human resource team (Cooke, F., Veen, A., & Wood, G

2017).

1
It helps in studying competition by having the knowledge of their rivals and out majoring them.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
It helps in studying competition by having the knowledge of their rivals and out majoring them

Source – Another student’s paper
It helps in studying competition by having the knowledge of their rivals and out majoring them

It also helps a company to avoid future failure by helping it know the time to expand its business and where it can expand to.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
It also helps a company to avoid future failure by helping it know the time to expand its business and where it can expand to

Source – Another student’s paper
It also helps a company to avoid future failure by helping it know the time to expand its business and where it can expand to

It lastly can help know the market demand for their clients and help in satisfaction.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
It lastly can help know the market demand for their clients and help in satisfaction

Source – Another student’s paper
It lastly can help know the market demand for their clients and help in satisfaction

This article was true because assertions were true because if the after a company properly manages business research it is said that its performance rises by at least 48% this was based on another article which was written to prove how research has benefited a company statistically.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This article was true because assertions were true because if the after a company properly manages business research it is said that its performance rises by at least 48% this was based on another article which was written to prove how research has benefited a company statistically

Source – Another student’s paper
This article was true because assertions were true because if the after a company properly manages business research it is said that its performance rises by at least 48% this was based on another article which was written to prove how research has benefited a company statistically

This illustrates that the planning and the research re very key towards the promotion of the achievement of the company goals.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This illustrates that the planning and the research re very key towards the promotion of the achievement of the company goals

Source – Another student’s paper
This illustrates that the planning and the research re very key towards the promotion of the achievement of the company goals

It is obvious that there is nothing that can be done without the involvement of the planning process.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
It is obvious that there is nothing that can be done without the involvement of the planning process

Source – Another student’s paper
It is obvious that there is nothing that can be done without the involvement of the planning process

For one to fully conduct the research at a better time, they have to do a thorough planning process before undertaking on such activities.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
For one to fully conduct the research at a better time, they have to do a thorough planning process before undertaking on such activities

Source – Another student’s paper
For one to fully conduct the research at a better time, they have to do a thorough planning process before undertaking on such activities

Therefore planning plays a very vital role towards the promotion of the research methodologies.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Therefore planning plays a very vital role towards the promotion of the research methodologies

Source – Another student’s paper
Therefore planning plays a very vital role towards the promotion of the research methodologies

In the present day many business organizations are involved in doing business researches and other types of researches because they discovered the importance of it.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
In the present day many business organizations are involved in doing business researches and other types of researches because they discovered the importance of it

Source – Another student’s paper
In the present day many business organizations are involved in doing business researches and other types of researches because they discovered the importance of it

This article helped the modern organizations to polish themselves on the importance of research and how it will help them perform better in the changing environment based on technology and changing needs and preferences of the customers.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This article helped the modern organizations to polish themselves on the importance of research and how it will help them perform better in the changing environment based on technology and changing needs and preferences of the customers

Source – Another student’s paper
This article helped the modern organizations to polish themselves on the importance of research and how it will help them perform better in the changing environment based on technology and changing needs and preferences of the customers

This article in away or more illustrates the importance of using research to make decisions within an organization.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This article in away or more illustrates the importance of using research to make decisions within an organization

Source – Another student’s paper
This article in away or more illustrates the importance of using research to make decisions within an organization

For instance after having the knowledge of their competitors from what advantage they have over them, (Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
For instance after having the knowledge of their competitors from what advantage they have over them, (Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M

Source – Another student’s paper
For instance after having the knowledge of their competitors from what advantage they have over them, (Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M

2013) the organization can then decide on the ways on how to counter attack the competition by either using what the other do not have, or improving on the quality and quantity of the products to attract their customers.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
2013) the organization can then decide on the ways on how to counter attack the competition by either using what the other do not have, or improving on the quality and quantity of the products to attract their customers

Source – Another student’s paper
2013) the organization can then decide on the ways on how to counter attack the competition by either using what the other do not have, or improving on the quality and quantity of the products to attract their customers

It is sometime a trial to the organisation to believe that the organization is under its peak performance with good profit making and a highly qualified management team;

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
It is sometime a trial to the organisation to believe that the organization is under its peak performance with good profit making and a highly qualified management team

Source – Another student’s paper
It is sometime a trial to the organisation to believe that the organization is under its peak performance with good profit making and a highly qualified management team

normally it will continue to realize the same kind of performance.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
normally it will continue to realize the same kind of performance

Source – Another student’s paper
normally it will continue to realize the same kind of performance

However, that may not be the case.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
However, that may not be the case

Source – Another student’s paper
However, that may not be the case

Consistent enhancement and the development of the guidelines and the players are very vital in the fight towards the creation of a competitive advantage on the company rivals in the market.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Consistent enhancement and the development of the guidelines and the players are very vital in the fight towards the creation of a competitive advantage on the company rivals in the market

Source – Another student’s paper
Consistent enhancement and the development of the guidelines and the players are very vital in the fight towards the creation of a competitive advantage on the company rivals in the market

This is essentially achievable through research.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This is essentially achievable through research

Source – Another student’s paper
This is essentially achievable through research

This information about the importance of research can be applied in different fields of life.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This information about the importance of research can be applied in different fields of life

Source – Another student’s paper
This information about the importance of research can be applied in different fields of life

Am a student I can use the knowledge of importance of research to search on the best school that I can join to pursue my academics.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Am a student I can use the knowledge of importance of research to search on the best school that I can join to pursue my academics

Source – Another student’s paper
Am a student I can use the knowledge of importance of research to search on the best school that I can join to pursue my academics

I would have same of the best but economical schools list, then one by one I will research on the best that I can choose to join.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
I would have same of the best but economical schools list, then one by one I will research on the best that I can choose to join

Source – Another student’s paper
I would have same of the best but economical schools list, then one by one I will research on the best that I can choose to join

Research is very critical in decision making and also in the performance, this article highlights the benefits of research which is the positive side but at one point I may criticize it because it does not show the negative aspect of the research.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Research is very critical in decision making and also in the performance, this article highlights the benefits of research which is the positive side but at one point I may criticize it because it does not show the negative aspect of the research

Source – Another student’s paper
Research is very critical in decision making and also in the performance, this article highlights the benefits of research which is the positive side but at one point I may criticize it because it does not show the negative aspect of the research

The organizations such as the SMEs and the NGOs, the research process entirely lies in the best system of upgrade and the improvement of the employee skills for better performance.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
The organizations such as the SMEs and the NGOs, the research process entirely lies in the best system of upgrade and the improvement of the employee skills for better performance

Source – Another student’s paper
The organizations such as the SMEs and the NGOs, the research process entirely lies in the best system of upgrade and the improvement of the employee skills for better performance

In addition to this, the delivery on itself has to be very robust and to the standard of the customer needs.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
In addition to this, the delivery on itself has to be very robust and to the standard of the customer needs

Source – Another student’s paper
In addition to this, the delivery on itself has to be very robust and to the standard of the customer needs

To conclude, the research applications generally cut across almost all the fields.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
To conclude, the research applications generally cut across almost all the fields

Source – Another student’s paper
To conclude, the research applications generally cut across almost all the fields

The peer reviewed article in this case presents a situation like the decision making process that is the concern of all companies regardless of their nature of operations.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
The peer reviewed article in this case presents a situation like the decision making process that is the concern of all companies regardless of their nature of operations

Source – Another student’s paper
The peer reviewed article in this case presents a situation like the decision making process that is the concern of all companies regardless of their nature of operations

Better promotion of the business culture and initiatives can be effectively achieved through a proper implementation of the research process.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Better promotion of the business culture and initiatives can be effectively achieved through a proper implementation of the research process

Source – Another student’s paper
Better promotion of the business culture and initiatives can be effectively achieved through a proper implementation of the research process

This data about the significance of research can be connected in various fields of life.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
This data about the significance of research can be connected in various fields of life

Source – Another student’s paper
This data about the significance of research can be connected in various fields of life

Am an understudy I can utilize the learning of the significance of research to scan for the best school that I can join to seek after my scholastics.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Am an understudy I can utilize the learning of the significance of research to scan for the best school that I can join to seek after my scholastics

Source – Another student’s paper
Am an understudy I can utilize the learning of the significance of research to scan for the best school that I can join to seek after my scholastics

I would have same of the best, however, practical schools list, (Joshi, A., & Roh, H.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
I would have same of the best, however, practical schools list, (Joshi, A., & Roh, H

Source – Another student’s paper
I would have same of the best, however, practical schools list, (Joshi, A., & Roh, H

2007) then one by one I will research on as well as can be expected join.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
2007) then one by one I will research on as well as can be expected join

Source – Another student’s paper
2007) then one by one I will research on as well as can be expected join

Research is extremely basic in basic leadership, and furthermore, in the execution, this article highlights the advantages of research which are the positive side, however, at one point I may reprimand it since it doesn’t demonstrate the negative part of the research.

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Research is extremely basic in basic leadership, and furthermore, in the execution, this article highlights the advantages of research which are the positive side, however, at one point I may reprimand it since it doesn’t demonstrate the negative part of the research

Source – Another student’s paper
Research is extremely basic in basic leadership, and furthermore, in the execution, this article highlights the advantages of research which are the positive side, however, at one point I may reprimand it since it doesn’t demonstrate the negative part of the research

Reference

1
Cooke, F., Veen, A., & Wood, G.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Cooke, F., Veen, A., & Wood, G

Source – Another student’s paper
Cooke, F., Veen, A., & Wood, G

2017.

1
What do we know about cross-country comparative studies in HRM?

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
What do we know about cross-country comparative studies in HRM

Source – Another student’s paper
What do we know about cross-country comparative studies in HRM

A critical review of literature in the period of 2000–2014.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
A critical review of literature in the period of 2000–2014

Source – Another student’s paper
A critical review of literature in the period of 2000–2014

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28:

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28

Source – Another student’s paper
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28

196–233.

1
Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M

Source – Another student’s paper
Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M

2013.

1
The structural context of team learning:

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
The structural context of team learning

Source – Another student’s paper
The structural context of team learning

Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning

Source – Another student’s paper
Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning

Organization Science, 24:

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Organization Science, 24

Source – Another student’s paper
Organization Science, 24

1120–1139.

1
Joshi, A., & Roh, H.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Joshi, A., & Roh, H

Source – Another student’s paper
Joshi, A., & Roh, H

2007. Context matters:

1
A multilevel framework for work team diversity research.

Suspected Entry: 100% match

Uploaded – 2 x
A multilevel framework for work team diversity research

Source – Another student’s paper
A multilevel framework for work team diversity research

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 26:

Suspected Entry: 99% match

Uploaded – 2 x
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 26

Source – Another student’s paper
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 26

1–48.