These are the sources and citations used to research Research Project. This bibliography was generated on Cite This For Me on
Some fads are here today and gone tomorrow, some are here today and tomorrow and next year and become permanent elements of our culture. These lasting fads should be called changes
In-text: (Best, 2006)
Your Bibliography: Best, J. (2006). Flavor of the month. Berkeley: University of California Press.
what will be deemed to count as adequate evidence or proof of an intervention’s effectiveness ultimately will be a personal choice; that in concentrating on comparing before and after measures of a team’s effectiveness theorists have ignored the change process which is taking place as a team begins to become effective, and have treated teams at the end of a team building intervention as if they were finished products Questionnaire An in‐house attitude survey was conducted after the team‐building day. At the same time, feedback was collected on the responses to the team‐building event. first do we believe such statements ‐ social psychologists have, after all, resorted to experimental methods for many years because of the problem that, for all sorts of reasons, people do not say what they really think (“faking good”), or are unable to say what they really mean (impoverished or restricted linguistic code (Bernstein, 1961)). Behavioural changes. One way of assessing these is through “critical incidents” analysis (Flannagan, 1954), the analysis of those times (critical incidents) when either things go very well or very badly and the analysis and exposition of why this may be the case. In this case, this would be an in‐depth look at the teams at work on the issues which they face and reviewing how well they manage them in terms of the outcomes and the group processes used to bring about these outcomes. It takes no imagination to see that this is a major undertaking, given the complexity of the work environment and the sheer number of teams involved. As a method of data collection it also requires a significant amount of co‐operation and goodwill on the part of the organization in allowing extensive access to the teams, their work and time spent with them. In the above team‐building event it was simply not feasible (or acceptable to the organization) to allow this level of access at that time. This means of collecting data was effectively denied through factors outwith the control of the facilitator. My case study is, therefore, unable to offer any evidence of this kind. On a methodological level, there is no one agreed definition of a team or a team‐building intervention, so it may well be the case that we do not compare like with like when we try to construct, as an academic discipline, an integrated body of knowledge. Another methodological issue is the ever‐present trade‐off between realism, control and certainty. If one observes teams in a lab, one has control over the conditions under which they operate, a change in the independent variable can be said with certainty to have altered the dependent variable, yet the study lacks realism, the conditions are profoundly artificial and contrived, and so generalizability beyond the lab setting is difficult. However, if one studies or works with a team in their actual work setting, realism is guaranteed, but, by definition, one does not control the events per se, one simply records them. As a result, the certainty which one would have had in the lab setting that X caused Y to happen disappears.
In-text: (Rushmer, 1997)
Your Bibliography: Rushmer, R. (1997). How do we measure the effectiveness of team building? Is it good enough? Team Management Systems ‐ a case study. Journal of Management Development, 16(2), pp.93-110.
How do you measure whether team building has worked? Does it have to involve Goal Setting; Interpersonal Relations; Role Clarification and Problem Solving. Our study considers the impact of four specific team-building components (goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification) on cognitive, affective, process, and performance outcomes. Team building is one of the most commonly applied group development interventions in organizations today. It is widely used and comes in many forms, including outdoor experiential activities and indoor group process discussions. However, no one is quite sure how and why these interventions work, or if they even work at all. Considering the vast sum of money directed toward the development of teams in organizations, it is important that practitioners (and researchers) gain a better understanding of the effectiveness and boundary conditions of team building. It is an unfortunate indictment of the literature and practice in this area that we are still searching for answers to questions posed by Beer (1976) and Salas, Rozell, Mullen, and Driskell (1999). Namely, does team building result in positive outcomes? Why? Under what conditions? Upon a careful review of the extent literature, it is clear that these questions need to be examined more closely to clarify our understanding of the effectiveness and boundary conditions of team building. Although the empirical evidence on team-building interventions is limited, a critical investigation of the available literature is warranted for several reasons. First, since the 1990s there has been an increasing incursion of team-building interventions in organizations. Some of the most recent trends in team building have taken these interventions into the kitchen and even the wilderness. Second, many practitioners feel that these interventions are useful. However, a more careful exploration of the utilities and strengths of these interventions would benefit practitioners now and would benefit the development of these interventions in the long run. Previous qualitative reviews of the team-building domain have concluded that evidence of an effect of team building on performance was “inconclusive” (Buller, 1986), “unsubstantiated” (Woodman & Sherwood, 1980), “equivocal” (Tannenbaum et al., 1992), and “mixed” (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Meta-analytic results from one study have suggested there is no overall effect of team building on team performance (Salas et al., 1999)
In-text: (Klein et al., 2009)
Your Bibliography: Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C., Lyons, R. and Goodwin, G. (2009). Does Team Building Work?. Small Group Research, 40(2), pp.181-222.
Team-building interventions seek to build competent, collaborative, and creative work teams by removing the barriers to effective group functioning and by helping participants better understand and utilize the group processes associated with effective group behavior. This article examines a confrontation-team-building intervention that was highly successful in building the supervisors into a cohesive, trusting, and unified group. However, the team became the most important variable, with little consideration given to the rest of the organization. As a result, the whole organization was severely crippled and had to be completely rebuilt. Lessons are drawn from this excellent example of a lopsided intervention.
In-text: (Boss and McConkie, 1981)
Your Bibliography: Boss, R. and McConkie, M. (1981). The destructive impact of a positive team-building intervention. Group and Organization Management, 6(1), pp.45-56.
What is effectiveness in OD interventions? The very first step in deciding if anything is effective or not is to consider exactly what it was actually trying to do, the goals it was trying to achieve, the aims and objectives it was trying to satisfy. Once this is established, then it needs to be decided if the venture was successful, did it actually succeed in what it set out to do?
In-text: (Rushmer, 1997)
Your Bibliography: Rushmer, R. (1997). How do we measure the effectiveness of team building? Is it good enough? Team Management Systems ‐ a case study. Journal of Management Development, 16(2), pp.93-110.
Four studies examined the effects of nature on valuing intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations. Intrinsic aspirations reflected prosocial and other-focused value orientations, and extrinsic aspirations predicted self-focused value orientations. Participants immersed in natural environments reported higher valuing of intrinsic aspirations and lower valuing of extrinsic aspirations, whereas those immersed in non-natural environments reported increased valuing of extrinsic aspirations and no change of intrinsic aspirations Although a number of studies examining the positive effects of nature focus on well-being and restorative benefits of exposure to nature (e.g., Kaplan, 1995), little is known about the potential effects nature has on valued goals (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996).
In-text: (Weinstein, Przybylski and Ryan, 2009)
Your Bibliography: Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. and Ryan, R. (2009). Can Nature Make Us More Caring? Effects of Immersion in Nature on Intrinsic Aspirations and Generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), pp.1315-1329.
After comparing results from surveys given to each participant to evaluate their mood, enjoyment, and social desirability before and after each intervention, the researchers concluded that exercising indoors and outdoors produces different psychological benefits. Particularly, participants in the outdoor exercise group experienced the most enjoyment and energizing effects following the intervention when compared to the two other groups. These results were especially strong for females.
In-text: (Plante et al., 2006)
Your Bibliography: Plante, T., Cage, C., Clements, S. and Stover, A. (2006). Psychological benefits of exercise paired with virtual reality: Outdoor exercise energizes whereas indoor virtual exercise relaxes. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(1), pp.108-117.
Embedding a culture of philanthropy means making it normal, so that people would be surprised if a colleague were not philanthropically aligned with a charitable organisation or social enterprise, either in a financial or advisory capacity or both. When we say philanthropy, we mean engaging the head and the heart with an organised and planned strategy, rather than only reacting to donation requests in an ad hoc manner. The first category is the most vital to developing a culture of philanthropy because once an individual is motivated to engage the head and the heart as well as the cheque book, he or she is unlikely to stop. “If you allow yourself to engage then the philanthropy journey begins and it is virtually unstoppable…once you start it takes a really hard-hearted or brutal human being to stop,” said Chris Mathias
In-text: (Policy Exchange, 2007)
Your Bibliography: Policy Exchange (2007). Give and Let Give. London: Policy Exchange.
The concept of social capital draws on a longtradition of research about the capaci ty forcooperation in societies. A common early refer-ence point is de Tocqueville’s observation ofAmericans’ propensity for civic association andpublic-spiritedness (Putnam, 1995). In 1916Hanifan, while exploring the role of communityparticipation in enhancing school performance,deﬁned social capital as ‘those intangible assets[that] count most in the daily lives of people:namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and socialintercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit . . . and which maybear a social potentiality suﬃcient to the sub-stantial improvement of living condition s in thewhole community’ (cited in Woolcock andNarayan, 2000, pp. 228–229). We found that employees are motivated by asense of reciprocity (‘putting some thing backinto the community’).
In-text: (Muthuri, Matten and Moon, 2009)
Your Bibliography: Muthuri, J., Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2009). Employee Volunteering and Social Capital: Contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20(1), pp.75-89.
Despite the millions of hours donated to charity each year by employees on behalf of their employers there has been relatively little research into the motives for such pro-social behavior. The current paper extends Peterson’s (2004, Journal of Business Ethics 49, 371) study by exploring a unique form of employee volunteerism identified as intra-organizational, or employer-sanctioned volunteerism, and uniting the heretofore distinct charity support and organizational citizenship behavior literatures. Despite its prevalence and importance to both employers and charities, relatively little is known about employee participation in workplace volunteer programs. Likewise, the importance of these benefits to employees and specifically to the decision to volunteer for employer-supported, charitable initiatives remains unexplored. Given the paucity of research specific to employee volunteerism, the current paper draws upon two established bodies of literature – charitable support behavior (CSB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) – in order to develop a theoretical framework for the study of employee attitudes toward, and motivations for, volunteering in support of employer-driven philanthropic efforts. The extant literature suggests that employee volunteerism is motivated by a mix of altruistic (i.e., doing good deeds) and egoistic motives (i.e., as good politics) typical of other forms of CSB. However, in the current paper, the authors propose that a unique and as yet unexplored motive – the desire to be a good corporate citizen (i.e., good soldier) more typical of OCB – is at least partially responsible for participation in intra-organizational volunteer programs.
In-text: (Peloza and Hassay, 2006)
Your Bibliography: Peloza, J. and Hassay, D. (2006). Intra-organizational Volunteerism: Good Soldiers, Good Deeds and Good Politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), pp.357-379.
little research has examined the connection between individuals’ volunteering and their jobs. In the absence of that research, it remains unclear whether employees volunteer to build on meaningful work experiences or to compensate for the lack of them. volunteering was associated with both volunteer and job meaningfulness, and that the pull of meaningful volunteer work was even stronger when employees had less meaning in their jobs. At the start of his first term, President Barack Obama initiated the “United We Serve” campaign designed to encourage Americans to get involved by volunteering in their communities. By all accounts, that is exactly what has begun to happen. The most recent national survey estimated that 62.8 million Americans, or 26.3 percent of the population, donated their time or skills to a charitable or volunteer organization in 2010 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Recently, however, interest in the role of volunteering has ignited, particularly for organizational scholars (e.g., Booth, Won Park, & Glomb, 2009; Grant, 2012; Jones, 2010). Given the greater number of employees who are volunteering, understanding its implications for the workplace seem critical. Despite increasing interest in the topic of volunteering for organizational scholars, the nature of the relationship between volunteering and the workplace remains unclear. Given the growing prevalence of volunteering in people’s lives (Brudney & Gazley, 2006), it is prudent that organizational scholars understand how the volunteer and work domains relate to one another. In doing so, this research responds to recent calls for researchers to join the discussion of employee volunteering that is currently dominated by practitioners (Grant, 2012) and to contribute theoretical perspectives to a literature that is currently lacking conceptual models (Tschirhart, 2005).
In-text: (Rodell, 2013)
Your Bibliography: Rodell, J. (2013). Finding Meaning through Volunteering: Why Do Employees Volunteer and What Does It Mean for Their Jobs?. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), pp.1274-1294.
In-text: (Marquis, Glynn and Davis, 2007)
Your Bibliography: Marquis, C., Glynn, M. and Davis, G. (2007). COMMUNITY ISOMORPHISM AND CORPORATE SOCIAL ACTION. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), pp.925-945.
In-text: (Staw, 1991)
Your Bibliography: Staw, B. (1991). Dressing Up Like an Organization: When Psychological Theories Can Explain Organizational Action. Journal of Management, 17(4), pp.805-819.
In-text: (Economist, 2005)
Your Bibliography: Economist (2005). The good company. A survey of corporate social responsibility. The Economist, 374 (8410) 22 January, p.18.
In-text: (Salas et al., 1999)
Your Bibliography: Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B. and Driskell, J. (1999). The Effect of Team Building on Performance. Small Group Research, 30(3), pp.309-329.
In-text: (Braun and Clarke, 2006)
Your Bibliography: Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101.
Community engagement strategy is the subset of a firm’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities that are directed towards individual citizens and community groups. since research on community engagement has been driven mainly by understanding the phenomenon rather than by deductive extensions of disciplinary theories, researchers have drawn on a wide range of perspectives, experiences and literatures. As shown in Table III, almost half of all the sources (46%) identified were conceptual papers based on theory, argument or the author’s experience. Of the case studies and small sample sources, most were unsystematic or anecdotally based.
In-text: (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi and Herremans, 2010)
Your Bibliography: Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A. and Herremans, I. (2010). When Suits Meet Roots: The Antecedents and Consequences of Community Engagement Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), pp.297-318.
In-text: (Angrosino, 2013)
Your Bibliography: Angrosino, M. (2013). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Los Angeles: Sage.
Whether a comparison is upward or downward (i.e., the direction of comparison) is important because it can influence individuals' focus and goals. For instance, existing research suggests that individuals focus less on self-improvement when comparisons are downward than upward (Taylor et al., 1996).
In-text: (Schlosser and Levy, 2016)
Your Bibliography: Schlosser, A. and Levy, E. (2016). Helping others or oneself: How direction of comparison affects prosocial behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(4), pp.461-473.
There is evidence for a positive relationship between access to green or natural environments and people’s perceived overall general health (de Vries et al., 2003; Maas et al., 2006), mental health (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2003; Hartig et al., 2003; Maas, Verheij, et al., 2009; Ottosson & Grahn, 2005), longevity (Takano, Nakamura, & Watanabe, 2002), physical health (Coombes, Jones, & Hillsdon, 2010; Humpel, Owen, & Leslie, 2002) and social health (de Vries, 2010; Kim & Kaplan, 2004; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998; Maas, van Dillen, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2009; Sullivan, Kuo, & Depooter, 2004).
In-text: (Ward Thompson et al., 2012)
Your Bibliography: Ward Thompson, C., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A. and Miller, D. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), pp.221-229.
What makes life most worth living? The simplest summary of findings from the new field of positive psychology is that other people matter. It is within groups that we live, work, love, and play, and groups should therefore be a primary focus of researchers interested in health and well‐being. Not only would group level interventions be more efficient and likely more cost-effective than individual-level interventions, they might also be more powerful. Esprit de corps, another French term, is used to describe the morale of an entire group and brings with it additional connotations of devotion to the group and concern with its honor (Manning, 1991; Mitchell, 1940). In Anna Karenina, Tolstoy wrote that “happy families are all alike”, but we disagree. The routes to happiness (good morale) within families and other groups are likely as numerous as the routes to individual happiness and well-being (Peterson et al., 2005). at the individual level, devotion (aka charity) is associated with good physical health (Brown, Nesse, Vinokur, & Smith, 2003)
In-text: (Peterson, Park and Sweeney, 2008)
Your Bibliography: Peterson, C., Park, N. and Sweeney, P. (2008). Group Well-Being: Morale from a Positive Psychology Perspective. Applied Psychology, 57(s1), pp.19-36.
Critics deride it as an excuse for desk-bound executives to play Indiana Jones for a day. Much anecdotal evidence supports the effectiveness of outdoor training programs. One need not look far to find former participants who rave about the benefits of their outdoor training experiences. Even top executives are among the converts. Nelson Farris, a vice-president at Nike Corporation, spoke about outdoor training on a MacNeil-Lehrer news broadcast. "I think every one of our employees should go through it, not just some people," he said. "We are looking for ways to get people to open their minds and deal with the process of change--this program will help our company." But outdoor training has also evoked fervent opposition. Skeptics contend that such programs are at best a waste of time and at worst harmful to managerial effectiveness. More than a decade ago, Ron Zemke suggested in a Training article, "outdoor programming is nothing more than an opportunity for organizations to pack whole management teams off to risk life and limb together." More recently, Jack Falvey argued in the Wall Street Journal that "building outdoor party games and simulations, when the real work to be done is all around, should be grounds for managerial malpractice indictments." One detailed study was reported by Christopher Roland in an unpublished doctoral dissertation, "The Transfer of Outdoor Managerial Training to the Workplace" (Boston University, 1981). Roland's study looked at middle-level managers who participated in outdoor training. The managers said that, after the outdoor training, they managed their time better and interacted more effectively with their subordinates and superiors than they had before taking the course. Their subordinates and superiors agreed with those assessments.
In-text: (Wagner, Baldwin and Roland, 1994)
Your Bibliography: Wagner, R., Baldwin, T. and Roland, C. (1994). Outdoor Training: Revolution or Fad?. In: C. Schneier, C. Russell, R. Beatty and L. Baird, ed., the training and development sourcebook, 2nd ed. Amhurst: HRD Press Inc, pp.142-147.
Over 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies run employee volunteering programs, formally sponsoring and subsidizing employees' efforts to perform community service and outreach activities on company time (Boccalandro, 2009; Points of Light Institute, 2006). Organizational scholars have sought to explain this growth in corporate volunteering programs: as a form of corporate social responsibility, these programs are thought to be strategic responses to community, institutional, and normative pressures for an organization to create and maintain a reputation as a good corporate citizen (Marquis et al., 2007). The vast majority of research on corporate social responsibility has focused on the decisions of the corporate elite (Marquis et al., 2007), where executives "dress up like an organization" (Staw, 1991) to make philanthropic decisions from corner offices (e.g., Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999). Employees are known to be more attracted to socially responsible firms (Turban & Greening, 1997), and in one survey more than half of employees indicated a preference to work for companies with volunteering programs (Deloitte, 2007). As such, executives have begun to view corporate volunteering programs as strategically valuable in attracting and recruiting qualified applicants, building skills, enhancing morale, and promoting retention of existing employees (Boccalandro, 2009; Bussell & Forbes, 2008; Farmer & Fedor, 2001; LBG Associates, 2004). Research suggests that when employees participate in corporate volunteering, they more strongly identify with and become more committed to their employers (Bartel, 2001; Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008). motivational and role identity theories of volunteering (Clary et al., 1998; Grube & Piliavin, 2000).
In-text: (Grant, 2012)
Your Bibliography: Grant, A. (2012). Giving Time, Time After Time: Work Design and Sustained Employee Participation in Corporate Volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), pp.589-615.
10,587 students joined last month!