While individuals intuitively understand what pet peeves are, academic research lacks a full explanation of their nature and consequences. We begin addressing this issue by adopting a sensemaking perspective in an inductive interview-based study providing a foundation for future research in two significant ways. First, we establish a more precise definition of pet peeves as a self-centered annoyance containing personalized cognitive and affective components. The cognitive component is grounded in individuals’ values and expectations and defines the “what” of a pet peeve. The affective component defines the latent aversion attached to prospective violations of those values and expectations. Second, we develop a theoretical model of the pet peeves sensemaking process that incorporates the four sensemaking types described by Sandberg and Tsoukas. As a whole, this work represents an important first step toward establishing pet peeves as formal academic concept.
BealD. J.WeissH. M.BarrosE.MacDermidS. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1054–1068. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1054
BluhmD. J.HarmanW.LeeT. W.MitchellT. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x
4.
BorgattiS. P.MehraA.BrassD. J.LabiancaG. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821
5.
BrassD. J.GalaskiewiczJ.GreveH. R. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159624
6.
BruellerD.CarmeliA. (2011). Linking capacities of high-quality relationships to team learning and performance in service organizations. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20435
7.
CarmeliA.BruellerD.DuttonJ. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.932
ChiaburuD. S.HarrisonD. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
ColbertA. E.BonoJ. E.PurvanovaR. K. (2016). Flourishing via workplace relationships: Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1199–1223. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0506
DuttonJ. E.HeaphyE. D. (2003). The power of high-quality relationships at work. In CameronK. S.DuttonJ. E.QuinnR. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). Berrett-Koehler.
14.
EtikanI.MusaS. A.AlkassimR. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
15.
FletcherK. A.PotterS. M.TelfordB. N. (2018). Stress outcomes of four types of perceived interruptions. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60(2), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817738845
16.
GephartR. P.TopalC.ZhangZ. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. In HernesT.MaitlisS. (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, and organizing (pp. 275–312). Oxford University Press.
GraebnerM. E.MartinJ. A.RoundyP. T. (2012). Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012452821
19.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
20.
KatzD.KahnR. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
KowalskiR. M.AllisonB.GiumettiG. W.TurnerJ.WhittakerE.FrazeeL.StephensJ. (2014). Pet peeves and happiness: How do happy people complain?The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(4), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.906380
23.
LincolnY.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
MaitlisS.ChristiansonM. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177
26.
MaitlisS.VogusT. J.LawrenceT. B. (2013). Sensemaking and emotion in organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(3), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613489062
27.
MarcusB.TaylorO. A.HastingsS. E.SturmA.WeigeltO. (2016). The structure of counterproductive work behavior: A review, a structural meta-analysis, and a primary study. Journal of Management, 42(1), 203–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503019
28.
MartinR.GuillaumeY.ThomasG.LeeA.EpitropakiO. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100
29.
McKimC. (2023). Meaningful member-checking: A structured approach to member-checking. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12973
OrganD. W. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 80, 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104536
32.
PatriottaG. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor: Narratives of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00343
33.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5
36.
PodsakoffN. P.WhitingS. W.PodsakoffP. M.BlumeB. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079
37.
PrattM. G. (2023). General coding and analysis in qualitative research. In Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press.
38.
PuranikH.KoopmanJ.VoughH. C. (2020). Pardon the interruption: An integrative review and future research agenda for research on work interruptions. Journal of Management, 46(6), 806–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319887428
39.
RaginsB. R. (2012). Editor’s comments: Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0165
40.
SandbergJ.TsoukasH. (2020). Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organization Theory, 1(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719879937
41.
SchnakeM. E.DumlerM. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behavior research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647184
42.
ScottK. S. (2022). Making sense of work: Finding meaning in work narratives. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(5), 1057–1077. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.43
43.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage.
44.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
45.
WeickK. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628–652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393339
46.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
47.
WeickK. E.RobertsK. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393372
48.
WeissH. M.CropanzanoR. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experience at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
