A Review and Synthesis of Situational Strength in the Organizational Sciences

By Rustin D. Meyer, Reeshad S. Dalal, Richard Hermida. 2010

680 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a7fc1fe519173777b34ef7c909d1ec053d02f8c3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Acquisitive Nature of Extraverted CEOs (2017, background): “The strong-situation hypothesis suggests that variance in situational strength influences the extent to which personality affects behavior (for reviews, see Cooper and Withey, 2009; Meyer, Dalal, and Hermida, 2010).”
When team members' values differ: The moderating role of team leadership (2011, background): “Situational strength – the extent to which a setting provides individuals with clear, consistent, and consequential cues regarding their work-related responsibilities and requirements (Meyer et al., 2010) – may thus shape the extent to which values are expressed, and in turn the extent to which team”
How leader humility helps teams to be humbler, psychologically stronger, and more effective: a moderated mediation model (2017, background): “The second explanation, at the conceptual level, proposes that a stronger climate equips team members with clearer and more consistent information about the team (Lee & Dalal, 2016; Meyer et al., 2010).”
Integrating Discovery and Creation Perspectives of Entrepreneurial Action: The Relative Roles of Founding CEO Human Capital, Social Capital, and Psychological Capital in Contexts of Risk Versus Uncertainty (2015, background): “…useful intangible resources within a discovery context is not entirely surprising considering research on situational strength, which has demonstrated that characteristics of the environment can restrict the expression of individual preferences or predispositions (Meyer, Dalal, and Hermida, 2010).”
Identity Under Construction: How Individuals Come to Define Themselves in Organizations (2016, background): “Contexts, however, vary greatly in how much discretion they allow individuals in enacting an identity (Meyer et al. 2010), and individuals vary in how much discretion they desire (Ashford & Black 1996).”
Measuring Job-Related Situational Strength and Assessing Its Interactive Effects With Personality on Voluntary Work Behavior (2014, methodology): “Specifically, a rigorous item retention strategy ensured content validity, multiple CFAs supported the predicted four-factor solution (Meyer et al., 2010), each subscale demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability across three samples, and all subscales were sensitive to manipulations of…”
Personality Strength and Situational Influences on Behavior (2015, background): “Consequently, situational strength has been formally defined as “implicit or explicit cues provided by external entities regarding the desirability of potential behaviors” (Meyer et al., 2010: 122).”
Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality (2013, background): “, Blader and Tyler 2009; Tyler and Blader 2003) and person–situation framework (e.g., Cooper and Withey 2009; Meyer et al. 2010; Mischel 1977) to propose a theoretical framework, which integrates procedural justice and employee identity-based motivation to explain employee engagement.”
A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO (2019, background): “…workplace deviance is especially pronounced in unstructured jobs for which the validity of personality for job performance seems to be even stronger (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010); an effect that might even be enhanced in certain job contexts for certain personality domains (Judge & Zapata, 2015).”
Hot Buttons and Time Sinks: The Effects of Electronic Communication During Nonwork Time on Emotions and Work-Nonwork Conflict (2015, methodology): “Thus, we measured daily work-to-nonwork conflict using the five-item scale from Netemeyer et al. (1996), changing the wording to pertain to the nonwork domain in general and not just family.”
COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. (2020, background): “As COVID-19 can be conceptualized as a “strong situation,” which restricts the normal expression of personality, it therefore may act as a boundary condition of a traits’ typical predictive effects (Meyer et al., 2010).”