An updated meta-analysis of the primed goal-organizational behaviour relationship
Abstract
Environmental cues (e.g. achievement-related words and pictures) can prime/activate, in the absence of awareness, a mental representation of importance stored in memory. Chen et al.'s 2021 Applied Psychology: An International Review70, 216–253. (doi:10.1111/apps.12239) meta-analysis revealed a moderate, significant overall effect for the goal priming-organizational behaviour relationship, with three moderators identified: context-specific versus a general prime, prime modality (i.e. visual versus linguistic) and experimental setting (field versus laboratory). An independent researcher found that their finding was negligibly affected by a publication bias. Shanks & Vadillo (2021), Royal Society Open Science8, 210544. (doi:10.1098/rsos.210544) (field: k = 13, N = 683, d = 0.64), questioned Chen et al.'s conclusion regarding the effect size found in field studies (field: k = 8, N = 357, d = 0.68). In this paper, we discussed Shanks & Vadillo's selection of additional field experiments that led to their conclusion of a publication bias. We updated Chen et al.'s meta-analysis to include relevant studies conducted since that study's publication. The present meta-analysis reproduced the original findings in Chen et al. (field: k = 11, N = 534, d = 0.67). The updated findings are consistent with: (i) laboratory findings, (ii) the findings obtained in field experiments on consciously set goals and (iii) goal setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2018 In Handbook of industrial, work & organizational Psychology, vol. 1 (eds D Ones, N Anderson, C Viswesvaran, H Sinangil), pp. 103–124).
Sowing the seeds of love: Cultivating perceptions of culture of companionate love through listening and its effects on organizational outcomes
Guy Itzchakov | Sigal Barsade | Arik Cheshin
Organizational Behavior and Social Psychology
Fostering a culture of companionate love in the workplace
offers numerous benefits for employees, yet the
methods for achieving this remain unclear. We propose
that high-quality listening, characterized by undivided
attention, understanding, and a positive and nonjudgmental
intention toward the speaker, could be a
key facilitator. We hypothesized that such listening
could enhance employees' perceptions of companionate
love. Additionally, we hypothesized that an enhanced
perception of companionate love would increase
employees' subjective well-being, resilience, affective
commitment, and willingness to cooperate at work. To
examine these hypotheses, we conducted four studies.
Study 1 was a preregistered and highly-powered field
study (N = 752) involving employees from various
organizations. Study 2 (N = 37), was a longitudinal
research that included a listening training of 16 hours
for teachers in a single school. Study 3 was a quasi-field
experiment within a risk-management company, with
employees receiving 12 hours of listening education
while a waitlist served as a control group (N = 67).
Study 4 was a quasi-experiment that served as a conceptual
replication and extension of Studies 2 and
3. The study involved listening training for employees
in a global communications company, providing
14 hours of online listening training. An active control
group (N = 60) was included. Across all studies, we
found that feeling listened to by colleagues led to
increased perceptions of companionate love in the
organization, which, in turn, increased employees' subjective
well-being, resilience, affective organizational
commitment, and willingness to collaborate. Theoretical
and practical implications are discussed.
Keep reading
The Power of Listening in Helping People Change
Guy Itzchakov, Avraham N. (Avi) Kluger
Listening
Giving performance feedback is one of the most common ways managers help their subordinates learn and improve. Yet, research revealed that feedback could actually hurt performance: More than 20 years ago, one of us (Kluger) analyzed 607 experiments on feedback effectiveness and found that feedback caused performance to decline in 38% of cases. This happened with both positive and negative feedback, mostly when the feedback threatened how people saw themselves.
Keep reading