The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior

By G. Johns. 2006

3,436 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/866564951d067e9156e8410a9fcadcece4555209

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

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Job Characteristics and Job Satisfaction: Understanding the Role of Enterprise Resource (2010, background): “Thus, framed against calls in the academic literature to theorize richly about specific contexts of change (Herold et al. 2007; see also Johns 2006), there is little doubt that ERP system implementation represents an important context worthy of study in IS research (e.g., Estevez and Bohorquez…”
The riddle of heterarchy: : power transitions in cross-functional teams (2014, background): “We do expect, however, that more explicit consideration of context (group, organizational, industry) will offer insight into how situational and contextual factors can exacerbate or attenuate the effects of heterarchical power transitions (Johns, 2006).”
Turnover Contagion: How Coworkers' Job Embeddedness and Job Search Behaviors Influence Quitting (2009, background): “For this reason, organizational researchers are often encouraged to do “meso-level” research, in which individuals are studied in their social contexts (e.g., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Johns, 2006).”
An introduction to contemporary work psychology (2014, background): “They claim that time is a fundamental dimension of context, as it specifies when situational constraints and opportunities occur and how they are perceived (Johns, 2006).”
Exploring the Effects of Job Autonomy on Engagement and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Performance Pressure and Learning Goal Orientation (2017, background): “As organizational behavior research becomes more complex, it is clearly important to consider how social and contextual variables can be integrated into research and theory (Johns 2006).”
A Review of Cognitive Dissonance Theory in Management Research (2017, background): “Such combinations have enabled scholars to understand how important workplace outcomes are influenced by the discrete context–—“the particular contextual variables or levers that shape behavior or attitudes” (Johns, 2006: 391).”
Blue skies and black boxes: The promise (and practice) of grounded theory in human resource management research (2017, background): “Specifically, Johns (2006) argues that even in some of the most well-studied processes in HR, such as selection and performance appraisal, researchers have not paid sufficient attention to context, and have also “assumed a very narrow, nonsystemic conception of what the functions or outcomes of…”
A business frame perspective on why perceptions of top management's bottom‐line mentality result in employees’ good and bad behaviors (2019, background): “Here, we address Johns’ (2006) call to test theoretical models in contexts that are unique and understudied in management research, because doing so can increase the generalizability of particular organizational phenomena.”
Haunted by the Past: Effects of Poor Change Management History on Employee Attitudes and Turnover (2007, background): “More generally, research in organizational behavior has tended to ignore the theoretical and methodological significance of context in the examination of work attitudes and outcomes (Johns, 2006).”
Power Imbalance and Employee Silence: The Role of Abusive Leadership, Power Distance Orientation, and Perceived Organisational Politics (2018, background): “, & Johnstone, S. (2015). Employee silence and the authoritarian personality: A political psychology of workplace democracy. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(1), 154–171. Treadway, D.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Ferris, G.R., Kacmar, C.J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A.P., & Buckley, M.R. (20”
The relationship between high performance work systems and employee proactive behaviour: role breadth self-efficacy and flexible role orientation as mediating mechanisms (2017, methodology): “Proactive behaviour may be improved through the organisational context, and in particular through HR practices (Johns, 2006; Parker et al., 2010).”
The future of organizational interventions: Addressing the challenges of today's organizations (2010, background): “Distinguishing between omnibus and discrete contexts, Johns (2006) provided an essential guide to our conceptual understanding of context that may help us understand and analyze the impact of contextual factors on organizational-level outcomes.”
Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. (2011, background): “Understanding the influence of contextual variables on the effectiveness of a construct such as psychological empowerment can greatly contribute to theory and practice (Johns, 2006).”
It Isn’t Always Mutual (2015, background): “To ignore the dyadic context in which trust exists, then, is to fail to accurately understand the phenomenon (Johns, 2006).”
Challenging the Norm of Self-Interest: Minority Influence and Transitions to Helping Norms in Work Units (2012, background): “Timing is an important dimension of context (Johns, 2006) that is likely to moderate the effectiveness of both modeling and voice as proactive efforts to destabilize the norm and create uncertainty.”
Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports (2013, background): “Increasing concerns for external validity, also a longitudinal trend revealed by our content analysis, coincides with mounting attention given to the contextual elements of research (Johns, 2001, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).”
To prosper, organizational psychology should… adopt a global perspective (2008, background): “…industry, organizational structure, geographic region, religious affiliation, language, ethnicity, gender, age, SES), and explicitly describing how the sample studied may differ from the population to which the researchers hope to generalize (cf. Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).”