The Role of Time in Theory and Theory Building

By Jennifer M. George, Gareth R. Jones. 2000

688 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/74d1506cc3970e8223c1dbf367d89108bf0feb19

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Consistency Matters! How and When Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Employees’ Organizational Identification? (2016, background): “With longer time frames, the independent variable may wear off and/or other variables may come into play, while with shorter time lags, the effect between the constructs may not be complete, or reactivity may occur (George and Jones, 2000; Mitchell and James, 2001).”
Placing Job Characteristics in Context: Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of Changes in Job Characteristics Since 1975 (2018, background): “…[and] economics” (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010: 235) are commonly invoked to predict both changes in discrete context (e.g., Fried et al., 2007; George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell, 1997) and changes in worker characteristics (e.g., Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance,…”
Entry Timing (2015, background): “As George and Jones (2000) suggest, to make entry-timing research more robust and lead to a more unified and dynamic theoretical understanding, scholars need time-based boundary conditions, such as the time of first product/service introduction to a launch of subsequent offerings, the onset of…”
Explaining Change: Theorizing and Testing Dynamic Mediated Longitudinal Relationships (2010, background): “However, one of the hallmarks of an advanced science is the identification and theoretical precision regarding nonlinear relationships over time (George & Jones, 2000).”
How perceptions of fairness can change (2013, background): “Scholars have called for more dynamic conceptualizations of workplace phenomena (Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010), including organizational justice (e.g., Rupp, 2011; Shapiro, 2010), because understanding temporal dynamics is critical for developing useful theory (George & Jones, 2000).”
Building Better Theory: Time and The Specification of When Things Happen (2001, background): “(1999), George and Jones (2000), Goodman (2000), and Mosakowski and Earley (2000).”
Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future ☆ (2011, background): “In response to Meindl et al.'s critiques (see also Daily & Schwenk, 1996; Day & Lord, 1988; George & Jones, 2000; Slater, 1989), Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990) also weighed in on the debate over whether leaders (primarily top executives) make a difference .”
A within‐individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators (2011, methodology): “Several authors have called for an explicit consideration of the role of time in organizational behavior theory and research (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, 2001).”
Time in applied psychology: The study of "what happens" rather than "what is." (2008, background): “In the same vein, George and Jones (2000) stated: “many micro-and macro-organizational theories do not adequately incorporate such a time element and, thus, unintentionally distort the phenomena they are de-scribing” (op cit., p. 658).”
Reinterpreting Time in Fit Theory: Crafting and Recrafting Narratives of Fit in Medias Res (2011, background): “…where fit research has remained largely silent on the topic for more than a quarter of a century (cf., Caplan, 1983; Brousseau, 1983), despite a resurgence of interest in temporal perceptions (e.g., Ancona, Okhuysen, & Perlow, 2001; Bluedorn, 2002; George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, 2001).”
Episodes of incivility between subordinates and supervisors: Examining the role of self‐control and time with an interaction‐record diary study. (2015, background): “Third, we respond to the call to study the temporal dynamics in organizational research (e.g., George & Jones, 2000; Sonnentag, 2012) by examining the role of time in the relationship between experienced and instigated incivility.”
Polychronicity and Multitasking: A Diary Study at Work (2015, background): “An increasing number of scholars have called for research addressing the dynamic nature of work-related phenomena by including time in theory and research designs (e.g., George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, 2001; Roe, 2008).”