Productivity in Scientific Teams - VMI...Anamarija Klaic University of Zurich Talk as part of the VMI Scientific Excellence & Well-Being Initiative February 12, 2020 Zurich, Switzerland

University Division/OfficeDepartment of Psychology – Social and Business Psychology

Productivity in Scientific Teams

Anamarija Klaic

University of Zurich

Talk as part of the VMI Scientific Excellence & Well-Being Initiative

February 12, 2020

Zurich, Switzerland

12/02/2020 Productivity in Scientific Teams, Anamarija Klaic Seite 1


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

So, this talk… what is it going to be about?

12/02/2020 Productivity in Scientific Teams, Anamarija Klaic

some remarks about the relevance…

... of investigating productivity in scientific teams

a quick overview of the research literature

… on the topic of scientific productivity

some insights into the results and implications

… of recent studies on this topic

ideas for future projects in line with the aims of the

… VMI Scientific Excellence & Well-Being Initiative

Seite 2


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Setting: Teams in science

12/02/2020 Productivity in Scientific Teams, Anamarija Klaic

▪ Team-based work structures have become prevalent in science, as conducting research has

become more complex and challenging (Cooke & Hilton, 2015).

▪ In the case of teamwork in science the question about effective leadership arises, as team

leaders in higher education institutions oftentimes lack management expertise (Braun, Peus,

Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Cooke & Hilton, 2015).

▪ Academia is a challenging workplace: contingent employment, conflicting role requirements,

distinct mixed-motive situations (i.e., competing individual-level and team-level goals and needs)

and limited promotion prospects (Feldman & Turnley, 2004; Goastellec, Park, Ates, & Toffel, 2013; van der

Weijden, Teelken, Boer, & Drost, 2016).

Seite 3


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion


About that term «productivity»


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion


About that term «productivity»

It’s not just about

«PUBLISH OR PERISH»…

… besides scientific excellence

other indicators such as

WELL-BEING and HEALTH

matter as well!


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Literature Review


OrganizationalCharacteristics

Buchheit et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2006; Fox & Mohapatra, 2007; Hardré et al., 2011; White et al., 2012

Team/Group Characteristics

*Braun et al., 2013; *Cummings et al., 2013; *Louis, et al., 2007; *Omar & Ahmad, 2014

Individual Characteristics

Buchheit et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2006; Hardré et al., 2011; Pasupathy & Siwatu, 2014; White et al., 2012

• financial support

• less teaching obligations

• creative work environment*

• team size*, heterogenity*

• positive team climate

• team commitment

• transformational leadership*

• efficient time management

• intrinsic motivation

• high self-efficacy

• low teaching load

• conciousness

• high work engagement

*studies about scientific teams (professors, post-docs, PhDs)


Leadership and Fit

Sozial- und Wirtschaftspsychologie


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion


How much does it matter if you and

your supervisor are on the same page?

person-supervisor fit

≈ professor-(young)scientist fit

And how much does it matter if you

and your teammates are getting along?

team fit


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Theoretical Approaches

▪ Dual-focused model of transformational leadership (Wang & Howell, 2010):

Individual-focused transformational leadership

Group-focused transformational leadership

▪ Person environment fit theory (PE Fit; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005):

Person-Job Fit (Needs-Supplies, Demands-Abilities), Person-Organization Fit, Person-Group Fit,

Person-Person (Person-Supervisor) Fit, Person-Vocation Fit

high fit → resource → positive outcomes

low fit → stressor → negative outcomes



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Theoretical Approaches - LEADERSHIP



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Theoretical Approaches - FIT


Person Environment

Fit

person-job fit

needs-suppliesfit

demands-abilitiesfit

person-organization fit

person-group fit

person-person fit

person-supervisor fit


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Conceptual Model


Team fit

Group-focused

transformational leadership

Job satisfaction

Work-related strain

Individual-focused


Person-supervisor fit

Team-level

Individual-level

Needs-supplies fit


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Design

▪ Study design: 3 measurement points with a time lag of 4 weeks (i.e., three-wave methodological design;

McCarthy, Trougakos, & Cheng, 2016); online surveys


T1 Oct.-Nov. 2015

Scientific staff:

• transformational leadership

• demographics

T2 Dec.-Jan 2015/16

Scientific staff:

• fit at work

T3 Feb.-March 2016

Scientific staff:

• job satisfaction

• work-related strain


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Sample

134 scientific staff members

from 42 scientific teams

from different higher education institutions in Switzerland

scientific staff members

Øage 31 years (SD = 6.2)

♂/♀ 43% female

team size: 3.2 members per team (SD = 1.5)

team duration: 28.2 months (SD = 13.4)



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Measures

Individual-focused transformational leadership (Wang & Howell, 2010)

➢ 18 items: “My direct supervisor encourages me to set high goals for myself.”

Group-focused transformational leadership (Wang & Howell, 2010)

➢ 16 items: “My direct supervisor fosters collaboration among team members.”

Person-supervisor fit (Van Vianen, Shen & Chuang, 2011)

➢ 5 Items: “How would you describe the match between the things you value in life and the things your

supervisor values?”



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Measures

Needs-supplies fit (Saks & Ashforth, 1997)

➢ 4 items: “I feel that this job enables me to do the kind of work I want to do.”

Team fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2014)

➢ 6 items: “The things that our team members value in life are very similar to each other.”

Job satisfaction (Bowling & Hammond, 2008)

➢ 3 items: “All in all I am satisfied with my job.”

Work-related strain (Revicki, May & Whitley, 1991)

➢ 22 items: “I am treated unfairly at work.”



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Results


Model description Χ2 df ΔΧ2 RMSEA [90% CI] SRMR CFI

Seven-factor model 304.64 231 - .052 [.035, .067] .059 .955

Six-factor model: ITFL and GTFL as one factor 317.49 237 13.39* .054 [.037, .069] .059 .951

Six-factor model: JS and Strain as one factor 318.23 237 13.01* .054 [.037, .069] .063 .950

Five-factor model: PJ NS Fit, PS Fit and T Fit as one factor 533.12 242 143.75*** .103 [.091, .115] .145 .815

Four-factor model: ITFL and GTFL as one factor, PJ NS Fit and PS Fit as one

factor, T Fit as one factor, JS and Strain as one factor

527.96 246 184.03*** .100 [.088, .111] .137 .824

Three-factor model: ITFL and GTFL as one factor, PJ NS Fit, PS Fit and T Fit

as one factor, JS and Strain as one factor

555.00 249 180.92*** .104 [.093, .116] .145 .805

Two-factor model: ITFL, GTFL, PJ NS Fit, PS Fit and T Fit as one factor, JS

and Strain as one factor

751.02 251 300.19*** .134 [.123, .145] .124 .677

One-factor model 906.28 252 373.19*** .154 [.143, .164] .124 .571

Note. ITFL = individual-focused transformational leadership; GTFL = group-focused transformational leadership; JS = job satisfaction; Strain = work-related strain;

PJ NS Fit = person-job needs-supplies fit; PS Fit = person-supervisor fit; T Fit = team fit; ΔΧ2 = Satorra-Bentler scaled differences; RMSEA = root mean square error

of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index. N = 134.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 1: Results


Team fit

Group-focused


Job satisfaction

Work-related strain

Individual-focused


Person-supervisor fit

Team Ebene

Individuum Ebene

Needs-supplies fit

γ = .06** | b = -.25**

γ = .06* | b = -.19*

b = .29**

b = .39** γ = .01** | b = -.23**

γ = .01** | b = -.17**

b = .39** γ = .00 | b = -.06

✓

✓

✓

✓


Leadership and Teamwork



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion


So, if team fit is not the solution…

… let’s look at group dynamics in teams!


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion


▪ Dual-focused model of transformational leadership (Wang & Howell, 2010):

Individual-focused transformational leadership

Group-focused transformational leadership

▪ Teamwork Quality Model (TWQ; Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001):

Communication

Coordination

Balance of Member Contributions

Mutual Support

Effort

Cohesion



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Theoretical Approaches – Teamwork Quality

Teamwork Quality

Communication CoordinationBalance of

Member Contributions

Mutual Support

Effort Cohesion



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion



Teamwork quality

Team-centric


Individual learning

Team-level

Individual-level

Team innovation


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Design

▪ Study design: 2 measurement points with a time lag of 4 weeks (i.e., temporally lagged survey design;

Venkataramani et al., 2016); online surveys


T1 July-Aug. 2016

Scientific staff:

• transformational leadership

• demographics

T2 Sep.-Oct. 2016

Scientific staff:

• teamwork quality

• learning success

Supervisors:

• team innovation


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Sample


from 79 scientific teams

and 64 supervisors

from different higher education institutions in Switzerland and Germany

scientific staff members supervisors

Øage 36.16 years (SD = 8.32) 51.09 years (SD = 9.28)

♂/♀ 53.7% female 20.3% female

team size: 7.94 members per team (SD = 4.28)

team duration: 40.04 months (SD = 26.67)



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Measures

Individual-focused transformational leadership (Wang & Howell, 2010)

➢ 18 items: e.g., “My direct supervisor encourages me to set high goals for myself.”

Group-focused transformational leadership (Wang & Howell, 2010)

➢ 16 items: e.g., “My direct supervisor fosters collaboration among team members.”

Teamwork Quality (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001)

➢ 27 items: e.g., “Project-relevant information is shared openly by all team members.”;

“Our team is sticking together.”



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Measures

Team innovation performance (George & Zhou, 2001)

➢ 13 items: e.g., “The members of my team are a good source of creative ideas.”

Learning Success (Yoon & Kayes, 2016)

➢ 5 items: e.g., “Teamwork promotes one professionally.”



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Results


Note. GTFL = group-focused transformational leadership; TWQ = teamwork quality; Lear = individual team members’ learning; ΔΧ2 = Satorra-Bentler scaled

differences; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit

index. N = 235;

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.


Three-factor model 48.96 24 - .063 [.033, .092] .035 .979

Two-factor model: GTFL and TWQ as one factor, and Lear as one factor 276.17 26 227.2*** .200 [.177, .224] .085 .774

One-factor model 302.68 27 253.7*** .206 [.184, .230] .093 .752


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Results


Teamwork quality

Team-centric


Learning

Team-level

Individual-level

Team innovationb = .18*

b = .23**

b = .36** b = .00

b = .37**✓

✓

✓


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 2: Effective leadership and teamwork


TWQ communication

Team-centric

transformational leadershipTeam innovation

b = .37**

TWQ social support

TWQ cohesion

TWQ balance of

member contributions

b = .29**

b = .43**

b = .33**

b = -.07

b = .11

b = -.34**

b = .39**


Leadership and Communication



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion


So, effective leadership matters!

But what if our supervisors happen to be mean?


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion


Affective Events Theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996):



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion



Exploitative

leadership

Work efficiency

Functional

communication

Positive

affect

Between-person level

Within-person level

H1

H2

H3

H6

H5 H5

Negative

affectH6

H4

Abusive

supervision

Dysfunctional

communication


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 3: Measures

Abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), 15 Items, “My direct supervisor…

➢ “… ridicules me.”

➢ “… reminds me of my past mistakes and failures.”

➢ “… expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason.”

Exploitative leadership (Schmid, Verdorfer, & Peus, 2017), 15 Items, “My direct supervisor…

➢ “… puts me under pressure to reach his or her goals.”

➢ “… uses my work for his or her personal gain.”

➢ “… manipulates others to reach his or her goals.”



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion



Exploitative

leadership

Work efficiency

Functional

communication

Positive

affect


Within-person level

H1

H2

H3

H6

H5 H5

Negative

affectH6

H4

Abusive

supervision

Dysfunctional

communication


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 3: Measures

Functional communication (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Zhou, 2003), 6 items

➢ balance of member contributions: “Today, some members of my team had a conflict caused by the

imbalance of member contributions.”

➢ developmental feedback: “Today, some members of my team gave me feedback, which focused on

helping me to learn and improve.”

Dysfunctional communication (Connelly et al., 2012; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991), 6 items

➢ knowledge withholding: “When I asked team members for information at work today, these team

members agreed to help me but never really intended to.”

➢ complaining behaviour: “Today, some members of my team have consumed a lot of time complaining

about trivial matters.”



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion



Exploitative

leadership

Work efficiency

Functional

communication

Positive

affect


Within-person level

H1

H2

H3

H6

H5 H5

Negative

affectH6

H4

Abusive

supervision

Dysfunctional

communication


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 3: Measures

Positive and negative affect (Ohly & Schmitt, 2015), 6 items

➢ “Today, I felt enthusiastic / at rest / inspired.”

➢ “Today, I felt worried / exhausted / angered.”

Work efficiency (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), 3 items

➢ “Today, I felt strong and vigorous at my job.”

➢ “Today, I was immersed in my work.”

➢ “Today, I was enthusiastic about my job.”



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 3: Design


• demographics

• abusive supervision

• exploitative leadership

General Questionnaire

(35 items)

• positive affect

• negative affect

Daily Questionnaire I

(6 items)

• communication practices

• positive & negative affect

• work efficiency

Daily Questionnaire II

(21 items)

t0

a2a1

m3m2m1

a3 a4

m5m4

a5

week 1:

week 2:

t0

m3m2m1


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 3: Sample


from different higher education institutions in Switzerland

scientific staff members

Øage 34 years (SD = 8.4)

♂/♀ 48% female

Number of completed questionnaires: 727 (incl. general questionnaire)



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 3: Results



Seven-factor model 414.89 98 - .073 [.066, .080] .041 .981

Six-factor model: AS and EL as one factor 424.87 104 9.46 .071 [.064, .078] .041 .981

Five-factor model: AS and EL as one factor, and FCom and DCom as one factor 574.33 109 180.3*** .083 [.077, .090] .041 .975

Four-factor model: AS and EL as one factor, and FCom and DCom as one factor,

and PA and NA as one factor

767.24 113 392.74*** .097 [.090, .103] .058 .965

Three-factor model: AS, EL, FCom, and DCom as one factor, and PA and NA as

one factor

14803.66 116 13327*** .460 [.454, .467] .201 .180

Two-factor model: AS, EL, FCom, and DCom as one factor, and PA, NA, and

WE as one factor

15700.95 118 13890*** .472 [.465, .478] .237 .125

One-factor model 15860.56 119 13062*** .477 [.470, .483] .244 .099

Note. AS = abusive supervision, EL = exploitative leadership, FCom = functional communication; DCom = dysfunctional communication; PA = positive affect; NA =

negative affect; WE = work efficiency; ΔΧ2 = Satorra-Bentler scaled differences; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; SRMR

= standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index. N = 727;

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Study 3: Results


Exploitative

leadership

Work efficiency

Functional

communication

Positive

affect


Within-person level

Negative

affect

Abusive

supervision

Dysfunctional

communication

b: -.33** | b: .56**

b: -.12* | b: .26**

b: .15**

b: .22**

b: .20**

b: -.28**

b: .74**

b: -.36**

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

Conclusion

▪ An increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research has led to an increase in team-

based work structures (Cooke & Hilton, 2015).

▪ Our results support the notion that transformational leadership, fits at work and processes

within teams such as teamwork quality and communication in teams are key factors for

enhancing work-related outcomes in scientific teams.

▪ However, the results of the third study show that abusive supervision and exploitative

leadership occur in the scientific work context and have negative effects on team processes and

work-related outcomes in scientific teams.

▪ Higher education institutions should therefore offer training opportunities for team leaders.



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

So, what now?

Leadership in science matters and effective leadership can be trained…

… but what if a supervisor is resistant to such kind of positive change?

Let’s try to to incorporate some effective principles for teamwork…

… but what if team members do not perceive this to be feasible?

Then there seems only one approach left: Focus on YOURSELF and try acquiring competencies

and building resilience through trainings, workshops and positive psychological interventions.



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

What’s next?

Let’s check productivity aka

scientific excellence, well-being,

and health of PhD students and

post-docs from the CS Department…

… and see if workshops as part of

the VMI Scientific Excellence & Well-

Being Initiative are effective in

promoting resilience!



Thank you

for your attention!

Contact: Anamarija Klaic, PhD

University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14/13, 8050 Zurich

[email protected]

12/02/2020 Productivity in Scientific Teams, Anamarija Klaic Page 49


Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

References

▪ Bowling, N. A., & Hammond, G. D. (2008). A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan Organizational

Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 63–77.

▪ Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A

multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 270–283.

▪ Buchheit, S., Collins, A. B., & Collins, D. L. (2001). Intra-institutional factors that influence accounting research productivity. The

Journal of Applied Business Research, 17, 17–31.

▪ Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory

analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 179–189.

▪ Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 33, 64–88.

▪ Cooke, N. J., & Hilton, M. L. (2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies

Press.

▪ Cummings, J. N., Kiesler, S., Bosagh Zadeh, R., & Balakrishnan, A. D. (2013). Group heterogeneity increases the risks of large

group size: a longitudinal study of productivity in research groups. Psychological science, 24, 880–890.

▪ Feldman, D. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2004). Contingent employment in academic careers: Relative deprivation among adjunct

faculty. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 284–307.



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

References

▪ Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic

scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 542–571.

▪ Goastellec, G., Park, E., Ates, G., & Toffel, K. (2013). Academic markets, academic careers: Where Do We Stand? In B. M.

Kehm & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (pp. 93–120). Dordrecht:

Springer Netherlands.

▪ Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A. D., Miller, R. L., & Pace, T. M. (2011). Faculty motivation to do research: Across disciplines in

research-extensive universities. The Journal of the Professoriate, 5, 35–69.

▪ Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and

empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435–449.

▪ Klaic, A., Burtscher, M. J., & Jonas, K. (2018). Person-supervisor fit, needs-supplies fit, and team fit as mediators of the

relationship between dual-focused transformational leadership and well-being in scientific teams. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1502174.

▪ Kristof-Brown, A. L., Seong, J. Y., Degeest, D. S., Park, W.-W., & Hong, D.-S. (2014). Collective fit perceptions: A multilevel

investigation of person-group fit with individual-level and team-level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 969–989.

▪ Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of

person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor-fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

References

▪ Louis, K. S., Holdsworth, J. M., Anderson, M. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The effects of work-group size

and organizational climate. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 311–336.

▪ MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as

determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

50, 123–150.

▪ McCarthy, J. M., Trougakos, J. P., & Cheng, B. H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the

quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 279–291.

▪ Ohly, S., & Schmitt, A. (2015). What makes us enthusiastic, angry, feeling at rest or worried? Development and validation of an

affective work events taxonomy using concept mapping Methodology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 15–35.

▪ Omar, Z., & Ahmad, A. (2014). Factors contributing to research team effectiveness: Testing a model of team effectiveness in an

academic setting. International Journal of Higher Education, 3, 10–26.

▪ Pasupathy, R., & Siwatu, K. O. (2014). An investigation of research self-efficacy beliefs and research productivity among faculty

members at an emerging research university in the USA. Higher Education Research & Development, 33, 728–741.

▪ Revicki, D. A., May, H. J., & Whitley, T. W. (1991). Reliability and validity of the Work-Related Strain Inventory among health

professionals. Behavioral Medicine, 17, 111–120.



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

References

▪ Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant

perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395–426.

▪ Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.

▪ Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A., & Peus, C. (2017). Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of

exploitative leadership. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0149206317707810

▪ Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., & Peter, R. (2004). The measurement of effort–

reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1483–1499.

▪ Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

▪ van der Weijden, I., Teelken, C., Boer, M. de, & Drost, M. (2016). Career satisfaction of postdoctoral researchers in relation to

their expectations for the future. Higher Education, 72, 25–40.

▪ van Vianen, A. E. M., Shen, C.-T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person-organization and person-supervisor fits: Employee

commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 906–926.



Introduction

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Conclusion

References

▪ Venkataramani, V., Le Zhou, Wang, M., Liao, H., & Shi, J. (2016). Social networks and employee voice: The influence of team

members’ and team leaders’ social network positions on employee voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 132, 37–48.

▪ Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. The Journal

of Applied Psychology, 95, 1134–1144.

▪ Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and

Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior:

An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

▪ White, C. S., James, K., Burke, L. A., & Allen, R. S. (2012). What makes a “research star”? Factors influencing the research

productivity of business faculty. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61, 584–602.

▪ Yoon, J., & Kayes, D. C. (2016). Employees' self-efficacy and perception of individual learning in teams: The cross-level

moderating role of team-learning behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 1044–1060.

▪ Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring,

developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 413–422.

▪ Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of

Management Journal, 44, 682–696.


Documents

Productivity in Scientific Teams - VMI...Anamarija Klaic University of Zurich Talk as part of the VMI Scientific Excellence & Well-Being Initiative February 12, 2020 Zurich, Switzerland